Andrews, an attorney, and Tiefel, a professor of religion, respond to the question of whether an in vitro fertilization program should accept a case in which the applicant's adult daughter would donate an ovum to be fertilized by sperm from the applicant's husband (the daughter's step-father) and implanted in a surrogate for gestation. Andrews notes that the arrangement is consistent with society's reluctance to interfere with procreative decisions and is acceptable as long as its ramifications are discussed with all of the concerned parties. She urges that such cases be monitored as part of research on the effects of the new reproductive technologies. Tiefel identifies problems of contradictory values about genetic ties and confusion over claims and responsibilities regarding the child, maintains that physicians have no duty to facilitate reproduction, and concludes that the request is both foolish and immoral.