Responses
Reproduction
Woman wants dead fiancé’s baby: who owns a dead man’s sperm
Compose a Response to This Article
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 29 June 2018
- Published on: 29 June 2018Odd article
The depth of ethical analysis in this article is stupefyingly superficial, ill informed and immature. The author's "critical reflection"comprises some half guesses and frankly irrelevant conjecture about what the deceased's intentions were before his untimely death. The author apparently can't see any good reasons for a child to have a two parents, despite this being a foundation of western civilisation, recognised as beneficial in the literature, and given effect in our laws. The author sees nothing odd in a woman wanting to have a baby with a dead man. Where do the universities find these people.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
Other content recommended for you
- The ethical case for non-directed postmortem sperm donation
- Who owns a dead man’s sperm?
- ‘Til Death Us Do Part: the ethics of postmortem gamete donation
- Balancing rules in postmortem sperm donation
- Response to Orr and Siegler—collective intentionality and procreative desires: the permissible view on consent to posthumous conception
- To give or sell human gametes - the interplay between pragmatics, policy and ethics
- Maps of beauty and disease: thoughts on genetics, confidentiality, and biological family
- Parent-initiated posthumous-assisted reproduction revisited in light of the interest in genetic origins
- Assisted reproductive technologies and equity of access issues
- Postmortem non-directed sperm donation: quality matters