Court settles embryo imbroglio.A New York New York, state, United States New York, Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of hospital has won custody of a divorced couple's five frozen embryos, according to according to prep. 1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians. 2. In keeping with: according to instructions. 3. a state appellate court A court having jurisdiction to review decisions of a trial-level or other lower court. An unsuccessful party in a lawsuit must file an appeal with an appellate court in order to have the decision reviewed. ruling. (Kass v. Kass, No. 95-02615 (N.Y. App. Div. Sept. 8, 1997).) The embryos, which will be used for research, will remain with the John T. Mather Memorial Hospital's in vitro fertilization in vitro fertilization (vē`trō, vĭ`trō), technique for conception of a human embryo outside the mother's body. Several ova, or eggs, are removed from the mother's body and placed in special laboratory culture dishes (Petri dishes); program on Long Island, New York. The 3-2 decision by the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court For the highest appellate court in New York, see . The Supreme Court of the State of New York is New York State's highest trial court, and is of general jurisdiction. There is a supreme court in each of New York State's 62 counties, although some of the smaller counties share comes two years after a lower court said that Maureen Kass--not her former husband, Steven--had the sole right to control the fate of the embryos. The supreme court at that time equated a woman's power over the embryos to the right to have an abortion. (Fate of Embryos Rests with Wife, N. Y. Court Says, TRIAL, Apr. 1995, at 94.) The appellate panel found that the Kasses must abide by an agreement the couple drafted as part of the hospital's in vitro fertilization program. The couple had agreed to give the hospital the embryos if they could not decide what to do with them. Two members of the appellate panel found that the agreement alone demonstrated the couple's intentions. A third justice concurred, adding that an objecting partner should not be forced by court order to become a parent. Two dissenting justices also said the agreement should prevail but that the wording of the Kasses' agreement was ambiguous. The dissenters dissenters: see nonconformists. said an evidentiary hearing should be held to examine the couple's intentions. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion