Abstract
The United States annually spends over $200 billion on cancer treatment and research [1]. Over the past several decades, tremendous progress has been made in combating this disease. The 5-year survival rate for cancer has increased from 35% in 1950–1954 to 67% in 1996–2004. Moreover, over the last 40 years, survival rates for childhood cancer have risen from 20 to 81% [2]. However, the very success of new and improved therapies has created a host of problems that were not previously considered. One of the results of the increased rate of post-cancer survival is the commensurate desire of former cancer patients to return to healthy lives, which for many includes having children. Unfortunately, for many this desire is difficult to fulfill, because the medication that succeeded in battling cancer is also quite often toxic to the reproductive organs. Thus, many people are able to live longer lives, yet they feel that their lives are incomplete because they became infertile. Whereas in the past fertility was not even part of the discussion when deciding on the proper cancer treatment, now it is a top concern of many newly diagnosed cancer patients [3]. In response to this concern, medical researchers are investigating several approaches (many of which are described in this book) to preserve cancer patients’ reproductive options.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The United States is a signatory to this Covenant, and has formally ratified it, though with some reservations. 138 Cong. Rec. S8068–71 (1992).
- 2.
To be sure, the right to bear children is not an unfettered one. Some courts have held that the state may limit a person’s ability to reproduce in certain circumstances such as imprisonment or flagrant disregard toward child support obligations. See, e.g., Gerber v. Hickman, 291 F.3d 617 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (holding that prison inmates lose their right to reproduce); State v. Oakley, 629 N.W.2d 200 (Wis. 2001) (upholding a condition of probation requiring a “dead beat” to avoid having another child).
- 3.
See Also In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768 (Iowa 2003); Litowitz v. Litowitz, 48 P.3d 261 (Wash. 2002); A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2000).
- 4.
John Robertson argued that procreative liberty includes a constitutional right to state enforcement of surrogacy agreements [5]. For a critique of Robertson’s position, see Roberts DE. Social Justice, Procreative Liberty and the Limits of Liberal Theory: Robertson’s Children of Choice. Law & Soc. Inquiry. 1995; 20:1005–21.
- 5.
Two federal appellate courts have rejected the claim that health plans that exclude infertility treatments violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (Krauel v. Iowa Methodist Med. Cent., 95 F.3d 674 (8th Cir. 1996); Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., 316 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 2003)) [21].
- 6.
There are exceptions to this rule. Parents cannot refuse life-saving treatments, such as blood transfusions, and may not deprive their children of medical attention when such deprivation is tantamount to child abuse. However, with respect to routine procedures, the choice lies with the parents.
- 7.
When there is room for a legitimate difference of opinion as to which treatment is best, the state defers to the parental choice. Parents are, however, precluded from choosing a treatment that has no identifiable benefits to the minor [37].
- 8.
In some cases, male circumcision may be medically necessary, but those constitute a minority of all circumcisions performed in this country.
- 9.
The statute provides that (subject to certain medical necessity exceptions) “whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.” Note, however, that an adult can consent to this procedure for herself. This is in line with the general rule that an adult can consent to virtually any legal medical treatment or procedure. (Criminalization of Female Genital Mutilation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 116 (2000)).
- 10.
Cal. Penal Code § 273.4; Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 780; 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-34 (2002); Md. Code Ann., Healt–Gen. § 20-601; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.2245; N.Y. Penal Law § 130.85; N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-36-01; R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-5-2(c)(3); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-110; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 146.35.
- 11.
However, studies on mice have resulted in live births. See Xu M, et al. Tissue-Engineered Follicles Produce Live, Fertile Offspring. Tissue Engineering. 2006; 12:2739–2746.
- 12.
There is a very narrow exception for intra-family donations by minors when such a donation is necessary to save the life of another family member. Even blood donation by minors is limited.
- 13.
Tissue cannot be donated for transplantation with cancer patients because the risk of cancer re-seeding is too high [83].
- 14.
“Relatives” here is broadly defined to include blood relatives, relatives by marriage, and significant others who may not have been married to the decedent, but maintained a committed sexual relationship.
References
National Cancer Institute. The Nation’s investment in cancer research: a plan and budget for FY2009. United States: 2008. http://plan.cancer.gov/pdf/nci_2009_plan.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2009.
National Cancer Institute. SEER cancer statistics review 1975–2005. United States: 2008. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2005/results_merged/sect_01_overview.pdf. September 2, 2009.
Loscalzo MJ, Clark KL. The psychological context of cancer-related infertility. In: Woodruff TK, Snyder KA, Eds. Oncofertility: fertility preservation for cancer survivors. New York: Springer; 2007:180–90.
Roberts DE. Killing the black body: race, reproduction and the meaning of liberty. New York: Vintage Books; 1997.
Robertson JA. Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994.
Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Williamson, 316 US 535 (1942).
Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965).
