Question

onsider the “Dahl v. Angle: Who Owns Frozen Embryos?" court case and the commerce of reproductive technology to discuss and defend your positionC

Answer 1

Background: Dr. Laura Dahl and her husband Dr. Darrell Angle, during their marriage, tried to conceive a child using the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) technique. IVF is an artificial way of reproduction used when the husband and wife are not able to conceive naturally.

As a part of the procedure, the concerned hospital takes written consent from both husband and wife on various aspects. One of the aspects is around any future unforeseen dispute between the husband and wife. If due to any reason, both husband and wife differ on what should be done with the frozen embryos, held by hospitals, then one of the parties assigned with special authority will decide on the same. In this case, wife "Dr. Laura Dahl" had the special authority to decide on the fate of embryos in case of dispute with her husband "Dr Darrell Angle".

Dr. Dahl and her husband Dr. Angle divorced and disagreed on the course of action for the six cryopreserved embryos which they got preserved in the hospital during their marriage. Dr. Dahl wanted to destroy the embryos while her husband Dr. Angle wanted to save them as he considered the embryos as potential life and his child. He wanted these embryos to be donated to some other couple.

Dr. Angle denied that he read or was aware of any special authority being given to her ex-wife Dr. Dahl in the agreement signed by both of them with the hospital. He denied that he signed such agreement in the presence of a notary. Also, he argued that the embryos were marital property and the property must be distributed amongst both husband and wife equally. Dr. Dahl argued that embryos must not be considered as property and even if considered as property, she cannot be forced into becoming a parent.

Verdict: The court ruled that Dr. Angle's recollection of not reading, not aware and not signing the agreement in the presence of notary were wrong. Also, the court emphasized that the fate of frozen embryos cannot be decided in the same manner as the fate of other property. The court ruled in favor of Dr. Dahl and directed the hospital to honor the agreement signed by both Dr. Dahl and Dr. Angle.

Our Position: Showing innocence of not reading or not knowing the clauses in the agreement, signed by both parties, is not an excuse for exclusion from the outcomes of the agreement. Each party is responsible to read and understand the agreement in entirety. Enforcing the agreement, once it is signed by both parties in the presence of Notary is the rightful act in accordance with the law.