The Right to Privacy & Assisted Reproductive Technologies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law Volume 21 Number 2 Volume 21, Number 2, 2002 Article 5 2002 THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY & ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE LAW OF GERMANY AND THE U.S. Andreas S. Voss Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/ journal_of_international_and_comparative_law Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Voss, Andreas S. (2002) "THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY & ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE LAW OF GERMANY AND THE U.S.," NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law: Vol. 21 : No. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/journal_of_international_and_comparative_law/vol21/iss2/ 5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. The Right to Privacy & Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A Comparative Study of the Law of Germany and the U.S. Andreas S. Voss I. INTRODUCTION A. Law & Medicine The law is not static; America's most famous judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., has pointed out that the law "cannot be dealt with as if it con- tained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics."' Political, social, economic, and scientific changes happen continually, which in return demand the law's reaction. Thus, if "we try to specify a particularized right in some localized area, we discover that we have committed ourselves to a 2 description of an entire social order." For example, the development of the right to privacy, which was to a great extent triggered by a law review article written by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis,3 was a reaction to new technologies developing in 1890: the telegraph, tabloid newspapers, the high-speed printing press, and the telephone. 4 "Recent inventions and business methods," Warren and Brandeis wrote, "call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person. [Numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the predic- tion that what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house- tops]." 5 Similarly, the German right to privacy has been developed in reaction to the growth of the mass media - the press, television and radio 6 broadcasting. An area in which the unique relationship between law and natural sci- ences becomes most obvious is the field of medicine. Developments in this area are often meteoric; medical technology develops "so rapidly and perva- sively that it risks overwhelming individuality. ' '7 "What once was solely 1. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW 1, Little Brown and Company, Boston, (1881) (cited in Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1387 (Del, 1995)). 2. Mark Tushnet, An Essay on Rights, 62 Tex. L. Rev. 1363, 1379 (1984). 3. Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890). 4. ROBERT ELLIS SMITH, THE LAW OF PRIVACY IN A NUTSHELL 8 (1993). 5. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 3, at 195. 6. See KARL LARENZ, LEHRBUCH DES SCHULDRECHTS, ZwEITER BAND 471-72 (10th ed. 1972); HEIN KOETZ, DELIKTSRECHT 273 (2nd ed. 1979). 7. Edward J. Eberle, Human Dignity, Privacy, and Personality in German and American Constitutional Law, 1997 Utah L. Rev. 963, 965 (1997). 230 N.Y.L. SCH. J. INT'L & COMP. L. [Vol. 21 within the realm of science fiction is now within the realm of reality. The field of biotechnology is rapidly producing questions the legal community has never before been called upon to answer."8 The Nobel prize laureate Kary Mullis, who was the American researcher responsible for the technique per- mitting rapid replication of multiple copies of DNA which inspired the movie "Jurassic Park," noted this issue recently when she said that "anything that human beings can imagine is possible." 9 Taking a more pessimistic view, Ellis Huber, the President of the German Chamber of Physicians ("Bundesaerztekammer") in Berlin, said, "Doctors to- day often can do more than people want or need for their happiness." 10 Others have pointed out that further developments in the area of genetic engineering and advances in medical technology may bring us closer to Huxley's Brave New World, closer than many of us would desire.11 As with all scientific discoveries, the results can be used well or poorly.1 2 Therefore, it is vital the law is able to keep pace with science.13 B. Law & Assisted Reproductive Technologies Perhaps the biggest challenge the law faces at the beginning of the new millennium is how to respond adequately to the development in the area of assisted reproduction. 14 Today, the birth of a child is no longer considered an inevitable act of nature or an intimate, sacred act by which people create a family,15 but as a "perfectly plannable enterprise." 