Oregon Appellate Court Rules Frozen Embryos Can Be Destroyed In Divorce Case

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Fertility
Article Date: 13 Oct 2008 - 0:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

On Wednesday, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that six frozen embryos can be destroyed after deciding that there is a contractual right to determine the fate of the embryos in a divorce, the AP/Google.com reports. According to the ruling, a prior agreement that left the final decision regarding the embryos to the woman should be followed.

According to the AP/Google.com, the case centered on Laura Dahl and her former husband, Darrell Angle, who, after several attempts to conceive through in vitro fertilization, ended their efforts and left the embryos with Oregon Health and Science University under an agreement that detailed how they would be stored. Upon divorcing, Dahl decided the embryos should be destroyed, but Angle argued they should be donated to other couples trying to conceive.

As outlined in the court's ruling, when the couple was married and went through the in vitro fertilization process the agreement they signed specified that the leftover embryos should be donated to a facility for scientific research and, in the event that the couple disagreed on the disposition of the embryos, the wife would have sole and exclusive right to direct OHSU to transfer or dispose of the embryos. According to the AP/Google.com, upon divorcing, Dahl decided the embryos should be destroyed, but Angle argued they should be donated to other couples trying to conceive. A lower court issued a dissolution judgment, which included an order that the embryos be destroyed.

In an opinion written by presiding Judge Rex Armstrong, the appellate court said that it should be the parents, "not the state and not the courts, who by their prior directive make this deeply personal life choice."

The AP/Google.com reports that Dahl opposed her ex-husband's suggestion that the embryos be donated to another couple because she did not want anyone else to raise her biological infant. Dahl also was concerned that any infant born as a result of implantation later might wish to contact the son she and Angle previously conceived naturally. The court also noted that Angle "does not argue that the agreement itself is ambiguous or invalid for public policy reasons." The court also affirmed a Clackamas County Circuit Court ruling that Angle agreed his ex-wife would make the final decision concerning the frozen embryos (McCall, AP/Google.com, 10/9).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations