In Vitro Fertilization, State Wrongful Death Statutes and State Fetal Homicide Statutes: The Reaction to LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q3 LAW Issues in Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-01
Paul Benjamin Linton
{"title":"In Vitro Fertilization, State Wrongful Death Statutes and State Fetal Homicide Statutes: The Reaction to LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine.","authors":"Paul Benjamin Linton","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Alabama Supreme Court recently held, in <i>LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine</i>, that the parents of human embryos that were negligently destroyed at a fertility clinic could bring an action for damages under the State's wrongful death statute. Although the Alabama legislature promptly enacted a law essentially overturning the state supreme court's decision, concerns have been raised that the court's decision might influence courts in other States to interpret their wrongful death statutes, or possibly even their fetal homicide statutes, to apply in similar circumstances, thereby threatening the availability of <i>in vitro</i> fertilization (IVF) technology. This article addresses those concerns.</p><p><p>With respect to wrongful death statutes, only fourteen States (excluding Alabama) have interpreted their statutes to apply to unborn children without regard to their stage of gestation or development. The majority of States impose a gestational requirement (typically, viability) which would preclude their application to the destruction of human embryos. Even with respect to the minority of States that impose no limitation on the cause of action, those statutes, either by their express language or by fair interpretation, would not apply to unimplanted human embryos.</p><p><p>With respect to the fetal homicide statutes in thirty-one States that do not have any gestational or developmental limitation, the statutes in twenty-six of those States apply only to acts causing the death of an unborn child <i>in utero</i>. As to the statutes in the other five States, the structure of the statute, considered in light of the applicable case law, strongly suggests that there would be no liability for causing the death of an unborn child before implantation. In sum, the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in <i>LePage</i> is not likely to be followed as a precedent in interpreting either the wrongful death statutes or the fetal homicide statutes of any other State.</p>","PeriodicalId":48665,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Law & Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Alabama Supreme Court recently held, in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, that the parents of human embryos that were negligently destroyed at a fertility clinic could bring an action for damages under the State's wrongful death statute. Although the Alabama legislature promptly enacted a law essentially overturning the state supreme court's decision, concerns have been raised that the court's decision might influence courts in other States to interpret their wrongful death statutes, or possibly even their fetal homicide statutes, to apply in similar circumstances, thereby threatening the availability of in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology. This article addresses those concerns.

With respect to wrongful death statutes, only fourteen States (excluding Alabama) have interpreted their statutes to apply to unborn children without regard to their stage of gestation or development. The majority of States impose a gestational requirement (typically, viability) which would preclude their application to the destruction of human embryos. Even with respect to the minority of States that impose no limitation on the cause of action, those statutes, either by their express language or by fair interpretation, would not apply to unimplanted human embryos.

With respect to the fetal homicide statutes in thirty-one States that do not have any gestational or developmental limitation, the statutes in twenty-six of those States apply only to acts causing the death of an unborn child in utero. As to the statutes in the other five States, the structure of the statute, considered in light of the applicable case law, strongly suggests that there would be no liability for causing the death of an unborn child before implantation. In sum, the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in LePage is not likely to be followed as a precedent in interpreting either the wrongful death statutes or the fetal homicide statutes of any other State.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
体外受精、州过失致人死亡法规和州杀害胎儿法规:对 LePage 诉生殖医学中心案的反应。
阿拉巴马州最高法院最近在 LePage 诉 Center for Reproductive Medicine 一案中裁定,因生育诊所疏忽而销毁的人类胚胎的父母可根据该州的非正常死亡法规提起损害赔偿诉讼。尽管阿拉巴马州立法机构迅速颁布了一项法律,基本上推翻了该州最高法院的判决,但人们还是担心法院的判决可能会影响其他州的法院,使其将非正常死亡法规,甚至可能是胎儿杀人法规解释为适用于类似情况,从而威胁到体外受精(IVF)技术的可用性。关于非正常死亡法规,只有 14 个州(不包括阿拉巴马州)将其法规解释为适用于未出生儿童,而不考虑其妊娠或发育阶段。大多数州都规定了妊娠期要求(通常为存活期),这就排除了将其适用于销毁人类胚胎的可能性。即使是少数几个对诉因不加限制的国家,这些法规,无论是从明文规定还是从公正的解释来看,都不适用于未植入的人类胚胎。关于 31 个没有任何妊娠或发育限制的国家的杀胎法规,其中 26 个国家的法规只适用于造成子宫内未出生婴儿死亡的行为。至于其他五个州的法规,根据适用的判例法,法规的结构强烈表明,在胎儿植入前造成未出生胎儿死亡不需要承担任何责任。总之,阿拉巴马州最高法院在 LePage 案中的判决不可能作为解释任何其他州的非正常死亡法规或胎儿杀人法规的先例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Issues in Law & Medicine
Issues in Law & Medicine Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Issues in Law & Medicine is a peer reviewed professional journal published semiannually. Founded in 1985, ILM is co-sponsored by the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent & Disabled, Inc. and the Watson Bowes Research Institute. Issues is devoted to providing technical and informational assistance to attorneys, health care professionals, educators and administrators on legal, medical, and ethical issues arising from health care decisions. Its subscribers include law libraries, medical libraries, university libraries, court libraries, attorneys, physicians, university professors and other scholars, primarily in the U.S. and Canada, but also in Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.
期刊最新文献
A Reanalysis of Mental Disorders Risk Following First-Trimester Abortions in Denmark. In Vitro Fertilization, State Wrongful Death Statutes and State Fetal Homicide Statutes: The Reaction to LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine. International Standards and Features of Financing in the Field of Health Care and Provision of Medical Services. Misleading Statements About "Life of the Mother" Exceptions in Pro-life Laws Require Correction. State Regulation of Ensuring the Quality Medical Care During Martial Law in Ukraine: Lessons for the International Community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1