Mother wins dead son sperm case

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6279061.stm

The lawyer of an Israeli couple who won the right to use their dead son's sperm to inseminate a woman he never met says the case is a boost for family rights.

That is very interesting. It provokes a lot of thought.

[Jay Temple]

I think it's kinda weird for the parents to want to do this, but I'm inclined to think that the decision was a good one. Given that he's not married and has no children, I assume that they'd be the default heirs of anything else that he owned; I see no reason for this to be different. If these were frozen embryos, it would be a different story.

[AnglRdr]

I think it is unbelievably messed up, both morally and psychically. A young man was killed, and that is a tragedy for those who loved him, but, to me, this seems like some sort of perverted attempt to resurrect him.

[Cervus]

Although Mr Cohen, 20, was single and had left no written expression of his desire to become a father, his family claimed that had long been his wish.

This is wrong on just so many levels. I don't think this should be legal; I don't believe it's ethical. I've heard of similar cases and I don't think that a dead person's gametes (or any organ) should be used after their death unless they specifically wrote for such a thing to be allowed.

[Casey]

That has so many ethical issues that I don't know where to begin.

If he had stored the sperm for future use, that's one thing. If he had a wife and wanted it stored in case something happened, so she could carry the line, then I'd say it's weird, but morally acceptable.

However, since he left no declaration (written or otherwise, it seems), then it cannot be reasonably assumed that he wanted to father a child. Doing so without his consent is tantamount to rape, in a way.

Originally Posted by Casey

If he had a wife and wanted it stored in case something happened, so she could carry the line, then I'd say it's weird, but morally acceptable.

I wouldn't even say it's wierd.

[Jay Temple]

Originally Posted by Casey

However, since he left no declaration (written or otherwise, it seems), then it cannot be reasonably assumed that he wanted to father a child. Doing so without his consent is tantamount to rape, in a way.

I disagree. Saving your sperm seems like a pretty clear declaration that you do want to father a child.

[glass papaya]

Originally Posted by Jay Temple

I disagree. Saving your sperm seems like a pretty clear declaration that you do want to father a child.

He didn't save it, though.

From the article:

A court ruled in favour of his parents who had the sperm extracted after his death, although he had not left a will.

I think that's just wrong.

[eeriespawnsybil]

I agree with AnglRdr , I think his parents can't let him go.

Not only is it wrong for all of the reasons everybody else stated but what about the child. Are they going to tell him/her the story? I think if I were the child I would have some serious issues with my dead father's sperm fertilizing the egg of some woman he didn't know so his parents could have me. Ugh.

[Cervus]

Originally Posted by Jay Temple

I disagree. Saving your sperm seems like a pretty clear declaration that you do want to father a child.

He didn't save it. It was taken without his written consent. That's what I find appalling and unethical.

[Phaedra]

Grief can evoke a wide range of reactions and I feel for this lads parents as they attempt to assuage the pain of their loss but I do think this is extreme.
I can barely let myself think about how grief stricken I would be if I lost one of my sons but I would not for one second contemplate harvesting sperm from their dead body with a view to inseminating someone they had no relationship with to produce a child.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by Jay Temple

I disagree. Saving your sperm seems like a pretty clear declaration that you do want to father a child.

Although it's already been cleared up that he did not in fact save his sperm, even if you do save your sperm, are your parents allowed to decide what to do with it?

That is, if he had a wife, I could see her wanting to use her dead husband's sperm to have a child. But if he wasn't even married, do they get to decide whose egg/uterus will be fertilized by their son's sperm?

I personally think no. If I froze my eggs right now and died tomorrow, I would assume that my parents wouldn't be hiring out some random sperm and a random uterus for my eggs.

[Troodon]

I don't see this as wrong - if the man didn't leave a will, it's reasonable to let his next of kin make decisions regarding everything he owned, including his gametes. He's dead, so it can't bother him.

As for the motivation for creating his child, I don't see it as different than what I imagine the motivation for most people who want grandchildren the usual way is.

[geminilee]

My question is, what do you tell the kid when they ask where they came from?

[Embra]

My initial reaction is that this is wrong. Troodon, there is a huge difference between people wanting to be grandparents and their taking active steps to become grandparents. If their son had lived, the decision would not have been theirs to make. Why does it become their decision because he has died?

I think it's reasonable to expect people to leave instructions about positive actions they want carried out in the event of their deaths: "Please allow my stored sperm to be used to create a child with my current partner"; "Please let another person have my kidneys". But do we now have to make negative statements as well? "Please don't use my eggs to create children"; "Please don't pickle me in brine and use me as a sideshow attraction"?

Then again, this case has in fact caused me to think about my attitude to organ donation: I would have said that I was in favour of hospitals being allowed to harvest organs unless there was a specific order not to. Now I wonder whether we should stick with the donor card option, even though it leads to a lower rate of harvesting. Also, do organ donors ever leave their sperm to sperm banks etc?

[Troberg]

Morals aside, the parents are just setting themself up for a heartache. They are trying to recreate their dead son in some way, and that's not what they'll get. It's bad grief handling.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Embra

Then again, this case has in fact caused me to think about my attitude to organ donation: I would have said that I was in favour of hospitals being allowed to harvest organs unless there was a specific order not to. Now I wonder whether we should stick with the donor card option, even though it leads to a lower rate of harvesting. Also, do organ donors ever leave their sperm to sperm banks etc?

I've never heard of anyone leaving their sperm to a sperm bank when they die. I suppose organ donation is a bit different, as no one needs sperm to live.

[eeriespawnsybil]

I'm tempted to print this page and put it with my will along with a note forbidding my family to harvest my eggs and give them to a complete stranger.

I'm all for voluntary organ harvesting, I don't even mind cash incentives for people to donate. I am totally against it being mandatory though. Your body is almost the one thing that is totally yours and yours alone. You should be able to choose what happens to it in life and death.

[Missie]

I don't really know where to begin and I'm in a great deal of pain, so I'll just be as brief as possible.

I feel that people are putting too much importance on dead bodies. The person that died isn't going to care what happens to his body - he's dead. Even assuming there is an afterlife and he's watching everything from a cloud somewhere, taking organs or gametes can't hurt him. It may seem insensitive and disrespectful to living people, but he's literally incapable of caring about his mortal remains anymore.

I mean, if you're in heaven, and someone harvests all your organs from your physical body (assuming you weren't murdered or something), would you care? Really. You're in heaven. You get anything you want. Are some physical kidneys in a body you're not using anymore going to make you happier?

This includes using the gametes to create potential children. So what if the kid is implanted into someone you didn't know and possibly would not have created a kid with. You're dead. How could you care? You don't have any responsibility towards the kid anymore, seeing as you're in a coffin somewhere and that would make it really hard to babysit. All you have to do is sit on a cloud and watch from above, if that's where you ended up. So what if he inherits all your stuff? You're dead! You can't take it with you, as evidenced by the fact that you're in the ground, and all your stuff is still waiting around for someone to claim it. Besides, you get everything you want in heaven anyway, right?

Sorry if this came off as aggressive or mean - it's the pain talking. It makes me want to yell everything. Why won't the pain killers kick in already?

[DemonWolf]

When I hear that someone "wants children" I usually take that to mean that said individual want the experience of parenthood rather than that the person simply wants to spread his seed.

There are so many ethical issues involved here, but I suppose that if there was little in the law to make it illegal, the court may have had little choice but to allow it.