Eisenstadt v Baird, 405 US 438 (1972).
Ohio v Akron Center for Reproductive Health et al., 497 US 502 (1990).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. G.A. Res. 217A(III), art. 16(1), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., U.N. Doc. A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. art. 23(2), 999 U.N.T.S. 179. (Dec. 16, 1966).
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. art. 12, 213 U.N.T.S. 222. (Nov. 4, 1950).
The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, August 5, 1990, World Conference on Human Rights, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/PC/62/Add.18 (June 9, 1993)
Nahmani v Nahmani, CFH 2401/95, (1996) IsrSC 50(4) 661 (opinion of Dorner, J.). http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/95/010/024/z01/95024010.z01.pdf.
720 . . . ill. comp. stat. ann. 510/6 (West 2003).
. . . la. rev. stat. ann. § 9:121 (2008)
23 . . . .pa. cons. stat. ann. § 5102 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008)
N.H. . . .rev. stat. ann. § 168-B:13.
18 . . . .pa. cons. stat. ann. § 3213(e).
Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. § 263a-1 (2006).
Arons J. Future Choices: Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Law. Center for American Progress; 2007. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/12/pdf/future_choices_section1.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2009.
Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588, 600 (Tenn. 1992).
J.B. v M.B., 783 A.2d 707, 715–16 (NJ, 2001).
Kass v. Kass, 696 N.E.2d 174, 180 (NY, 1998).
In re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 1246–47 (NJ, 1988).
Callahan JC. Reproduction, ethics and the law: feminist perpsectives. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1995.
Raymond JG. Women as wombs: reproductive technologies and the battle over women’s freedom. New York: HarperCollins; 1993.
Rothman BK. Recreating motherhood: ideology and technology in a partriarchal society. New York: W.W. Norton & Co; 1989.
Casey, 505 U.S. at 899.
. . . .cal. welf. & inst. code § 14503.
Carey v Population Servs, Int’l, 431 U.S. 678 (1977).
Winters v Miller, 446 F. 2d 65, 68 (2nd Cir. 1971).
Dolin G. A Health or an Executioner? The Proper Role of a Psychiatrist in a Criminal Justice System. J Law Health. 2002; 17:169–216.
Schloendorff v Soc’y of N.Y. Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (1914).
. va. code ann. § 54.1-2974.
. ga. code ann. § 31-20–2.
In re Hofbauer, 393 N.E.2d 1009, 1013 (N.Y. 1979).
President’s Comm’n for the Study of Ethical Problems in Med. & Biomed. & Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment: A report on the Ethical, Medical, and Legal Issues in Treatment Decisions; 1983.
US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. 4th edn; 2001. http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml. Accessed September 2, 2009.
Troxel v Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Pierce v Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Meyer v Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
In re Eric B., 235 Cal. Rptr. 22, 27 (Ct. App. 1987)
Newmark v Williams, 588 A.2d 1108, 1117 (Del. 1990)
In re Willmann, 493 N.E.2d 1380, 1390 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986)
Jehovah’s Witnesses of Wash. v King County Hosp., 278 F. Supp. 488, 504 (W.D. Wash. 1967)
In re McCauley, 565 N.E.2d 411, 414 (Mass. 1991)
In re Cabrera, 552 A.2d 1114, 1119 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989)
World Medical Association. Ethical Principles For Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 1964. http://www.wma.net/e/policy/pdf/17c.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2009.
Ford KK. “First, Do No Harm” – The Fiction of Legal Parental Consent to Genital-Normalizing Surgery on Intersexed Infants. Yale Law Policy Rev. 2001; 19:469–88.
Bonner v. Moran, 126 F.2d 121, 123 (D.C. Cir. 1941).
Society for Adolescent Medicine. Confidential Healthcare for Adolescents: Position Paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. J Adolesc Health. 1997; 21:408–15.
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. Informed Consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 1995; 95:314–7.
Kaufman MW, et al. Neonatal circumcision: benefits, risks, and family teaching. Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2001; 26:197–201.
Miller GP. Circumcision: cultural-legal analysis. Va J Soc Policy Law. 2002; 9:497–585.
Liptak A. Opponents of circumcision use the legal system and legislatures to combat it. NY Times. 2003 January 23:A14.
American Academy of Pediatrics. Circumcision policy statement. Pediatrics. 2003; 103:686–93.
In re Marriage of Boldt, 176 P.3d 388, 393 (Or. 2008).
State v Baxter, 141 P.3d 92 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Sweet v. Sisters of Providence, 895 P.2d 484 (Alaska 1995).
Wilson v Lockwood, 711 S.W.2d 545 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
Flatt v Kantak, 687 N.W.2d 208 (N.D. 2004).
World Health Organization. Female Genital Mutilation. http://www.who.int/topics/female_genital_mutilation/en/. Accessed December 21, 2008.
