Quick Summary
Junior Lewis Davis (plaintiff) and Mary Sue Davis (defendant) faced off in court over the fate of seven frozen pre-embryos amidst their divorce proceedings. Junior sought their destruction, while Mary Sue wanted to donate them. The Supreme Court of Tennessee had to resolve whether these pre-embryos were ‘persons’ or ‘property’ and balance the parties’ procreational rights.
Ultimately, the court affirmed that Junior’s right not to procreate was paramount since Mary Sue had other means to become a parent. The court’s decision set a precedent for handling disputes over frozen pre-embryos by prioritizing individual autonomy over procreation.
Facts of the Case
Junior Lewis Davis (plaintiff) and Mary Sue Davis (defendant) were embroiled in a divorce that hinged on a unique and complex issue: the custody of seven cryogenically frozen pre-embryos they had created during their marriage. While undergoing in vitro fertilization treatments in hopes of conceiving a child, the couple produced more embryos than were used.
These remaining pre-embryos were stored at a fertility clinic in Knoxville. As their marriage dissolved, a contentious debate arose over the fate of these pre-embryos. Junior desired their destruction, preferring not to become a parent outside of wedlock, while Mary Sue wished to donate them to a childless couple.
The dispute reached the courts, where initial rulings grappled with the very nature of the pre-embryos, ranging from declaring them ‘human beings’ to being joint property of the couple. The trial court’s decision awarding custody to Mary Sue was overturned by the appellate court, which recognized Junior’s right not to procreate against his will.
With the case’s progression, Mary Sue’s position shifted; now remarried and residing out of state, she no longer sought to implant the pre-embryos herself but maintained her desire to donate them. Junior remained steadfastly opposed.
Procedural History
- Junior Lewis Davis filed for divorce and the matter of pre-embryo custody was disputed.
- The trial court ruled in favor of Mary Sue Davis, granting her custody based on the characterization of pre-embryos as ‘human beings.’
- Junior Davis appealed, and the appellate court reversed the decision, emphasizing his right not to procreate.
- Mary Sue Davis appealed the appellate court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the cryogenically-preserved pre-embryos should be considered ‘persons’ or ‘property’, and how their fate should be decided given the conflicting desires of the progenitors.
Rule of Law
The court must balance the constitutional right to procreational autonomy — which includes both the right to procreate and the right to avoid procreation — against any compelling state interest. Additionally, agreements regarding disposition of unused pre-embryos are presumptively valid and enforceable unless they conflict with public policy or constitutional rights.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court of Tennessee undertook an extensive analysis to determine the fate of the pre-embryos. Recognizing that pre-embryos are neither ‘persons’ nor ‘property’ in a traditional sense, the court accorded them an interim status warranting special respect due to their potential for human life.
The court also emphasized that decision-making authority should rest with those who provided the genetic material unless there was a prior agreement or compelling state interest to dictate otherwise.
In weighing both parties’ interests, the court found that Junior Davis’s desire not to procreate outweighed Mary Sue Davis’s wish to donate the pre-embryos, especially since she had other means to achieve parenthood.
The court ruled that in such disputes, absent any agreement or viable alternatives for one party to achieve parenthood, the individual wishing to avoid procreation should generally prevail.
Conclusion
The appellate court’s decision was affirmed in favor of Junior Davis, allowing him to prevent the implantation and gestation of the pre-embryos against his wishes.
Key Takeaways
- Pre-embryos are afforded an interim status with special respect due to their potential for human life.
- Agreements regarding pre-embryo disposition should be presumed valid and enforced according to the intentions of the progenitors.
- The right not to procreate is generally held paramount over the right to procreate in disputes over pre-embryo custody.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What considerations must be balanced when determining the legal status of entities with potential for human life?
The legal status of entities with potential for human life, such as embryos or fetuses, must navigate between protecting potential life and respecting individual autonomy. Courts evaluate moral, ethical, and constitutional factors before assigning an intermediate status that recognizes the entity’s unique nature.
- For example: A court may have to decide if a state’s interest in protecting a fetus outweighs a pregnant individual’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
How do courts handle disputes over the disposition of property with both sentimental and functional value?
In resolving such conflicts, courts often look to any existing agreements between parties. If no agreement exists, they weigh each party’s interests regarding the property’s sentimental and functional value, ensuring a fair and equitable decision.
- For example: In a case of inheritance, where siblings dispute over a family heirloom that also serves as an investment piece, the court might enforce sharing arrangements or order compensation if division isn’t feasible.
What factors inform the precedence of an individual's right not to procreate over another's desire to procreate?
The key consideration is personal autonomy. A person’s right not to procreate is typically emphasized to prevent forcing parenthood responsibilities on unwilling individuals. The court assesses alternatives available to the party wishing to procreate, such as adoption or other fertility options.
- For example: If one partner wishes to use stored genetic material for conception after separation, but the other opposes it, courts generally side with the right not to become a parent against one’s will.
References
Was this case brief helpful?