Profesorado de Inglés para la Educación Primaria y Secundaria

English Language III

Prof. Trad. Marcela Mangiarelli

SPEAKING and CRITICAL THINKING WORKSHEETS

Case Studies and Dilemmas

Genetic Engineering and Family Planning

A. WARM UP

1. Small Talk: What are your views regarding the

choices and decisions couples make when they
can´t have children? What are their alternatives?
Do you favour or oppose test tubes babies?

2. In your opinion, what are the problems Genetic

Engineering may solve, and the ones it may bring
about?

VOCABULARY WORK:
1. Find synonyms and definitions for the following words:

Thawed- disposed of- undifferentiated cells- nature- nurture- genotype-phenotype-

DNA- custody- ethical somersaults- conception- propositions- genetics- genomics-
Human Genome Project- petri dish-

2. Collocations: Write 5 statements with these collocates and find more

examples related to Genomics Terms

Genetic disease, genetic make-up, genetic predisposition, genetic diversity, genetic

changes, genetic testing, genetic factors

3. Word formation: Find the word families and write examples with the following
words
 Hereditary:
………………………………………………………………………………………
 Conception:
………………………………………………………………………………………
 Fertilization:……………………………………………………………………………
…………

1
B. CASE STUDY 1: Read the background information carefully and argue about the
issue, either for or against the court’s ruling

Mary Sue Davis and Junior Davis’s Case: A Dilemma

Many years ago, a couple from the state of Tennessee in the US, had infertility
problems, as a result they decided to undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF). After six
unsuccessful attempts, doctors recommended freezing some of Mrs Davis´fertilized
eggs in order to be used later when she recovered from diverse procedures.
Unfortunately, this had somehow to wait for a while, because the couple filed for a
divorce, marking the first battle over frozen embryos produced through in vitro
fertilization. Just as children are fought over a legal custody cases, the court had to
decide who had the right to the fertilized eggs. Mrs. Davis had tried to become
pregnant for years and did not want the eggs disposed of. She had spent too much
time and energy on trying to get pregnant and was not willing to abandon her last
chance of having children. Mr. Davis, on the other hand, was not interested in seeing
the eggs “hatch” as he did not want to see his wife bear his children after her divorce.
Initially, the Tennessee Circuit Court Judge ruled that the embryo were people, not
property, and they were turned over to the mother, but later after a couple of years,
the Supreme Court of Tennessee decided a dispute over cryopreserved preembryos in
favor of Junior Lewis Davis, who sought to have the preembryos destroyed over the
objections of his former wife, Mary Sue Davis. The decision in Davis, although not
binding in other states, suggested a framework for resolving similar disputes in the US.
That framework established that courts should follow the wishes of those who
contribute their sperm and egg cells, or gamete providers, to create preembryos. In the
event of a dispute, courts should enforce any prior agreement between the gamete
providers and in the absence of such an agreement, the court should weigh the
interests of the parties, ordinarily ruling in favor of the party who wishes to avoid
procreation.
This case ended with the Supreme Court´s denial of Mary Sue´s request for
reviewing the issue and bringing the matter a step forward.

C. CASE STUDY 2 (Case Discussion and Scenario): Rules for frozen embryos

 The following reading represents true cases that raise the issue of what the
legal status of frozen embryos should be. Study the Cases.
 Work in small groups. Put yourself in the role of an ethics committee member
who has been asked to establish rules for the handling and disposition of frozen
eggs. Consider the issues that have been raised by doctors, the public; and
the church. Draft your rules. Present them to the rest of the class.

The Yorks´ Case

Now that the field of medicine offers new possibilities for conception, more and more
infertile couples are trying techniques in advanced technology in order to have children.
Success with techniques such as in vitro fertilization have brought much happiness to
many families, but at the same time, this new technology has caused a great deal of
suffering to many other families. The laws are incapable of dealing with many of the
new dilemmas posed by this new technology, and rules for the handling of frozen
embryos, in particular, must be established.
Along with the Davises’ case, there have been many other cases in which the
definition of, and the future for, frozen embryos has been unclear. For example, a
couple who had entered an in vitro fertilization program in Norfolk, Virginia, moved from

