Using a man's sperm after death: It's possible, but is it ethical?

Making babies after death is possible but is it ethical?

Is it ethical to use a dead man's sperm to father a child? Experts are calling for a consensus on policies surrounding this question, which currently vary widely across the country.

It has been possible for a few decades to obtain a mans sperm after his death and use it to fertilize an egg. Today, requests for postmortem sperm retrieval (PMSR) are growing, yet the United States has no guidelines governing the retrieval of sperm from deceased men, said Dr. Larry Lipshultz, a urologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas.

In the absence of government regulations, medical institutions should come up with their own rules so they can handle the time-sensitive and ethically questionable procedures, Lipshultz argued in an editorial published June 5 in the journal Fertility and Sterility.

No ethical guidelines? How about this .... if a man doesn't specifically state in a living will that his sperm should be made available for donation/adoption, then it should be treated like any other organ in his body. It belongs to HIM and other people don't have a right to be ghouls to feed off his remains without his permission.

It is very easy to add a section in the Living Will that states if a man is for or against his sperm being harvested after his death. Spouses or other family members can be made aware of this provision and given copies of the living will. I would think this is common sense.

Nice question.

I have always thought that everybody's organs should be able to be used after death.

There is always outrage when it is found out that a hospital has secretly kept thousands of organs over the last 40 years unbeknownst to the relatives., Despite It saving thousands of lives, they are just upset that their organs were in a Jar and not in a ditch.

Sperm is a tricky one though as the only real Moral/Ethical question would be is it fair on the child.

I would say that it is a nice thought that the dead person almost "lives on" through their child, but I cant decide if it is fair or not.

Nice thread!

As I always try to look on the bright side. In the very remote chance that this would happen to me, I surely wouldn't have to worry about being on the hook for child support for 18 years.

Here in the UK a woman whose husband was in a coma (and died) won the right to use his sperm to have two children, then she won a case to have the deceased guys name as the Father on the childrens birth certificates.
Now the couple had been trying for kids for some time but he had not given written consent as such so it is a little different from the OT.
Personally when Iam dead I have signed all of what is left of me to medical science and organ donation, so If they want to use my sperm to creat a super race they can...

reply to post by FlyersFan
WOW....whats next??? And I agree with you about the living will saying its okay to take sperm...OMG...am I actually typing that statement??? It should be blantantly obvious that without legal written and signed permission from the deceased its hands off the family jewels!!!

I don't see why sperm has to be taken from dead men-are there not enough living donors?And enough children in orphanages and living on the streets?Why don't we take care of the children already born before hatching more.

Taking a mans sperm after his death .. and without his prior permission ... is RAPE and THEFT. It's a serious intrusion on the rights of the person who has died. It's disrespectful to his body as well. (and disrespecting a dead body is against the law)

So basically .. unless there is a provision made in a Living Will ... I am totally against this abuse.

And I agree with the previous poster. There are already a whole lot of children on the planet who need homes. To bring children into the world who are already father-less due to his death seems very selfish to me.

I think it's irrelevant.

If I'm dead, I'm not going to care or know what happens to my body/organs/sperm afterwards. And it's not like I'm going to be using it.

With that being said, I intend on being dipped in bronze. I'm going to make an awesome creepy statue one day.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Taking a mans sperm after his death .. and without his prior permission ... is RAPE and THEFT. It's a serious intrusion on the rights of the person who has died. It's disrespectful to his body as well. (and disrespecting a dead body is against the law)

Bit OTT dont you think? Why does it matter if the sperm are in a Jar, rather than in a ditch?

I would hardly call it rape.....

Course it's ethical to use a mans sperm harvested before or after his physical death.

BUT, only if that was his preference.

If it can be shown that the man has made provision for his sperm to be taken and stored for later use, or has made a similar provision in a written legal document, like a will for example - then of course it's ethical as it's what he wanted to happen.

If no such provision is made by the man, then it becomes a grey area, even if the man died while in a loving relationship, even if in that relationship, he and his partner where actively trying to start a family.

So, yes ethical if the man clearly stated that was his wish, grey area if he didn't state that was his wish, but was actively trying for a family in a stable, loving relationship, unethical if he was neither trying to start a family and did not provide written wishes as to the use of his sperm.

Originally posted by watchitburn
I think it's irrelevant.

It's very relevant. Having children is a very intimate and private decision. RAPING a dead body for sperm (or eggs) is taking that decision away from the parent. It is creating children that the parent will have no say in the upbringing .. no say in how to take care of him or her. It's rape. It's theft. It's disrespecting a dead body (which is against the law). It's going against the wishes of the person who died.

Originally posted by Briles1207
Bit OTT dont you think?

No. I"m right on the money with this.

Why does it matter if the sperm are in a Jar, rather than in a ditch?

Seriously? You see no harm in stealing a mans sperm and creating children with it? Taking away his rights to decide for himself if he wants children ... forcing him to create children that he will have no say in the raising of or the care of. You really have no problem with that? Really? That's rape and theft. And it's disrespectful and dismissive of the mans right to decide for himself if he wants children.

