Sacred Sperm

[Dralix]

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?

I doubt it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why? It seems to be the same thing.

 

[warpus]

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.

I agree. If there is no written or otherwise confirmation that this man permits his sperm to be inserted into her vagina, then unfortunately she's SOL.

 

[bhsup]

Well now, would her being able to show that he had frequently inserted such before his heart attacks help her case any?

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not sure it would. Where would law fall where a spouse has sex with the other one while (s)he is passed out drunk? Does it matter if the "initiating" spouse has every reasonable indication that his/her spouse consents, despite his/her current inability to do so? I was under the impression that is still considered rape these days.

 

[Dralix]

Why? It seems to be the same thing.

It's not like when you die the doctors are left with a bucket of sperm, looking for someone to give it to. I think it's fair to assume that the default position is to just leave it where it is unless someone makes a claim to it. And I don't really the see the state asserting such a claim.

 

[Farm Boy]

Just because you don't really see the state asserting such a claim is no reason not to tease out whether or not it has the right to do it, should it decide to assert the claim. Can the state, in the absence of personal or delegated rights expressly forbidding the harvesting of sperm, do so? In the absence of personal of delegated rights expressly forbidding the impregnation of children in a female brain-death patient, could a relative, or the state, contract out said brain-dead person's body as a surrogate womb?

 

[Dralix]

Just because you don't really see the state asserting such a claim is no reason not to tease out whether or not it has the right to do it, should it decide to assert the claim.

I don't waste much time with things that I find incredibly unlikely to ever happen.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh, I don't know that it's incredibly unlikely to happen really. I've been disabused of my notions often enough to doubt my prognostications. I never would have guessed at college age females selling ovaries, yet that happens. <shrugs> Questions pertaining to just how much you own the parts of your body, during life and during death, seem pretty relevant to the foundational principles of a society. Plus, it's an interesting question!

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't see the problem. The whole point of this issue is that the guy is not aware of his surroundings anymore. What does he care what happens to his sperm? He doesn't, because he simply can't.
Law may say otherwise, but law can be silly like that.
Now things would be different if there was actual reason to believe the guy wouldn't have liked it. He of course still wouldn't care at this point, but he at least would have cared when conscious. But as it is we don't seem to have reason to believe one way or the other, and there is no reason to respect wishes which are entirely imaginary.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't see the problem. The whole point of this issue is that the guy is not aware of his surroundings anymore. What does he care what happens to his sperm? He doesn't, because he simply can't.
Law may say otherwise, but law can be silly like that.

If this was a her, rather than a him, and the husband decided to contract out her womb, is it still silly? Same sort of mental situation where the patient is not aware of her surroundings. The same sort of logic might lead one to conclude that female coma or brain death patients are a viable contracting resource for childless couples. An idea that would at least catch my attention, given my life circumstances, if not necessarily my support. If this is a viable resource to tap, does the morality change if the insemination is done with an AI wand instead of a penis?

 

[BvBPL]

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

Hypothetically, let's say that she does obtain the sperm, has the child, has the child recognized as the man's child, and then the man dies.

Assuming the man either has no will or has a will that provides for his children generally rather than specifically enumerating his children (saying "to all my children, share and share alike," rather than "to John..., to Mary...," with expressly no allowance for unnamed children) then the unborn child rapidly complicates the probate of the will. Under such a circumstance, people would be harmed by the unborn child. Those people who may be harmed are unknown to us though. They might be other children of the man, they might the close relatives (siblings, parents) who would be in line to inherit if there were no children, it might even reduce the inheritance of the common law wife herself.

If there are more complicated wills and trusts involved, where someone is the beneficiary of a trust that passes to children upon the beneficiary's death (assuming that would evade the Rule Against Perpetuities) then things can become even more complicated.

Examining the issue strictly from an inheritance standpoint and assuming the unborn child would be recognized as the man's child for the purposes of inheritance then someone would assuredly be harmed by the birth of the child. The recipient of the harm and the extent of it is unknown to us though.

I don't see the problem. The whole point of this issue is that the guy is not aware of his surroundings anymore. What does he care what happens to his sperm? He doesn't, because he simply can't.
Law may say otherwise, but law can be silly like that.

By that logic, you might as well say that wills shouldn't be enforced because people will not care what becomes of their estates after death. If that's your view, then that's fine but it runs up against the common view that people should have a say in what happens to their belongings and their bodies after death.

