Here is some additional information- see if this supports or challenges your opinions I look forward to reading your thoughts “In conjunction with the IVF and cryopreservation (Links to an external site.) procedure in May 1993, the couple signed four consent forms provided by the Mather Hospital’s IVF program. In one agreement, the couple permitted the IVF program to donate their cryopreserved preembryos to research if Maureen and Steven later disagreed about whether to use them for reproductive purposes. Another clause specifically addressed the allocation of the cryopreserved preembryos if the couple divorced, stating that any dispute over ownership of the preembryos must be determined in a property settlement in court, and the preembryos would be allocated to research, disposal, implantation (Links to an external site.), or further cryopreservation (Links to an external site.) according to a court order.” “In June 1993, a few weeks after Maureen and Steven had signed the consent forms and attempted implantation (Links to an external site.) of the preembryos, they signed an uncontested divorce agreement. The agreement indicated that the five cryopreserved preembryos would be handled as the couple had initially indicated in the IVF consent forms. The agreement further stated that neither party would claim custody of the preembryos. Later that month, however, Maureen notified the hospital and her IVF physician that she opposed destruction or research use of the preembryos. In fact, she once again wished to attempt implantation (Links to an external site.), claiming that the preembryos represented her only opportunity to achieve genetic parenthood
the consent forms and contract were not signed with “natural law” in mind, should the changing of one’s mind (Mrs. Krass) that would now allign with “natural law” (human inclination- “produce and care for a child”) be considered?
When situations change (in this case, divorce) sometimes our priorites also change- should any concideration be given to this?