Phil 380 Response Paper: Davis v. Davis Assignment

In the Learn section of Module 5: Week 5, find the item Read: Davis vs. Davis and address the following questions:

1. What do you see as the main problem in this case? Can you foresee a way it could have been resolved earlier than coming to court? What could the couple have done to avoid the problem?
2. Explain how the court resolved the case. Do you agree with the majority opinion of the Tennessee Supreme Court on this resolution? Why or why not?
3. In what ways does this case affect the way you view in vitro fertilization (IVF)?
4. What ethical principles come into play with IVF as it is normally practiced? Which 2 principles can you see coming into conflict, and what would be a way to resolve them?

Other questions to consider:

1. The court depended for much of its testimony—both scientifically and ethically, and especially with regard to the status of the pre-embryo—on the standards set by the American Fertility Society, an organization funded and supported primarily by fertility clinics. In light of the statement that the decision to declare these frozen pre-embryos as persons “would doubtless have had the effect of outlawing IVF programs in the state of Tennessee,” do you think this raises a question of a conflict of interest, since these clinics have a vested financial interest in the outcome of this case? Why or why not?
2. The curt depended heavily on the distinction between embryo and pre-embryo, claiming that at the “8-cell stage, the developmental singleness of one person has not been established.” Do you think the designation of “pre-embryo” should have an effect on how we judge the moral status of these zygotes? Or is this just another stage of development, similar to childhood and adolescence?

Solution: Phil 380 Response Paper: Davis v. Davis Assignment

The main problem in this case, a way it could have been resolved earlier than coming to court, and what the couple have done to avoid the problem

In Davis v. Davis (1992), the couple had undergone in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments, resulting in the cryopreservation of seven pre-embryos[1]. Following their divorce, Mary Sue sought to use the pre-embryos for future pregnancy attempts, while Junior preferred to keep them cryopreserved. The main problem in the case is the lack of prior communication and agreement between the couple (Mary Sue and Junior Davis) before undergoing IVF treatments. To avoid the problem the couple should have drafted a legally binding contract clarifying and specifying their intentions on the pre-embryos in the case they disagreed or divorced.[2]

How the court resolved the case. Whether I agree with the majority opinion of the

Tennessee Supreme Court on this resolution? Why or why not?

In ruling on the Davis vs. Davis case, the Supreme Court of Tennessee established that pre-embryos are not legal persons or property but warrant special respect because they hold the potential to become humans1. While neither party had signed a contract regarding the pre-embryos, the court determined that gamete providers have joint decision-making authority over them. In cases of dispute, the court weighs each party’s interests and gives priority to avoiding unwanted parenthood. Thus, the course ultimately ruled in Junior’s favor, as his burden of unwanted parenthood outweighed Mary’s burden of inability to donate the pre-embryos to….Please click purchase button below to get full answer for $10

Related: (Solution) Phil 380 Personal Code of Ethics: Procreative Technology Assignment