Should kids be conceived after a parent dies?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:27 am

Should kids be conceived after a parent dies?

It’s time for some legal limits on posthumous reproduction

COMMENTARY

By Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.

MSNBC contributor

Updated: 4:27 a.m. MT June 27, 2007

The death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to climb, and President Bush is warning that even heavier casualties lie ahead in the months to come. As a result, some American women are being faced with a tragic choice: Should they have a dead soldier’s child?

There are no clear statistics, but a number of men — some married, some not — deposited their sperm before they were sent to war. This raises a number of questions: Who should be allowed to use that sperm? How many times? How long after the death of the donor? And how long should the sperm be kept frozen if no one claims it?

Right now, there are no laws or rules governing the use of sperm after a man has died. Children already have been born in the United States, Israel and other countries from sperm deposited in sperm banks before their fathers went off to war zones.Before Staff Sgt. Stephen Sutherland was deployed, for instance, he banked sperm to ensure that he could have a child with his wife, Maria. In November 2005, the 33-year-old was killed in Iraq.

About a year after his death, Maria was inseminated with his sperm and is now expecting a boy in July. “ It will be refreshing to have a little piece of him that I can look at every day,” she tells NBC News.

But the sperm doesn't always go to the widow. Girlfriends have used sperm to make children, and in January, an Israeli court ruled that parents of a deceased soldier could use sperm taken right after his death to impregnate a woman he never met.

No permission

The fact that many of these children are much-loved should not distract us from the fact that we need to pay more attention to the technological advances that permit the creation of children when one or both biological parents are dead.

Depositing sperm before heading off to a dangerous war zone is not the only way children have been created well after the death of their fathers. At the request of wives, fiancées and, in some cases, parents or girlfriends, sperm has been taken from men who have unexpectedly died from strokes, heart attacks or traumatic injuries — usually without any explicit written permission from the deceased.

Unlike those who freeze sperm knowing what might happen to it if they die in a war, these other men have rarely said anything about whether they would want to have a child if they should unexpectedly die. Nor is it clear with whom they would have wanted to have a child (a fiancée, a longtime girlfriend, a surrogate mother hired by their parents), how many children they would have been willing to create or how long a period of time after their deaths they would have felt comfortable having a child created.

Evolving technology

Sperm is much easier to freeze than eggs, but the technology is evolving and egg-freezing or egg procurement from a cadaver may soon be a reality, opening the door to even more ways to make babies.

It may not be long before a sister or a mother or a grandfather, grieving from the loss of a loved one in a car accident, tornado or hurricane, makes an incredible request: Would doctors be willing to remove sperm and egg from a man and a woman who are both dead to create a sibling, child or grandchild?

As reproductive technology takes us toward ways of baby-making that no one could have anticipated prior to the birth of the world's first test-tube baby, Louise Brown, in 1978, shouldn’t we set some rules? Shouldn't society keep an eye out for the best interests of any children created after the death of one or both parents?

Perhaps the law should insist that no one can use the sperm, egg or embryo from anyone who is dead without their explicit written consent.

Maybe a mandatory waiting period of 90 days after a death before using that tissue makes sense to help ensure that no one acts out of grief or pressure. Ninety days is admittedly an arbitrary number, but the point is to allow a cooling-off period right after learning of a loved one's death to make sure that such a momentous decision has been carefully thought through.Deciding that clinics must destroy the sperm, egg or embryo of the deceased five years after their death may be another way to avoid situations in which children are made without any real assurance that someone will be there to love and care for them.

What about expanding organ and tissue donation to include sperm, eggs or even embryos? Changing our wills, advance directives, and organ and tissue donor cards to include our wishes about posthumous reproduction is certainly a step that lawmakers in every state ought to consider.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:44 pm

This deserves to be bumped to hear what you all have to say about it.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:49 pm

If we are talking of soldiers & soldiers only - get her knocked up before you go, if you dont its not meant to be. Thats my take, flame me if you want.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:56 pm

Why would I flame you, Buttercup?

How about regular civilians? What do you think about them doing this??

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:12 pm

RedGlitter;649764 wrote: Why would I flame you, Buttercup?

