Abstract
This contribution addresses the question regarding the legal nature of a cryopreserved embryo. Such preservation is a relatively modern development in the medical field. Neither Tennessee (USA) law nor European law provides an acceptable explanation regarding its legal nature. It is argued herein that this is mainly due to the fact that rather unscientific language is applied. It is suggested that the using of concise legal terminology may contribute to a better understanding. The terms legal subject and object and legal subjectivity are well-known and have definite legal content. By drawing an analogy between the legal status of an infant and such embryos, the conclusion is reached that embryos are not legal subjects sui iuris but indeed share the legal subjectivity of their parents.
 
Highlights
The difference between the concepts legal subject and object is progressively being challenged by developments in the medical science.2 in 1980 already Thomas complained about the law discipline’s lagging behind in a contribution – Can the lawyer keep up with the doctor?3Cryopreservation of fertilized ova, a procedure whereby an egg cell is removed from the mother, united with a sperm cell from the father after which the embryo is cryogenically frozen some 48 to 72 hours after conception normally in liquid nitrogen is but one such challenging development.4 The frozen embryo can be thawed months or even years later and implanted into the uterus of the mother.5(For the sake of convenience and clarity the term embryo will be used as the reference for cryopreserved fertilised ova
The court's finding was that since there is no difference between pre-embryos and embryos, the medical evidence which argued that human life begins at the moment of conception must be correct
This conclusion is substantiated by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in Davis 3, where it was found that Davis 2's reliance on the dictum in York v Jones37 definitely left an impression that it considered the interests in the embryos of Mr and Mrs Davis as being of a property nature
Summary
The difference between the concepts legal subject and object is progressively being challenged by developments in the medical science. in 1980 already Thomas complained about the law discipline’s lagging behind in a contribution – Can the lawyer keep up with the doctor?3. Mr Davis objected and preferred to leave the embryos in their frozen state until he decided whether or not he wanted to become a parent outside the bounds of marriage This "custody" battle raised the question whether the pre-embryos should be considered as persons or as property. The pre-embryo is due greater respect than other human tissue because of its potential to become a person and because of its symbolic meaning for many people It should not be treated as a person, because it has not yet developed the features of personhood, is not yet established as developmentally individual, and may never realize its biologic potential (hereafter referred to as Position 3). The saga related to the provisions of the Wrongful Death Statute, which prohibits the wrongful death of a "person." the distinction to be drawn is that between persons and property
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
