Summary
Krystena Murray, a 38-year-old Georgia woman, is suing Coastal Fertility Specialists for mistakenly implanting another couple’s embryo, leading her to unknowingly carry and give birth to a child who was not biologically hers.
In the lawsuit, she alleges she “was turned into an unwitting surrogate, against her will” and had to surrender the baby five months after delivery.
The clinic admitted the mistake, calling it an isolated incident.
Experts warn that IVF mix-ups, while rare, are not federally regulated, raising concerns about oversight in fertility clinics.
She had to surrender the baby? Sounds more like a Handmaid’s Tale story.
For me it sounds like an error, not a conspiracy.
Must be hell though.
It’s an error, but one that 100% should not have happened. Traceability of embryos and donor materials is a huge deal in the IVF world for a number of reasons, including avoiding scenarios like this.
I’d be curious what the results of root cause investigation would yield. IVF practices is one of the reasons I find the current U.S. government fuckery with the FDA chilling (aside from, ya know, stuff like food safety). What little oversight there is in that industry is at risk. Imagine this scenario, but with HIV positive materials. Ugh.
I didn’t say it’s okay for it to happen. It sure is not.
I said it’s not a conspiracy.
Oh, for sure - didn’t mean it as if you did, and apologies if my comment was interpreted that way. Meant to lend more emphasis to the it was an error bit.
Yeah that’s just so broadly negligent. I hope her lawsuit puts them out of business after paying her through the nose for all the completely unwarranted trauma.
This does beg the question for me, what actually determines who a baby’s legal parents are? I would imagine that in a proper surrogacy situation, there would be some legal agreement signed beforehand, but obviously there wouldn’t be in this case since the situation wasn’t intended. Is it based on genetics, or whoever the baby was born to (for the mother at least)? I can think of rare edge cases for both of those that might make the matter confusing. This seems to support the former since the woman involved had to give the baby up, but the article seems to suggest that she simply settled the paternity suit rather than being ruled against.
You are correct that there is an agreement signed beforehand. There is also usually an escape clause covering what happens if the surrogate refuses to give up the baby.