How about regular civilians? What do you think about them doing this??

Too broad a spectrum to go there, soldier scenario is easy.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:15 pm

Buttercup!! Don't take the easy way out! :wah: I wanna have a discussion! I'm sick of word games!! :wah::wah:

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:15 pm

Ok, NO

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:19 pm

Hey that's better! Thanks!

I'm on the fence about it myself right now.

When I came across the article, I was reminded of my friend Jimmy who had died when he was 27. From leukemia. He had um...donated to the deep freeze...in case his wife ever wanted to have their child after his death. We all knew about it and we all thought it was a great thing because surely any child of Jimmy would be as special as he was.....but that was years ago and I don't know if his widow ever used it or not or if she remarried or what she might have done.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:34 pm

I don't see anything wrong with it. What is the difference with a woman that wants to be a single mom and goes to a Sperm Bank and is inseminated by a donor that she or the child will never know? Or, where a woman is married, has sex, conceives, and the very next day the male (husband) is run over by a bus and is killed)? There are millions of kids out there that only have one parent living, how, when, and where the deceased parent died is a moot point.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:56 pm

what about the child ? does he not have the right to a living father

i'm p1zzed so i'll assume that the child cant be born without its ma

i'm going to bed as soon as i've annoyed my buddy soberego :wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:01 pm

magenta flame;649836 wrote: But to be concieved by an already dead person? What? are we running out of living specimens here?

I can see your point there Magenta, but from the other angle, what if it's more about having a child by the man you loved and gave your all for rather than just any guy who's alive? Isn't that the reason to have kids in the first place? I'm not attacking you here, I just chose your post as my jumping-in point.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:03 pm

Soberano;649843 wrote: Not going to bed tonight then Jimbo.

oh there you are :wah:

i give up your about as hard to p1zz off as i am :wah:

where is bill or magenta when you need a stroppy victim:wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:06 pm

magenta flame;649851 wrote: I'm sure they were all attracted to something in the jeans but when you're dead you're dead that's it, issues of the world have ceased to be a going concern.

I just see the ongoing ramifications of this as a mine field

How so??

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:10 pm

There was a case over here a couple of years ago, the couple were living together, he had cancer and had his sperm frozen, he died, the woman tried to be inseminated with his sperm it went to the courts, she won and later had a little girl, she then sought maintenance from his parents who'd received his life insurance payment.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:10 pm

Soberano;649856 wrote: Being dead should keep the Child Support Agency of you're back.

you tosser :wah: :wah:

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:13 pm

Soberano;649856 wrote: Being dead should keep the Child Support Agency of you're back.

They couldn't find people that were alive and kicking :-5

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:15 pm

SuzyB;649861 wrote: They couldn't find people that were alive and kicking :-5

thats coz they have simple minds :wah: :wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:50 pm

Okay that's a fair scenario.

I'm trying not to sound like a stodgy American, but yes, "shove it" was my first response. I'm not sure what I could say to that because it seems outright wrong any way you slice it. I know about grandparents' rights and such but it should only be the couple or at least one of them who decides when they're going to conceive. I don't know how that would work or if a court order to conceive (oh brother) would even be given. If so, then I suppose it's just another way to abuse and harass women in those lesser evolved countries.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:07 pm

magenta flame;649877 wrote: Ok turn it around again...................What if the In - laws never liked the wife to begin with, and just want sleeping dogs to lie. what if the death of their son is a welcome escape from the biatch? What if there is a huge inheritance the wife is after and using the unborn child as her insurance to get it? what kind of a family relationship is the newborn child entering here?

What if the wife just wants the child and no grandparents? another court case ?

I would say the inlaws have no say in the first scenario. Too bad if they don't want grandkids by this woman, she married their son and has every right -and certainly more say than they have- to have his child. Maybe that's too easy for me, but that's how I see that one.

Using the kid for insurance...well, we have messes like that already just as it is. I think that's a rotten thing but if it warrants a court case so be it.

I am accepting here that life is messy and not always has mitred corners. I don't have magic answers but I can tell you how I feel about things.

I said I was on the fence but that may not be true anymore as the more we talk, the more my natural tendencies are coming out.

