Karla Dunston and Jacob Szafranski was a typical couple until tragedy hit. Karla Dunston was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and also found out that because of the chemotherapy she had the chance of not being able to have a child. The couple went into action and decided to take her eggs and Szafranski’s sperm. They used Szafranski’s sperm to fertilize Dunston’s eggs and froze them for later use. After Dunston’s second round of chemo the couple broke up (Schwartz).
After the couple’s break up, the idea of saving the pre-embryo’s was up in the air. Dunston and Szafranski went to court and battled over the custody of the fertilized eggs. The case focusses on what kind of contract existed between Dunston and Szafranski, and to what extent …show more content…
One of his reasons is that he did not want to be a father against his will, although Dunston states that Jacob does not have to be a part of the child’s life (Schwartz). This can be an issue for Dunston because all of the eggs that were taken from her were fertilized with Szfanski’s sperm and he has requested her not to use it. It takes two in order to create a child and if half of the party decides that they do not want a child and it can be prevented, then that should be respected and the pre-embryo should not be placed inside the woman. An issue that connects with Szfranski not wanting to be a father against his will is he also didn’t want to be judged for having a child in the world and not being a part of the child’s life …show more content…
In court, this part of the process was brought up. Karla Dunston said that Szfranski’s sperm was a donation so she should be able to use it. Jacob Szfranski’s lawyer argues that his client was providing his sperm and not donating it (Schwartz). Using the doctor’s visit as evidence, they both agreed that they would use his sperm so it was not a donation it was Jacob Szfranski providing his sperm in order for Karla to have a child (Schwartz).
The issue with this case is that the courts cannot treat it as a custody case because scientifically a frozen embryo is not the same as a living child (Schwartz). Dunston states in court that she is attached to the frozen embryos and has even named them but since they are not a living child the court system can’t take this statement in consideration of the decision
After the couple’s break up, the idea of saving the pre-embryo’s was up in the air. Dunston and Szafranski went to court and battled over the custody of the fertilized eggs. The case focusses on what kind of contract existed between Dunston and Szafranski, and to what extent …show more content…
One of his reasons is that he did not want to be a father against his will, although Dunston states that Jacob does not have to be a part of the child’s life (Schwartz). This can be an issue for Dunston because all of the eggs that were taken from her were fertilized with Szfanski’s sperm and he has requested her not to use it. It takes two in order to create a child and if half of the party decides that they do not want a child and it can be prevented, then that should be respected and the pre-embryo should not be placed inside the woman. An issue that connects with Szfranski not wanting to be a father against his will is he also didn’t want to be judged for having a child in the world and not being a part of the child’s life …show more content…
In court, this part of the process was brought up. Karla Dunston said that Szfranski’s sperm was a donation so she should be able to use it. Jacob Szfranski’s lawyer argues that his client was providing his sperm and not donating it (Schwartz). Using the doctor’s visit as evidence, they both agreed that they would use his sperm so it was not a donation it was Jacob Szfranski providing his sperm in order for Karla to have a child (Schwartz).
The issue with this case is that the courts cannot treat it as a custody case because scientifically a frozen embryo is not the same as a living child (Schwartz). Dunston states in court that she is attached to the frozen embryos and has even named them but since they are not a living child the court system can’t take this statement in consideration of the decision