16 The rapid expansion of reproductive technologies since the late 1970's accelerated the transformation of the family by undermining "sacred assumptions" about the reproductive process,17 and simultaneously disrupted familiar social and biological an- chors. 18 In 1996, nearly 65,000 assisted reproductive technology (ATR) treat- 8. Elizabeth Ann Pitrolo, The Birds, the Bees, and the Deep Freeze: Is there International Consensus in the Debate over Assisted Reproductive Technologies?, 19 Hous. J. Int'l L. 147, 148 (1996). 9. "Back to the Future" More likely than "JurassicPark", Chemist Says, Rocky Moun- tains News, Dec.5, 1993, at A84. 10. See Stem, August 8, 1996, at A87. 11. See Herbert Harrer, Aspects of Failed Family Planning in the United States of America and Germany, 15 J.Legal Med. 89, 127 (1994); John A. Robertson, Embryos, Families, and ProcreativeLiberty: The Legal Structure of the New Reproduction, 59 S. Cal. L. Rev. 942, 951 (1986); John A. Robertson, Liberty, Identity, and Human Cloning, 76 Tex. L. Rev. 1371, 1384, 1387 (1998). 12. Pitrolo, supra note 8, at 205. 13. See Eberle, supra note 7, at 1001; see also BGH, NJW 1966, 2353 (2354) ("The law must not capitulate to technological development."). 14. See Robertson, supra note 11. Especially when combined with cloning. 15. See Gregory A. Triber, Growing Pains: Disputes Surrounding Human Reproductive Interests Stretch the Boundaries of Traditional Legal Concepts, 23 Seton Hall Legis. J.103, 106 (1998). 16. Harrer, supra note 11, at 89. 17. Janet L. Dolgin, An Emerging Consensus: Reproductive Technology and the Law, 23 Vt. L. Rev. 225 (1998). 18. Id. at 229; see also Triber, supra note 15. 2002] THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY 231 ment cycles were carried out at about 300 programs in the United States.' 9 According to an article in the July 1998 issue of Science Magazine, about 60,000 babies a year are now born in the United States as a result of artificial insemination, another 15,000 from in-vitro-fertilization, and at least 1,000 due to surrogacy arrangements. 20 It is estimated that another 30,000 embryos are currently in storage.2' The U.S. infertility industry grosses approximately $2 billion annually.22 In Germany, approximately 3,500 children are born each year as a result of reproductive techniques; 23 IVF has been used approximately 15,000 times in 1995,24 and upwards of 20,000 embryos are frozen throughout 2 5 Europe. The importance of these figures becomes obvious when one considers that in 1983 "more than one in eight American married couples failed to con- ceive after one year of trying.'' 26 It has recently been estimated that 5.4 mil- lion infertile couples are living in the United States. 27 According to recent studies, the year 2050 might mark the end of natural procreation. 28 Due to this prophecy and the increasing infertility of men around the globe,29 the organi- zation World Wide Fund of Nature considered proclaiming the year 1996 as ' 30 the "Year of the Sperm. An assisted reproductive method like in-vitro fertilization, which was successfully performed as early as 1978 by the British doctors Robert Edwards 19. See Carl H. Coleman, ProcreativeLiberty and ContemporaneousChoice: An Inaliena- ble Rights Approach to Frozen Embryos Disputes, 84 Minn. L. Rev. 55, 58 (1999); see also Naomi Cahn & Jana Singer, Adoption, Identity, and the Constitution: The Case for Opening Closed Records, 2 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 150, 188 (1999); Pitrolo, supra note 8, at 149; Robertson, supra note 11, at 943; George P. Smith, Assisted Noncoital Reproduction: A ComparativeAnal- ysis, 8 B.U. Int'l L. J. 21 (1990); Rebecca S. Snyder, Reproductive Technology and Stolen Ova: Who is the Mother? 16 Law & Ineq. J. 289, n.8-14 (1998); Triber, supra note 15, at 106 n.15. 20. ISLAT Working Group, ART into Science: Regulation of Fertility Techniques, 281 Sci- ence July 31, 1998, at 651; see also Coleman, supra note 19, at 56; Snyder, supra note 19, n.44. 21. Heidi Forster, The Legal and Ethical Debate Surrounding the Storage and Destruction of Frozen Human Embryos: A Reaction to the Mass Disposal in Britain and the Lack of Law in the United States, 76 Wash. U. L. Q. 759, 763 (1998). 22. See Goffrey Cowley, Ethics and Embryos, Newsweek, June 12, 1995, at A 67. Payment for sperm and eggs is widespread among American infertility clinics; sperm donors typically receive $50, and egg donors receive $2,000, per donation; See Ann Alpers & Bernard Lo, Commodification and Commercializationin Human Embryo Research, 6 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 39, 41 (1995); Christine L. Feiler, Human Embryo Experimentation: Regulation and Relative Rights, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 2435, 2455 (1998). 23. See Voss, VERNICHTUNG TIEFGERFORENEN SPERMAS ALS KOERPERVERLETZUNG?, DE- LIKTSRECHTLICHE PROBLEM4E AUSGELAGERTER KOERPERSUBSTANZEN DES MENSCHEN 4 n.23 (1997).