2
their home in New Jersey to a new house in California. The wife, Mrs. York, had had
three unsuccessful implants with her frozen embryos in Virginia. When the people
arrived in California, they requested that their remaining frozen embryos be shipped to
Los Angeles´ Good Samaritan Hospital, where Mrs. York’s new doctor would supervise
her forth implantation. To the couple surprise, the institute in Virginia denied the
couple’s request and refused to send them their embryos. Apparently, the couple had
signed a consent agreement that gave them no rights to the embryos outside the
institute. The institute claimed that the Yorks had only four choices: they could return to
Virginia for another attempt at implantation; they could donate their embryos to another
couple; they could give up their embryos for scientific experimentation or they could
have their embryos destroyed.
The Yorks tried to get a written order from a court of law to demand that the
embryos be sent to them. But the judge refused their request and ordered that the case
be tried by a jury the following fall. Time, however, was a critical element for the Yorks,
as Mrs. York 39 back then, and in vitro implants become significantly more difficult for
women over the age of 40. This case has raised the issue of embryo ownership once
again, as well as whether or not the donation of embryos is an appropriate alternative
when a couple can no longer use them. Some people view this type of donation as the
same thing as selling children. In addition the use of embryos for experimentation
shocks many people, but it is clear that experiments could provide a better
understanding of hereditary diseases.

The Rioses´Case

In another case, the issue of the rights of embryos has been raised. A wealthy
California couple who wanted to have a child sought the services of a fertility clinic in
Melbourne, Australia. Elsa Rios, 37, had been treated with fertility drugs and had
successfully produced three frozen embryos with the sperm of an anonymous donor,
as her husband, Mario Rios, was infertile. One embryo was implanted in Mrs Rios´s
uterus while the other two were frozen for later use. Unfortunately, she spontaneously
aborted the embryo that had been implanted. Feeling upset by the whole experience,
Mrs. Rios decided to wait a while before trying to become pregnant again.
Then, a year or so later, the Rioses were killed in a plane crash. They died without
wills but with an estate worth $8 million. The only family “survivors” were the two frozen
embryos. Not surprisingly, many women from Australia, as well as from abroad,
volunteered to be impregnated.
Many people got involved in the case. The state assembled a committee, headed by
a law professor, which concluded that the embryos should be destroyed. At the same
time the Australian right- to- life movement and the Catholic Church recommended that
the case of “orphans embryos” be presented to the legislature. The legislature then
passed a law that guaranteed the preservation of frozen embryos, in case another
infertile couple wanted them. It is still not clear whether or not the Rioses´ embryos
were going to survive if they were thawed. Apparently, the California courts had
refused any inheritance to the embryos, based on the California state law that requires
beneficiaries to an estate to be born in utero at the time of the parent’s death.
This case has raised the issue of when and how we decide what should be done
with an embryo in the event of death. Another issue raised by this case is the question
of an embryo´s viability. Should frozen embryos be destroyed after a certain amount
of time? Today, frozen embryos may last long. But what will happen if the period of
viability becomes indefinite? It may become difficult to determine where people are
from and what their relations are. What if a man and a woman from donated embryos
married without realizing that they were, in fact, brother and sister? These are only
some implications of our state-of-the-art technology.

3
D- DISCUSSION: Read the articles below and argue about the FATE of spare embryos
and Dr. Mimi Lee and Stephen Findley´s Case.
What should couples do with their extra eggs once they have undergone IVF? What
would you have done?
 In your view, should frozen embryos from parents who die or are divorced be
donated to another childless couple, destroyed or kept frozen indefinitely?
 Do you favor or oppose surrogate parenting?

Dilemma 1: The Fate of Frozen Embryos

http://www.parenting.com/article/the-fate-of-frozen-embryos

Dilemma 2: Dr Mimi Lee and Stephen Findley´s Case

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-couple-embryos-20150716-story.html

References:

- Article: http://www.parenting.com/article/the-fate-of-frozen-embryos

- Cases: https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/davis-v-davis-1992

- Information from Carol Numrich´s Raise the Issues (1994: 36-37)White Plains NY.
Longman Publishing Group. Information updating available at:

www.advancedfertility.com/cryo.htm
http://www.sharedjourney.com
http://www.slate.com
http://www.timesonline.co.uk
http://www.atheism.about.com/b/2008/08/19/frozen-vs-fresh-survival-of-the-fittest-
embryos.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2267497/Frozen-embryos-better-than-
fresh%2C-study-shows.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11214942
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/fag/fag_01frozenembryos.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2157669
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification