Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
The ethical case for non-directed postmortem sperm donation
  1. Nathan Hodson1,
  2. Joshua Parker2
  1. 1College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
  2. 2Department of Education and Research, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nathan Hodson, Leicester, UK; n.hodson{at}


In this article we outline and defend the concept of voluntary non-directed postmortem sperm donation. This approach offers a potential means of increasing the quantity and heterogeneity of donor sperm. This is pertinent given the present context of a donor sperm shortage in the UK. Beyond making the case that it is technically feasible for dead men to donate their sperm for use in reproduction, we argue that this is ethically permissible. The inability to access donor sperm and the suffering this causes, we argue, justifies allowing access to sperm donated after death. Moreover, it is known that individuals and couples have desires for certain sperm donor characteristics which may not be fulfilled when numbers of sperm donors are low. Enacting these preferences contributes significantly to the well-being of intended parents, so we argue that this provides a pro tanto reason for respecting them. Finally, we explore the benefits and possible disadvantages of such a system for the various parties affected.

  • cryobanking of sperm, ova or embryos
  • donation/procurement of organs/tissues
  • artificial insemination and surrogacy
  • in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer
  • reproductive medicine

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Twitter @nathanhodson, @joshp_j

  • Contributors NH and JP made equal contributions to the conception, planning, writing and editing of this article.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement (2) There are no data in this work

Linked Articles

Other content recommended for you