I would hardly call it rape.....

I find your apathy to be odd.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I understand your position, and why someone would feel that way. I just disagree.
There is not a person there to be raped, as you put it. It's a body. Nothing more than rotting meat.

reply to post by Briles1207


Organs and Sperm are different.

Sperm is a genetic code, not a somatic cell(unless they decide to clone a organ, which is useless right now with our technology).

Its more like cloning than donation.


Sperm should not be used without consent from family(if the diseased did not have a say).


20 yrs after, you would be looking at a court case for property and the "rightful heir" to the family fortune.

Originally posted by watchitburn
There is not a person there to be raped, as you put it. It's a body. Nothing more than rotting meat.

- Rape doesn't have to be sexual in nature to be a violation of that person.
- To totally disregard the person and their wishes because the body has stopped functioning, that's abusive IMHO.
- Why take away the right of the person to determine if he wants to be a parent or not? Because he can't speak up for himself or his rights or his desires? That's ghoulish.

I see this as a HUGE violation. Having children is an intimate decision.
Forcing parenthood on a person ... be they dead or alive .. is a violation of their dignity.

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

I understand your position, and why someone would feel that way. I just disagree.
There is not a person there to be raped, as you put it. It's a body. Nothing more than rotting meat.

Well put.

I think that your "rights" kind of go out of the window when you die. You are nothing more than feritliser for the earth. I totally understand why ethically, and for the sake of the child, that it is something that must be legislated.

However I would not feel sorry for the person who was deceased, as they are none the wiser.

reply to post by Briles1207


I guess you are OK with necrophilia, and photos of dead patients being mutilated, raped(necrophilia), abused?

Its on the web and tonnes of it.

I would not want to end up under those sick individuals.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Briles1207

 

I guess you are OK with necrophilia, and photos of dead patients being mutilated, raped(necrophilia), abused?

Its on the web and tonnes of it.

I would not want to end up under those sick individuals.

Is there? I wouldn't know.

Come on now, thats not the same and you know it.

And even if it were, I will be kicking back with a few cool ones watching the football and having a chat with Churchill.

The package has long gone, do what you like with the box.

I suppose it hinges on what you believe and what your religion is.

Of coure that sort of thing you have referred to is abhorrent, but creating a life from the end of another is not quite the same

Originally posted by Briles1207
I think that your "rights" kind of go out of the window when you die.

Why would you say that?
There are laws in this country against disrespecting a dead body.

And there are higher 'moral laws' that are just common sense and decency (i don't say that very often, but this is a case where I think it applies) ... You think it's okay to force a person to be a parent ... a parent who will be unable to care for his own child ... a parent who will have no say in that childs life? That's okay? It's the right of the living to force that upon those who can't speak up for themselves?

Doesn't anyone understand how intimate and personal the decision is to be a parent?

Doesn't anyone understand that the decision to be a parent should rest exclusively with the parent and be between that person and their partner (and God) ... and not be interjected upon by casual strangers?

Seriously? Man ......

Having read the article and looked into such, the following can be stated:

The use of the body after death, is a touchy subject, as it goes into different realms of possibilities and ultimately the stuff of both science fiction and fact. It can lead to a miracle to some, and a nightmare to others and ultimately should be handled very carefully. The ethical use of such has been questioned since the concept and actual proceedures have come around, and ultimately there are a few concerns that should be brought to light.

In this case, the question that is coming around is that of a males sperm, and ultimately who has say over such. While it may seem like a good thing, the ability to use such after the death of a man, but is it? There can be no doubt that there will be problems and blessings along the way.

Sperm, contains half of the genetic code for creation of life, it is what allows for the start of human life. It is half of the process, and thus therein lies the issue. A man who died, and a grieving widow, would it be fair to deny her a chance to have a child with the man that she married, yet did not have children with? Would it be fair to say that we can not allow for his legacy, infact his very family name to die out, all cause the couple did not have children while they were still alive?

And what of sperm doners, those who chose to give such up for money, can it then be stated that we can chose to harvest such after their death, as they did such in life? After all it was what they chose to do.

While those are the simple kinds of answers, there are the more darker sides to this that should be considered. What of say a dictator, one who killed thousands or repressed populations, do we allow for the continuation of a family, from such a person? Or the 20 yo woman who marries an 85 yo wealthy man, should she be allowed to do such, to have access to his fortune by having a child after his death?

For every miracle that this can provide, it also can give rise to a nightmare on the flip side. While I think it may be a good idea, I would say we should err on the side of caution and not make this the rule, but keep it the exception.

Then there are 2 other points that should be considered, and that is the children, how would this affect them socially and even in private? And what if it were reveresed and it was the man who survivied and the woman who died, do we now allow for the eggs of the woman to be harvested so the man can have children with her, even after death?

Too many questions and not enough answers.