People v Sanchez, 800 N.E.2d 455, 462 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
Kipnis K, Diamond M. Pediatric ethics and the surgical assignment of sex. J Clin Ethics. 1998; 9:398–410.
Beh HG, Diamond M. An emerging ethical and medical dilemma: should physicians perform sex assignment surgery on infants with ambiguous genitalia? Mich. J Gender Law. 2000; 7:1–63.
American Academy of Pediatrics. Timing of elective surgery on the genitalia of male children with particular reference to the risks, benefits, and psychological effects of surgery and anesthesia. Pediatrics. 1996; 97:590–4.
In re A.W., 637 P.2d 366, 367–68 (Colo. 1981).
Boozang KM. CAM for kids. Houston J Health Law Policy. 2001; 1:109–32.
Muckle C. Giving a voice to intersex individuals through hospital ethics committees. Wis Law Rev. 2006; 3:987–1023.
Mich. Protection & Advocacy Serv. v Kirkendall, 841 F. Supp. 796, 801 (E.D. Mich. 1993).
Wentzel v Montgomery General Hosp., Inc., 447 A.2d 1244, 1254 (Md. 1982).
In re Terwilliger, 450 A.2d 1376, 1382 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982).
In re Hayes, 608 P.2d 635, 640 (Wash. 1980).
In re Truesdell, 304 S.E.2d 793, 806 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).
In re Marriage of Boldt, 176 P.3d 388, 394 (Or. 2008).
In re E.G., 549 N.E.2d 322 (Ill. 1990).
Cardwell v Bechtol, 724 S.W.2d 739, 748 (Tenn. 1987).
Markon J. Fight over a child’s care ends in compromise; Va. Judge’s order could have forced teen to get chemotherapy. Washington Post. 2006 August 17:A1.
Lass A. The fertility potential of women with a single ovary. Hum Reprod Update. 1999; 5:546–50.
Lee D. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation: banking reproductive potential for the future. In: Woodruff TK, Snyder KA, Eds. Oncofertility: fertility preservation for cancer survivors. New York: Springer; 2007:110–29.
Sonmezer M, Oktay K. Fertility preservation in female patients. Hum Reprod Update. 2004; 10:251–66.
Demeestere I, et al. Fertility preservation: successful transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue in a young patient previously treated for hodgkin’s disease. Oncologist. 2007; 12:1437–42.
Donnez J, et al. Livebirth after orthotopic transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue. Lancet. 2004; 364:1405–10.
Meirow D, et al. Pregnancy after transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue in a patient with ovarian failure after chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353:318–21.
Silber SJ, et al. Ovarian transplantation between monozygotic twins discordant for premature ovarian failure. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353:58–63.
American Medical Association. Policy Compendium 87 E-2.20 (1997).
Delmonico FL, Harmon WE. The use of a minor as a live kidney donor. Am J Transplant. 2002; 2:333–36.
Strunk v Strunk, 445 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Ky. 1969).
Hart v Brown, 289 A.2d 386 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1972).
Little v Little, 576 S.W.2d 493, 499 (Tex. App. 1979).
Curran v Bosze, 566 N.E.2d 1319 (Ill. 1990).
In re Richardson, 284 So. 2d 185 (La. Ct. App. 1973).
American Medical Association. CEJA Rep. 3-I-93: The Use of Minors as Organ and Tissue Donors (1993).
Hecht v Superior Court, 20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 275 (Ct. App. 1993).
Estate of Kievernagel, 166 Cal. App. 4th 1024 (Ct. App. 2008).
Kurchner v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 858 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003).
Tribunal de grande instance [T.G.I. ordinary court of original jurisdiction] Rennes, June 30, 1993, J.C.P. 1994, II, 22250, 169, note Neirinck (Fr.).
Cour d’appel [CA regional court of appeal] Toulouse, Apr. 18, 1994, J.C.P. 1995, II, 224072, 301, note Neirinck (Fr.).
Robertson JA. Posthumous reproduction. Indiana Law J. 1994; 69:1027–65.
Schiff AR. Arising from the dead: challenges of posthumous procreation. NC Law Rev. 1997; 75:901–65.
UNIF Anatomical Gift Act
Moore v Regents of Univ. of Cal., 792 P.2d 479, 484 (Cal. 1990).
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Oncofertility Consortium NIH 8UL1DE019587, 5RL1HD058296. This chapter is an abridgeo version of a law review article that previously appeared in 49 SANTA CLARA L. Rev. 673 (2009).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dolin, G., Roberts, D.E., Rodriguez, L.M., Woodruff, T.K. (2010). Medical Hope, Legal Pitfalls: Potential Legal Issues in the Emerging Field of Oncofertility. In: Woodruff, T., Zoloth, L., Campo-Engelstein, L., Rodriguez, S. (eds) Oncofertility. Cancer Treatment and Research, vol 156. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-6517-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-6518-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)