Now things would be different if there was actual reason to believe the guy wouldn't have liked it. He of course still wouldn't care at this point, but he at least would have cared when conscious. But as it is we don't seem to have reason to believe one way or the other, and there is no reason to respect wishes which are entirely imaginary.

I do not agree with the premise that it should be okay to do whatever you want with a guy's body in the absence of his express statements to the contrary. I should not have to say that I do not want my dead body to be thrown to a pack of hungry dogs and my heirs should not be able to argue that they should be permitted to throw my body to hungry dogs by arguing that I said I never wanted that done.

--

Relatively few people have mentioned that in the story the man's condition has stabilized and that he is no longer on a DNR order. This makes it sound like it is possible (although perhaps unlikely) that he could recover. Does this change anyone's analysis? How would you feel if your partner took your sperm, engaged in artificial fertilization, and was pregnant after you recovered from a lengthy coma?

 

[warpus]

Well now, would her being able to show that he had frequently inserted such before his heart attacks help her case any?

Nah, I don't think so.

To me this is a reproductive rights issue. If you're not there to consent, somebody else shouldn't be allowed to consent for you.

 

[timtofly]

Wow. I'm certainly conflicted.

I don't see why. If you hold that a fetus is still under control of the female and her wishes, then sperm is still under control of the male, and until he releases it, the woman has no say over it. That would be the correct logic right?

If she has not been impregnated by now, it seems that it will not happen on a whim either. Who is going to pay for the procedure and the storage fees? Now we have a burden put on the state to cover such expenses.

 

[JollyRoger]

How would you feel if your partner took your sperm, engaged in artificial fertilization, and was pregnant after you recovered from a lengthy coma?

I'd wonder why I had returned to my college days.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Relatively few people have mentioned that in the story the man's condition has stabilized and that he is no longer on a DNR order. This makes it sound like it is possible (although perhaps unlikely) that he could recover. Does this change anyone's analysis? How would you feel if your partner took your sperm, engaged in artificial fertilization, and was pregnant after you recovered from a lengthy coma?

Right. Because people occasionally recover from "a permanent vegetative state".

 

[BvBPL]

Well, yeah, people have occasionally recovered from such a state.

Even if that doesn't occur here, I submit that the question of what happens when a person comes out a coma to find out his sperm was taken and a child was conceived from it is sufficiently interesting to engender further discussion.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@BvBPL
I recognize people having rights because people are able to feel and rights help people to improve their feelings.
I recognize a will because it is the product of a feeling person having rights.
A dead person does not feel and hence needs no rights. So unless the treatment of a dead person is subject to the time a person actually had rights in the form of a will I see no reason to assume rights to begin with.
But I can see the right of relatives that the remains of their loved ones are treated with respect. But if those relatives waive this right and you apparently didn't really care.. to the dogs with you! Why not? It is not like you will start to mind it now!

It is similar with this case. We don't know weather the guy would object or not. But we have reason to believe is wasn't a question this guy even concerned himself with. So what we do now has no bearing on when the guy actually was able to care.

However, all this rests on the guy remaining vegetable and dying.

If this was a her, rather than a him, and the husband decided to contract out her womb, is it still silly? Same sort of mental situation where the patient is not aware of her surroundings. The same sort of logic might lead one to conclude that female coma or brain death patients are a viable contracting resource for childless couples. An idea that would at least catch my attention, given my life circumstances, if not necessarily my support. If this is a viable resource to tap, does the morality change if the insemination is done with an AI wand instead of a penis?

If we assume that the woman can not wake up again I am down with this as well.

 

[Silurian]

She is not his Wife.
She is his long term Girlfriend.

From UK Parliament

Although cohabitants do have some legal protection in several areas, cohabitation gives no general legal status to a couple, unlike marriage and civil partnership from which many legal rights and responsibilities flow. Many people are unaware that there is no specific legal status for what is often referred to as a &#8220;common law marriage&#8221;.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p.../SN03372/common-law-marriage-and-cohabitation

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, yeah, people have occasionally recovered from such a state.

They are so rare they aren't even really worth mentioning.

Even if that doesn't occur here, I submit that the question of what happens when a person comes out a coma to find out his sperm was taken and a child was conceived from it is sufficiently interesting to engender further discussion.

That sounds like a far more interesting Springer episode issue than the one in the OP.