 |
|
The 42-year-old woman, who does not want to be named, persuaded doctors to take sperm from her 30-year-old husband, who died suddenly last June, despite not having his written consent. The couple already had one child, a daughter.
In the first reported case of its kind, a judge allowed sperm to be extracted posthumously after a gynaecologist confirmed that the couple had consulted him for fertility advice a week before the man died.
The move contravenes the law and is being questioned by the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority.
The Brits have an Authority which has the right to rule on her life and body…and a few cells from her late husband’s body? They were consenting adults together and now she needs a consenting bloody bureaucrat?
Isn’t it funny how after they get married women forget how to extract semen?
[Please dump the derogatory URL. We’re getting tired of deleting it. – ed.]
The same thing would happen here in the States. There is always a group or organization (religious) trying to prevent things like this.
The state has a right to decide on matters such as this. After all, it’s the state paying for the procedure, as well as the health and well-being of this child throughout it’s life. If this procedure has risks to the health of the child, the state should have a say because it would effect the amount of money spent. Whatever money is spent on this potential child is money not spent on someone else. Triage is the name of the game, but from a financial standpoint, not a medical urgency standpoint.
[edited: the comments guide is in place to encourage discussion not trolls]
I’m not clear on two points. Is this woman fighting for the “right” to have artificial insemination OR is she fighting for the right to have the State Pay for it? And after that for the State to provide funds to raise the kid?
#2–What is a derogatory url? That term is not in the Urban Dictionary or otherwise a known term? Seems to me I posted an url last week that criticized the IPCC report. It was more than derogatory and also spurious, ill founded, defamatory, vulgar and very disheartening.
[edit…nor was it a phony attack by someone pretending to be you]
So what if this guy has children from a previous marriage? You now have a woman creating an additional heir to the estate.
Seems clear the only conflict is with the government having the “right” to govern whether or not she has a child by perfectly normal means. Do you think there’s something new, startling and ungodly about artificial insemination?
Medical technology made it possible to retrieve sperm from her husband shortly after he died. Why should the following insemination require permission from some government clerk?
Cripes! Some of you aren’t up to the 20th Century much less the 21st.
Let the lady have her child. Jeez. Who says the “state is going to pay for it”? What’s with the assumption that this is some kind of welfare mom looking to raise a brood on the dole??
And Ed.: I’m becoming distracted by all the deletions and editing of ppl’s messages. If there are repeat offenders, just boot them.
[Easier said than done. Most offenders are not registered users. – ed.]
Editor==thanks for the explanation. Sounds like “Deploying Doppelganger Deception Decoys” would be more clear to your devoted readers?
And yes, unlike Mustard–give 1-2 warnings, then cut off for a time period==1-2 weeks if the comments are clever, 1-2 months if not so clever?
Is setting up a “unchangeable name/nick” that hard to do? Slate does it. I do like the clever subject related names cadre that posts here,(our editors?) but it might be easier to manage and those clever wags can develop their wit with a history?
Who says the “state is going to pay for it”?
The fact that it’s in the UK states the state is going to pay for it. The state will pay for the insemination, and all medical care for this child. If this method of post death extraction of semen increases the odds of some diseases (from degradation of said semen), wouldn’t the state have a commanding interest, being that it will pay for this child’s medical care?
>>The fact that it’s in the UK states the
>>state is going to pay for it.
In that case, the state is going to pay for all babies, even ones conceived by normal fucking. Are you saying they have the right to determine who may have children and who must be sterilized?
Sheesh.
Even the most rabid opponents of “socialized medicine” have never made that claim.
I really wonder about the legal status of the child. I know there is an assumption of paternity to a child born in a marriage. I would assume that extends to a child conceived during a marriage and born after the death of the father.
It seems like conception after death of the father should change things. Technically the dead father is your father, but the child should not be a legal heir or have a claim on the estate unless expressly indicated in the will.
But here, the issue mentioned is consent. The man did not consent to have sperm harvested. Generally the next of kin is hit up upon death for permission for organ transplants despite a lack of consent from the deceased. How is this really any different and should not the laws of organ donation extend to semen?
#10–Calin==I take that at face value. Interesting the Brits have a very low church attendance and claimed religious affiliation so what accounts for this “pro life” social policy??
To that end, what would happen to a clinic that just pumped out fertilized human eggs and put them up for adoption?
After all, the best way to test whether or not every sperm is precious, is to bring all potential life to realization?
Just like HumVee’s being manufactured in a fuel crises, rice being grown in the desert, here we have artificial insemination in view of a population crises.
Now just why would an intelligent designer make people so stupid?
I still have to note this loutish crew 🙂 (#12 for example) manages to continue their dialogue with no concern for the female half of what was a marriage.
Certainly make your priorities clear about who should have rights and who shouldn’t.
#13, Europe restricts abortion far more than the US.
#15–Mike–ok, now “why?” And to what effect in a world already overpopulated?
Are you saying they have the right to determine who may have children and who must be sterilized?
If you take it to Johnathan Swift type extremes, you could make that claim.
This isn’t the case here, however. In this case you have the government paying for the fertilization procedure (as opposed to it being funded by Jack Daniels). We don’t know the risks of this procedure (or at least since I’m not a doctor I don’t)…and we don’t know the potential effects to sperm by collecting postmortem. Therefore, the risks should be weighed in upon by the state…since it is their checkbook from before conception. In the case of normal fucking, they can’t very well stop that, since it’s free (for the woman).
Most previous posts skipped over other important and tricky reason why this shouldn’t be automatically allowed. If I remember correctly, in the USA case parents of the dead man argued that he didn’t want children. In this story we have only the hear-say evidence of (potentially lying/profiting) doctor. This should be allowed only if specifically stated in the will, same as organ donations.
#11, Mustard,
THAT is a common right wing nut view of “socialized medicine”. They are so afraid that the “state” will pay for something they disapprove of or won’t pay for something they demand.
You are all missing the fact that she’s 42 and already has a child by the dead husband. With all the people investing the earth already, what business does a 42 year old woman who, already has reproduced, have messing about with high tech knocking up?
#17, Calin,
If you take it to Johnathan [sic] Swift type extremes, you could make that claim.
Why don’t you learn who Jonathan Swift is before making such stupid comments.
#18, Dusan,
He is a Fertility Doctor. He would have an appointment book showing the couple met him and notes of the meeting. Generally, people are taken at their word when they say something.
Why should this guy, dead, get more action than me?
#22
In A Modest Proposal Swift suggested that the Irish eat their own children in order to make them beneficial to the public at large. He was a satirist who did not actually support cannibalism, but instead used this as an example of certain beliefs being taken to their logical, but extreme conclusion. I’m well aware of who he was.