Debate Ethics of post-mortem sperm harvesting?

I saw a program today detailing several cases of individuals who lost a family member - a husband or son - and shortly after the person's death, they decided to have sperm harvested and frozen for later use. It raised a few interesting questions... Namely, is it ethical to take someone's sperm and, without their consent, create their biological child with it; and is it ethical to bring a child into the world when there may be no one who has any legal responsibility to care for them?

On the first point: Apparently, it isn't illegal in the US to harvest sperm post-mortem. It can be done within 48 hours after death (after that point, it is no longer viable). A spouse or parent can request this procedure. The sperm can then be used to artificially inseminate a woman, or fertilize an egg to be implanted in a surrogate mother. The deceased person does NOT need to sign any sort of consent papers to have this done after their death.

On the second point: In certain cases, it is possible for a child to be born into a situation in which no person has any legal responsibility to see to their care. The example given was a woman who wanted her son's lineage passed on. She found an egg donor and a surrogate mother, and arranged the legal issues so that neither had any parental rights to the child (to prevent custody disputes, since she wanted to raise the baby). However, it would be her grandchild - and grandparents are not automatically required to care for their children's offspring. (Of course, once someone has custody, it's a different matter. But initially, if the baby was born with some severe medical problem, the grandmother could have refused to pay for treatment.)

There are other issues involved, too. For example, a woman wanted to be fertilized by her own son's semen after his death. In many cases, it appears as if the people want "keepsake children" - just something to bring back their loved one, a selfish desire to have part of them there.

So: Does a person have a right to continue their loved one's line and have their child to love, or is this a blatant disregard of all decency, as well as the deceased's reproductive rights?

 

I'm not sure, that's a pretty tough question Dilandau.

I think I'll have to side with the group that says it's wrong however, or at least put some restrictions on it. How do you think these children would feel once they discovered the truth about themselves, especially that kid whose mother used her own SON'S semen? I know I'd be pretty shaken up, and not only is it unfair to the poor kid (who may possibly be scarred for life), but I'd say it's pretty unfair to the deceased person as well. I mean, if you were a guy, would YOU want your own mother to do a thing like that?

Then again, that new kid may very well find the cure for cancer or something of the like, so it's somewhat unjust to say that a new human life is invaluable. Still, it just seems somewhat wrong to me, not to mention rather selfish and a complete violation of the deceased person's rights.

 

Well, first off, I don't believe the woman was actually allowed to be fertilized by her son's harvested sperm - but she wanted to. It just goes to show that, in an age when there are so many new methods of facilitating procreation, legislation needs to keep up on the issues. Until recently, there wasn't any precedent for what to do with that kind of request.

Now, I don't think that the procedure should be made illegal... That would be like saying a single mother or an infertile couple shuldn't be allowed to use donated sperm or eggs simply because it might upset the child to learn how they were conceived. (I don't think that should be upsetting to learn, because it clearly shows that the child was wanted, and that the parents were willing to go farther than the average couple needs to. It should make the child feel that much more loved and valued.) But there IS need for some guidelines and restrictions.

Personally, I think that there needs to be a signed consent form from the deceased in order for sperm to be harvested. I wouldn't like to think of my parents harvesting eggs from me just to have token grandchildren; if they want kids so much, they could adopt. I don't place much value on being genetically related to someone just to be family. ^^; (However, this procedure isn't really viable with women because the eggs present in the ovaries aren't completely mature, nor as accessible and numerous as sperm.)

On the other hand, most young people who are still sexually potent enough for this aren't thinking about dying. In that case, perhaps there should be some kind of contract offered along with wedding liscenses that the couples can sign if they'd like, authorizing the use of sperm in case of the husband's demise. Or, if a doctor can verify that they were trying to have children, that could be a sort of second-hand proof of consent.

 

That struck me as a very probable solution, actually. Upon reading this, I'd have to say my views have changed slightly. I guess there aren't many valid reasons that it should be made illegal, but I think you're right in saying there needs to be some guidelines and restrictions put on it. People shouldn't have the freedom to go harvest sperm without anybody's consent.

 

This is a tough issue to chooses sides on. I guess I'd have to say that I dont really agree with it. As Kagome's Arrow said, the sperm should not be harvested without consent.

In cases like this where a mother was impregnanted by her own deceased son's sperm then I find that wrong because that's not fair for a kid to be born like that.

 

Uh... it shouldn't be without consent... obviously... Why anyone would even doubt this is beyond me.

And as far as the "Hey that kid could have cured cancer!" argument, that kid could also be another Hitler. Or like the vast vast VAST majority of us he could just be another mediocre shmuck.

 

Well, yeah - but the fact is that this has been done without the consent of the deceased person. In one case it was the man's wife who wanted it done, and as far as I'm aware they had been planning a child anyway. Although there was no actual consent given by the man, in this case it could theoretically be inferred.

But in another instance, the parents authorized it because they wanted a grandchild. They found a surrogate mother and asked one of their son's ex-girlfriends to donate the egg. (The reason they gave for choosing her was that they were a couple for a long time before breaking up, and they had pictures of the two together - so at least the child would have a picture of his/her biological parents while they were together. However, the grandparents were going to be the ones raising the baby.) And keep in mind, this wasn't a current girlfriend - would the son have wanted his child to be born to a woman he was no longer romantically involved with?

So, despite what logic would dictate, some people seem to feel it's their right to use a person's sperm after death, in order to fulfill their own emotional needs.

 

This is a difficult issue. I think that concent should be given before any man would allow their sperm to be harvasted. But i think that the wife of a dead man shouldn't have to get it before the husband dies. If the Wife wants to have the mans child and continue on the family blood-line then i don't think that it would be nessicary for consent, then again maybe you are given consent when you marry. I think that if it is somebody other then the dead mans life partner, then they should be the one to get consent.
Some people may feel that doing this is the only way to carry on a families legacy, and would rather do this then see their family die out.

 

obviously shouldn't be done without concent.. but as for the 'keepsake' kids, i think that's perverted and shouldn't be allowed.
you can argue that half the babies on earth are born into a world where their parents take no responsibility for them anyway, so post-mortem sperm harvesting wouldn't really be doing anything new there.

What i think we should be asking, is what type of people would concieve of such an idea within 48h of a loved-ones death?. If one of my familly members died, i doubt the thought would occur to me within 48 hours.

 

If it's with the wife, and they planned on having a baby in the first place, I don't see much harm it. The kid would have had her as a mother anyway, and the father would have been gone since he was dead.

But if it's the mom that wants to have the baby of her son. Ewww....that's called incest.

 

Incest is when you have a sexual relationship with a memebr of your family, but i don't think that it count's in this instace, cause nothing sexual happened. But i have to admit that it is kind of gross, even if she wants to save her families blood line.

 

In that particular case, I'd say it's unethical... There's such a social stigma regarding incest that it probably would affect the child, but that isn't the reason. (After all, if we let social stigma stop people from having children, interracial couples, single parents, and homosexual couples would be pretty well screwed.)

I feel that the woman was just being selfish. She wasn't interested in having another child of her own, or in continuing the bloodline - since she could have done either of those without using sperm specifically from her son. She wanted to bring her son back, or at least a part of him - that was the only reason, and she admitted as much. It's not healthy to have a kid just because you aren't ready to accept the death of a loved one, especially not for the child.

 

I think it's an aberration. The guy's dead. Period. Get over it. I think that instead of going sperm harvesting the people should take some therapy. :anger:

We need it all.