Some suggestions for ART agreement drafters
Posted by Herbert Friedman on May 19th, 2009 in Egg Donation | 3 Comments »
1. Have it notarized
Egg donor and gestational surrogacy agreements attempt to set forth, in a logical and hopefully balanced way, the understandings and responsibilities between usually non-attorney parties in a context of potentially great anxiety around the issues of infertility and longing for parenthood. It is therefore critical that all reasonable efforts be made to ensure that the parties understand the contours of the legal relationship which these agreements are establishing between them. For this reason, it is considered good practice that each of the parties are represented by counsel (with husband and wife permitted to share counsel in the absence of actual or suspected irresolvable conflict between them) with regard to the issues addressed in the agreement.
Many agreements provide simply that the parties sign and date the agreements. In the case of egg donor agreements, where all parties have code numbers, the execution of the agreement usually features the signatory’s code number rather than actual name.
A potential legal problem presented by this procedure is if there is an alleged substantial breach of the agreement by one party (or parties) leading to an effort by the other party (or parties) to seek sanctions under the agreement. In order to enforce or seek sanctions under the agreement, the potential plaintiff(s) must prove the identity of the defendant signatory(ies) and that same understood the agreement. This is made more difficult if the parties do not execute the document before a notary public, who requires legally cognizable identification by the signatory and who asks if the signatory is signing the document of same’s free will and with full understanding thereof.
Where signatory names are confidential, the notary public execution page can be maintained separately so that the confidentiality of the signatories is maintained, with sanitized copies of same provided to counsel for the other party (parties).
2. Egg donation agreements – reporting of future health issues – make it both ways
Most egg donation or ovum donation agreements include a health notification provision which states that if a child is born as a result of the egg donation and an unforeseen health problem arises, the parties should communicate with regard to same via the matching agency or counsel. This language should be made more specific and set forth that the egg donor is obliged to contact the matching agency or counsel should she become aware, at any future time, of a medical condition, which could affect the child born of her egg, of which she was unaware at the time of her egg donation and which was not revealed during the medical screening which occurred at the time of her egg donation. Similarly, there should be specific language that the intended parents of a child born from egg donation are obliged to notify the egg donor, through the matching agency or counsel, of any previously unknown medical condition of the child which could result from a medical or genetic condition of the egg donor so that she will be made aware of same given its potential relevance to her health and that of any future children conceived by her donation of eggs or conceived by and parented by her.
Herbert D. Friedman, Esq.
www.massadopt.com
www.massartattorney.com
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.






3 Responses
I would like to raise the practical issue of Recipients – in the main – wishing that Donor not be informed of any subsequent birth (or lack thereof) resulting from her donation. I don’t think Donors should be required to be informed if a child resulting from their donation has a health issue which could be an unsuspectingly held issue of the Donor, too. An adoptive parent would not be obligated to inform a birth parent if adoptee exhibited a health issue later in life that was unknown to birth parent at time adoptee born.
Yes but the difference Sandy is, as you know, persons who are egg donors often repeat as donors so there’s a practical reason to inform the donor that the 1 year old child resulting from her egg donation has a previously unsuspected genetic disorder since her future donated children may have same as well.
I agree with that, but I think we have to weigh the practical issues related to having this language in the ED Agreement (when IPs probably don’t want to even inform donor of a pregnancy and donor does not want to be tracked down in the future). One would hope that if a previously untestable genetic abnormality appears in a child created through egg donation, that the parents of that child would be concerned enough to alert the IVF facility, the donor program, and ultimately the donor herself. But inserting language right in the ED Agreement to cover this remote possibility (with the relative value of such language resting with its expression of intent and not with its power of enforcement for a matter such as this, really) does more harm than good, I think. IPs and Donors will be frightened and concerned and a fragile relationship which is entering a critical stage could be upended.
My dissenting opinion as to this small part of your thoughtful analysis.