DOES THE CLAIM FOR LOSS OF GENETIC AFFINITY HAVE ANY PLACE IN UNITED STATES JURISPRUDENCE?

Assisted reproduction technologies (ART) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) have changed the lives of many infertile couples, same-sex couples, and single parents by choice who previously could not have biological children of their own. However, as A R T has become more common, so have errors during the IVF process. Unfortunately, tort law in the United States has failed to keep pace with the rapid development of technology. As a result, many victims of IVF mix-ups, in which the wrong sperm, eggs, or embryos are used during the procedure, are left without a legal remedy. The Singapore case of ACB v. Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and Others offers a novel solution to this problem: awarding damages for "the loss of genetic affinity." While this Article recognizes the pressing need for the expansion of tort law to accommodate IVF-related harms, it is the first scholarly article to evaluate in detail the substantial public policy arguments not to allow such a claim. A claim for the loss of genetic affinity could cause psychiatric harm to the child and risks perpetuating the misguided view that nonbiologically related families are less valuable. Further, enshrining genetic relatedness as a social value worthy of legal protection could inadvertently contribute to eugenicist or racist attitudes. Finally, overemphasizing the importance of genetics could influence the decisions of courts in other IVF-related cases. This Article proposes an alternative claim which stresses the importance of reproductive autonomy rather than genetic relatedness: a claim for the disruption of reproductive plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Drake Law Review is the property of Drake Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)