You're a good debating partner, Magenta. Even when we really disagree.

Do you feel the inlaws have as much say as the widow when it comes to the above instances??

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:09 pm

magenta flame;649877 wrote:

What if the wife just wants the child and no grandparents? another court case ?

Sorry, skipped this one.

We have this problem already too.

Unless the grandparents are lecherous, abusive scourges, then I firmly believe in including them in the family doings and life of the child. I can see the opposite point of view and understand it, but I don't agree with it. I guess it's back to court then.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:09 pm

magenta flame;649886 wrote: lets go another twenty years into the future. Ok lets say that my father has saved his sperm and one of my great nieces (his great grandchild) finds out that she can't have children. Is she then allowed to use his sperm to essentially give birth to her own great uncle? all she will need is permission from my mother or my mothers next of kin which would be my sister (my nieces grandmother)

Um, in a word, no.

It boggles my mind why someone would want to be inseminated with that of their grandfather, great or otherwise. I would say that's akin to your own dad in essence. It seems rather incestuous and wrong.

And well....honestly....gross. Not to mention it defies proper and traditional (and nature-honored) family lines. I mean if you're going to do that, go get a second cousin once removed or something that's not so freaky.

Besides I would expect there would be laws against something like this.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:22 pm

magenta flame;649890 wrote: Oh woops change all that to a great nephew wanting his wife to be inseminated.

Hhmm all though a great grandchild is biologically distant enough to procreate with her great grandfathers sperm.

this kind of thing happens all the time in poorer countries you'll often marry an Uncle from your fathers side .

I'd still say no, not with the great grandfather's....

I'm getting the heebie-jeebies just thinking about it. :-3

I'm used to cousins marrying but anything beyond that, for me, has a serious ick factor.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:29 pm

I dont see a problem with this...we have the technology and the know how..and it gives the women that are married ot men that give their lives for our country a chance to have children wiht their husbands..i read an article tonight where science has made artificially made sperm out of a womans bone marrow...before it is overwith a woman may not even need a man to have children at all....:p

DelicateDominatrix · Post by **DelicateDominatrix** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:32 pm

Thats a tough question.If she does it then the kid will never know his or her real father,but then the mother will always have a part of the lost husband with her.Im not sure to be honest.I think there is positives and negatives to both ways.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:33 pm

what would be really cool is if we could isolate the genes that carry cancer, ms , arthritis, parkinsons, alhseimers, diabetes, and the like..then we will be progressing....

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:43 pm

magenta flame;649900 wrote: I think that's what the article was demonstrating though. We have more technology than ever before and law makers and ethical think tanks are struggling to catch up.

I honestly believe that one day it will all blow up in our faces if we don't slow down a bit.

I will totally agree with this. Completely. We are outsmarting ourselves and that's a very scary premise.

DelicateDominatrix;649901 wrote: Thats a tough question.If she does it then the kid will never know his or her real father,but then the mother will always have a part of the lost husband with her.Im not sure to be honest.I think there is positives and negatives to both ways.

Ideally kids should have a mom and dad (please don't flame me about single gender parenting right now) but a lot of kids grow up without one through death or apathy. It may seem unfair to deliberately bring up a child after the fact but life isn't fair as it is.

guppy;649902 wrote: what would be really cool is if we could isolate the genes that carry cancer, ms , arthritis, parkinsons, alhseimers, diabetes, and the like..then we will be progressing....

Hi Guppy. Did you just swim in?

Sometimes I think we're coming closer to seeing that day but then my cynicism takes over and I think that it'll never happen because disease keeps people rich. A cure would kill Big Pharma.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:09 pm

magenta flame;649909 wrote: Lets face it, life is stranger than fiction. we're well and trully past frankenstein.

and what the heck are we going to do with all those frozen heads we've been collecting in storage for years. Do you realise we can actually make Walt Disney again? when we began freezing heads we didn't have DNA technology.

"here you go son this ere' is your closest living relative! yes he's a frozen head but that's just a technicality".

:yh_rotfl

That got me. "All those frozen heads." Yeah, I'm not a big fan of cryogenics but now that it's possible....EEP!!!!