{"title":"Unreasonable publicity: how well does tort law protect the unwarranted disclosure of a person's HIV-positive status?","authors":"Keith J Hilzendeger","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80553,"journal":{"name":"Arizona State law journal","volume":"35 1","pages":"187-218"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"24536581","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2000-08-11DOI: 10.4324/9781315194356-10
E. Waldman
Infertile couples seeking assistance in reproduction frequently cryopreserve embryos for future implantation. When these couples divorce, one spouse may seek custody of the embryos for implantation, while the other seeks their destruction. To date, courts and most commentators have presumed that prior agreements regarding disposition of frozen embryos in the event of divorce should be enforced. The presumption holds true, even where such agreements are embedded in informed consent documents provided by fertility clinics as a precursor to obtaining treatment, rather than in contracts entered into by the couple for the express purpose of determining embryo disposition. This article argues that dispositional agreements should not be tucked into informed consent documents, considered as an adjunct to the main event of obtaining treatment. Drawing on the literature of informed consent, both generally and in the infertility context, as well as unconscionability doctrine, this article argues that only embryo disposition agreements that have been taken out of informed consent documents and located in a separate agreement deserve judicial endorsement.
{"title":"Disputing over embryos: of contracts and consents.","authors":"E. Waldman","doi":"10.4324/9781315194356-10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315194356-10","url":null,"abstract":"Infertile couples seeking assistance in reproduction frequently cryopreserve embryos for future implantation. When these couples divorce, one spouse may seek custody of the embryos for implantation, while the other seeks their destruction. To date, courts and most commentators have presumed that prior agreements regarding disposition of frozen embryos in the event of divorce should be enforced. The presumption holds true, even where such agreements are embedded in informed consent documents provided by fertility clinics as a precursor to obtaining treatment, rather than in contracts entered into by the couple for the express purpose of determining embryo disposition. This article argues that dispositional agreements should not be tucked into informed consent documents, considered as an adjunct to the main event of obtaining treatment. Drawing on the literature of informed consent, both generally and in the infertility context, as well as unconscionability doctrine, this article argues that only embryo disposition agreements that have been taken out of informed consent documents and located in a separate agreement deserve judicial endorsement.","PeriodicalId":80553,"journal":{"name":"Arizona State law journal","volume":"32 3 1","pages":"897-940"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70636017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Disputing over embryos: of contracts and consents.","authors":"E A Waldman","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80553,"journal":{"name":"Arizona State law journal","volume":"32 3","pages":"897-940"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22403001","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper provides historical background and analysis of the crafting of the Arizona Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in 1910, which went into effect on the admission of Arizona to statehood in 1912. Still in effect, as amended, the document reflects many principles of the Progressive Movement, which was at its zenith in 1910.
{"title":"The Making of the Arizona Constitution","authors":"John D. Leshy","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1598517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1598517","url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides historical background and analysis of the crafting of the Arizona Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in 1910, which went into effect on the admission of Arizona to statehood in 1912. Still in effect, as amended, the document reflects many principles of the Progressive Movement, which was at its zenith in 1910.","PeriodicalId":80553,"journal":{"name":"Arizona State law journal","volume":"80 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81910391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Borrowed lessons: the role of ethical distinctions in framing law on life-sustaining treatment.","authors":"A M Capron","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80553,"journal":{"name":"Arizona State law journal","volume":"1984 4","pages":"647-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25614464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：