Sacred Sperm

[Rashiminos]

Happened along this article today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ht-over-right-to-sperm-of-fiance-in-coma.html

A woman has launched a legal battle for the right to ''harvest'' her seriously-ill partner's sperm so that she can have his children.

The High Court action is being seen as potentially an important test case, involving a "wealthy" man kept alive medically after a devastating series of heart attacks who could die at any time.

<snip>

Would you approve of this request were you in a position to do so? Does your deity of choice agree with you?

Spoiler :

For those looking for the song:
Link to video.

 

[Kyriakos]

A very bad idea in my view. Besides, would a child really feel good about being born out of pretty much a dieing person's involuntary sperm donation?

And yeah, that python movie was rather bad too :/

 

[JollyRoger]

Talk about milking the relationship for all it's worth.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't even know why this would considered to be controversial given that they were planning to be married and she was going to bear his children.

 

[JollyRoger]

If this is not controversial, how about the Texas case where they are keeping the woman alive to carry to term against her husband's will?

What about a husband who wants to impregnate a dying wife?

 

[KmDubya]

Where is the harm in letting her bare the children of her dying partner?

The two people had a relationship prior to the accident, it's not as if a stranger is trying to get the sperm which would be wrong.

If both me and Formaldehyde agree on a subject then it must be the right choice

 

[Kyriakos]

A person who had "a series of heart-attacks" may not really carry sufficiently "healthy" sperm by now anyway (not sure what exact correlation exists here, but worth noting i suppose).
Furthermore the child will have no father, and the father would have enabled the birth after he was pretty much "dead". Not good for the child.

Let alone that having a child so that you can remember the father, is another bad idea.

 

[Rashiminos]

Where is the harm in letting her bare the children of her dying partner?

There might be an issue of (explicit) consent.

 

[bhsup]

Her lawyers say she is P's common law wife and they have been in a relationship over several years and had extensive discussions about raising a family. Last year P proposed marriage with a ring, and she had accepted.

How does UK law work with married people and one getting to make medical decisions for the other? Would she, for example, be allowed to say they can harvest his kidneys and other organs after he dies if he had not said anything explicitly before the heart attacks? I am not saying it is the exact same situation, but I would be inclined to go with however those sort of issues would be handled in the UK.

 

[BvBPL]

Absent the clear written instructions of the patient, I don't think this will be permitted. A court is likely to err on the side of caution when it comes to these things.

Thankfully, these days there are plenty of options and means to provide your loved ones with clear instructions on what you want done with your body and such if you become incapacitated. You can even assign a party as an agent to make decisions on your behalf, which might be particularly useful for something unforeseen like this instance.

This man's failure to avail himself of such options is unfortunate for his girlfriend.

 

[Kyriakos]

Then again Horus was born in a similar way.

 

[BvBPL]

A few things raise eyebrows about this. He's described as wealthy, but she is of limited means. She is at least considering having the fertilization done out of the country.

Then there's a lot of questions. Does he have other children? Maybe with other mothers? How much does she stand to inherit? How much would the child stand to inherit? Does he have money from his family that his children stand to inherit?

This may not be as simple as "no one is harmed" because there are too many unknowns to make an educated determination as to what should be done.

 

[eduhum]

Clarification needed: Catholics don't consider Sperm sacred AT ALL.
The human being is fecundated after the union of a sperm and an egg, creating thus an entirely new life with a completely new genetic code.
But before, the sperm is not only not considered a small 'machinelike' creature nearly worthless as there are millions of them everyday constantly being created in a male body every day, it is also rejected by our own body:
Our white blood cells actually confound sperms with something not part of our body, and so they destroy them constantly.

 

[Kyriakos]

Given that out of the billions of spermatozoa created during the lifetime of a male person, only one will be used to form an embryo later on, it makes sense to not stick to it too much (bad pun, ok).

 

[timtofly]

Is it not odd that a retired investment banker of some means has no written will that states where all his assets should go if something happened to him?

 

[El_Machinae]

Wow. I'm certainly conflicted.

 

[Farm Boy]

What about a husband who wants to impregnate a dying wife?

Shouldn't be significantly different.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Yes. A man should not be restricted by the society in his ultimate goal to win the natural selection if he doesn't harm anyone in the process.

 

[Dralix]

I'm no legal expert, but I view this as a simple medical directive question. In the absence of any advanced medical directive, then the decision should fall to the spouse. So then it comes down to her claim of being common law, and whether that grants her legal rights of a spouse.

I think the bigger thing to take away from this is the importance of having an advanced medical directive/living will/whatever. If you want control over what happens to you when you die or become medically incapacitated, then write it down.

 

[Farm Boy]

Would the rights to use of my sperm escheat to the state were I to become incapacitated without a will, spouse, or other identified party to take the issue into their hands?