Chapter 7.D.1 (or 5.D.1) -- Parenting Possibilities
See generally, Gina Kolata, The Heart’s Desire, The N.Y. Times, May 11, 2004, at D1 col. 1 (discussing costs and methods of treating infertility); Mary Duenwald, For Couples, Stress without Promise of Success, The N.Y. Times, May 11, 2004, at D7 col. 1.
For some recent, provocative academic commentary on ART, see John A. Robertson, Procreative Liberty and Harm to Offspring in Assisted Reproduction, 30 Amer. J. L. & Med. 7 (2004); John A. Robertson, Procreative Liberty in the Era of Genomics, 29 Am. J.L. & Med. 439 (2003).
Notes: Genetics and Reproduction
Note 1. Genetic Testing
See also, Gail H. Javitt, Reproductive Genetics 1991-2002: A Selected Annotated Legal Bibliography of Genetic Testing, Gene Transfer and Reproductive Cloning. 6 J. Health Care L. & Pol'y 317 (2003).
Note 2. “Negative” vs. “Positive” Eugenics
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently decided that parents of an unhealthy child born following negligent genetic counseling could only recover costs directly related to the pregnancy or birth under medical malpractice principles, not the consequential costs of raising or caring for the child. The court grappled with applying traditional tort principles to a novel situation resulting from advances in medical technology. Schirmer v. Mt. Auburn Obstetrics & Gynecologic Assoc., Inc., 108 Ohio St.3d 494 (2006).
See also, Note, Regulating Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: The Pathologization Problem, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2770 (2005).
Note 4. Genetic Enhancement
See commentaries, Harry Adams, A Human Germline Modification Scale, 32 J. L. Med & Ethics 164 (2004); Daniel L. Tobey, What’s Really Wrong with Genetic Enhancement: A Second Look at our Posthuman Future, 6 Yale J. L. & Tech. 54 (2003-04).