Robertson J A
School of Law, University of Texas at Austin, USA.
Emory Law J. 2001 Fall;50(4):989-1046.
The question of whether to enforce agreements to implant frozen embryos after divorce has become a major concern for the 300 clinics and thousands of couples who use infertility services every year. Although courts in New York and Tennessee support enforcement, recent decisions by appellate courts in Massachusetts and New Jersey have refused to enforce such agreements on the ground that courts should not force people to reproduce. This article analyzes conflicts over enforcement of agreements for disposition of frozen embryos in terms of the precommitment strategies that persons use to plan their lives. It shows that refusal to enforce contracts for frozen embryos is unfair to the parties who relied on them in undertaking invasive infertility treatments, and possibly unconstitutional. It also addresses the extent to which precommitments for rearing rights and duties in resulting children should be enforced, if agreements to implant embryos are recognized.
离婚后是否强制履行植入冷冻胚胎的协议这一问题，已成为每年使用不孕不育服务的300家诊所和数千对夫妇的主要关切。尽管纽约和田纳西的法院支持强制履行，但马萨诸塞州和新泽西州的上诉法院最近的裁决拒绝强制履行此类协议，理由是法院不应强迫人们生育。本文从人们用于规划生活的预先承诺策略的角度，分析了冷冻胚胎处置协议强制履行方面的冲突。研究表明，拒绝强制履行冷冻胚胎合同对那些在接受侵入性不孕治疗时依赖这些合同的当事人不公平，而且可能违宪。如果承认植入胚胎的协议，本文还探讨了对由此产生的子女的抚养权利和义务的预先承诺应在何种程度上得到执行。
