THE ISRAELI SUPREME COURT PROJECT at CARDOZO LAW SCHOOL The Israeli Supreme Court Confronts the Brave New World of Reproductive Technology CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION MATERIALS February 9, 2017 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. Cardozo School of Law 55 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY Table of Contents Doe v. Ministry of Health (2013) ........................................................................................1 Nahmani v. Nahmani (1996) ...............................................................................................4 Nahmani v. Nahmani (1995) ...............................................................................................7 Moshe v. The Board for Approval of Embryo Carrying Agreements under the Embryo Carrying Agreements Law .........................................................8 Ferguson v. McKiernan (S. Ct. Pa. 2007) .........................................................................10 Barak-Erez, The Delusion of Symmetric Rights ................................................................25 Lifshitz, Neither Nature nor Contract: Toward an Institutional Perspective on Parenthood ..........................................................................................................40 Family of dead Israeli soldier can use his sperm ..............................................................77 Zafran, Dying to be a Father .............................................................................................78 Doe v. Ministry of Health HCJ 4077/12 (February 5, 2013) http://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/doe-v-ministry-health ABSTRACT This is a petition against the First and Second Respondents’ decision not to permit the Petitioner (a single woman, born in 1974) to use sperm donations by an anonymous donor (the Third Respondent), which were preserved for her (for a fee). The Petitioner had her first daughter from the Third Respondent’s donation. She is now interested in undergoing an additional insemination process with that same donation in order to ensure a full genetic match between her children. The Respondents’ decision was made in light of the donor’s decision to withdraw his consent and his donation due to changes in his worldview – becoming a “Ba’al Tshuva”, i.e. an observant Jew – so that sperm donations he had made in the past would no longer be used. It should be noted that the consent form sperm donors (currently) sign is silent on a donor’s right to change his mind. The Petitioner argues that the Respondents’ decision to prevent her from using the sperm donations that were preserved for her violates both her constitutional and contractual rights, is unreasonable, and must be overturned. Generally, the Petitioner’s arguments may be divided into two categories – the first, is on the public law level, primarily in terms of violating her right to parent. The second are arguments on the civil law level, including claims stemming from contracts between the parties, property rights and others. The donor claims he has autonomy rights in terms of deciding whether his sperm can be used. The High Court of Justice (in a decision authored by Justice Rubinstein, with Justices Barak- Erez and Amit, concurring) rejected the Petition for the following reasons: Justice Rubinstein: Needless to say that the High Court of Justice – as well as the attorney for the Respondents and even the anonymous donor himself – sympathizes with the Petitioner, who wishes that her children, conceived with the help of sperm donations, will carry the same genetic code. However, the donor’s position and his personal autonomy must prevail. As much as we understand the Petitioner’s arguments in terms of civil law, contract law, even in terms of administrative law, and her reliance interest – as values, these cannot dominate over personal autonomy in these circumstances. The donor formed his position as a “Ba’al Tshuva” and it seems his position has a religious aspect. But even absent the religious aspect, one’s position reached thoughtfully – although it did not occur to him in the past when he decided based on whatever considerations to donate sperm – that he does not wish for there to be any additional children in the world whom he did not choose and whose mother he did not choose, with whom he would have no relationship, and whom he would not raise is understandable. This is even if he owes them no duty under existing law (and incidentally, it is possible that under Jewish law, even if they have no right to his support, they may have a right to his estate). The autonomy aspect eclipses other considerations. The right to parent is seemingly a significant value in and of itself, it is natural and primal and holds a top spot on the human list of priorities. This is joined by the autonomy reflected in the personal choices that come along with the right to parent. The right not to parent, on the other 1 hand, does not include a protected independent value, but is designed to protect one’s personal autonomy in electing it (that is, electing not to parent, or not to co-parent with a particular man or woman). It should be noted that even those who support defining this right as merely an interest apparently still view it as one that must be legally protected. However, limiting the Petitioner’s right to be impregnated by a particular person, or her right to a child with a particular genetic background is not a violation of the right to parent. This limit does not reach the core of the right to parent – the actual ability to enter the class of parents – and to bear a child. At most, and this is highly doubtful, this is a limitation at the periphery protected by the right to autonomy (without addressing, at this point, the issue of the scope of this protection, and whether indeed the right was infringed and whether under proper balancing it is worthy of protection). Still, and if presumably according to existing law the donor owes no financial, social or other duties to the child, it is clear that the harm to the donor in terms of genetically parenting additional children against his will constitutes a violation of his autonomy. In this context, it has been pointed out, among others, that the harm to the donor is not merely in inability to choose not to be a father, but also includes his autonomy to decide about his status as a father. In other words, a man who sees his genetic-biological parenthood, or “blood ties”, as creating his moral obligations as a father, suffers injuries to his autonomy both in terms of lack of choice and in terms of failing to fulfill his duties according to his conscience or religious beliefs. This is not to say that in any event a sperm donor’s request not to use his sperm would prevail. The stage in which the request is made is relevant, even crucial. There may be good and weighty reasons not to permit a donor to change his mind and the Court lists these potential considerations (this is not an exhaustive list). Such was the situation in Nachmani, let alone when a pregnancy has already occurred. But outside of such circumstances, the right to change his mind and the violation of his right are weighty and tip the scale in his favor. Indeed, the donor gave consent and accepted payment, but it is not a regular “transaction”, rather an issue that holds strong emotional aspects. The donor’s conscience and feelings are a matter of values and cannot be quantified in the simple legal sense. Even had we assumed that the issue is a violation of the Petitioner’s autonomy to choose whom to parent with, she cannot prevail. This is a choice that needs the cooperation of two (whether within a marriage or other family unit, including – even if with significantly mitigated force – a same-sex family unit requiring a sperm donation) or some third party as a sperm bank, in order to be realized. Of course, these situations may be distinguished, and may under certain circumstances change the outcome, but in this matter there is no justification for the donor’s interest to yield to that of the Petitioner’s. Protection for the Petitioner’s right to have children of the same genetic code ends where it clearly conflicts with the donor’s rights. In a regime of relative rights, there is no right that affords its holder absolute supremacy in its exercise. Therefore, the obvious interests at the basis of the Petitioner’s claims succumb to the donor’s right to autonomy. 2 Even had we assumed, for argument’s sake, that the Petitioner’s right to autonomy is violated, and Justice Rubinstein does not believe it was – in any event, not to a great extent – as distinguished from Nachmani, the conflict and determination here concerns the Petitioner’s right to autonomy in the face of the donor’s right to autonomy. In the conflict between these two autonomy rights is seems the donor should prevail because, from his perspective, we are dealing with “active” law – a use of his sperm, while for the Petitioner this is “passive” law – preventing the use of the donor’s sperm. Before concluding, Justice Rubinstein briefly adds Jewish law’s perspective on the issue of sperm donation and the status of the donor. This analysis demonstrates that applying the law and principles mentioned above lead to the same outcome under contract law as well. Among others, Justice Rubinstein emphasized that the option of withdrawing a donation does not constitute a donor’s “veto right” at every point in the process. The point of no return, where the balance of rights and interests shifts and the donor loses the legal possibility of terminating the contract and withdraw his donation, may change according to various considerations. In our case, several considerations lead to accepting the donor’s withdrawal of consent, particularly a lack of any physiological link between the donation and the Petitioner at this stage. The primary concern arising from this matter is the harm to the stability of sperm banks in Israel by permitting carte blanche to donors who may wish to pull their donations.