Surrogacy for deceased egg or sperm

In the Diane Blood case sperm was extracted whilst her husband was in a coma.

The Diana Blood case established this as a right decades ago now

That case was revolting but the horse has long since bolted on the appropriation of sperm or eggs from the deceased.

I think the key issue here is consent.

Leaving aside all the other issues, the implication that a child can consent to have their eggs/sperm used by somebody else creates lots of ethical problems.

I think we need to remember that this child socially transitioned at a young age and began the medical route, also at a young age.

I won't say any more, many of you know my views on surrogacy already...in this case the child is born an orphan and this can happen of course, but the child would be specifically created with no mother (egg donors are biological mothers but don't raise the child and are not the 'social' mothers, the surrogate mother is considered the 'oven' and the person who gave the sperm, effectively the sperm donor, is deceased) and would have only a grandmother who, I think, would be doing this to replace her deceased child, would be likely to project a great deal onto this child, and would still be grieving (and you never stop right, when you have lost a child).

If this is medically possible, with judge rulings and doctors and women making it possible, this poor child has a lot to live up to.

A bereaved parent once said to me that, when you lose your parents, you lose your past, but that when you lose a child, you lose your future. You don't only grieve for your child, you grieve for the life you will now never have, and the grandchildren you will never now have.

I'm really not comfortable with words like 'monstrous' and I don't blame the mother for trying anything she can. But I think the courts have got to step up be the grown ups here.

I looked up this story and it's terribly sad. I feel so much for the poor bereaved mother.

I agree with PPs that she should have been supported to accept the situation and her terrible grief. It seems like the potential child(ren) are seen as a means to an end, rather than as individuals with their own likes, dislikes, and potentially bloody annoying habits, as indeed we all are.

Apparently her child wanted to have a girl and a boy and already had names picked out. Any of us who've given birth know that it doesn't usually work like that, and at the very least you usually have to negotiate names with your co-parent! But that's beside the point. The tragedy of death is that it brings an end to all of someone's hopes and dreams, to all the things they might have done, been and had.

To me the issue here is a tragically bereaved mother who has lost a 16yo, and a lack of appropriate support (in my opinion) that is not helping her to attempt to deal with this in a more... helpful (to her) way. I struggled over the wording there, because I know there's no "coming to terms" with something like this.

"If I've got it right, the potential grandmother wants a grandchild, who will have no mother, and no father."

That about sums it up. Who on earth would do this to a child??? This is monstrous.

Surely this is pushing the boundaries of sperm collection, egg donation and surrogacy to the horizon.

Presumably the sperm was collected from the child so that they would have the option to be able to have a child of their own in the future, with the woman of a future relationship, when their fertility was compromised, rather than for the purpose of definitely having a child.

It is probably a scenario that could crop up in the future, with young people with cancer being encouraged to freeze gametes before treatments that may leave their fertility compromised.

To the legal minds here: if this were to succeed would this not create a legal precedent that it would be a 'right' to have a grandchild? If so could that not lead to further cases down the line? Eg, a parent suing a child for a failure to produce a grandchild? I know that seems extreme but I can imagine a narcissistic parent trying it.

Just read (I think) about the case.

If I've got it right, the potential grandmother wants a grandchild, who will have no mother, and no father.

It was all about her, and what she believed the wishes of her 16 year old child were. There seems to be no thought whatsoever into how this child will feel.

That Californian case was even worse! They extracted the sperm when the poor boy was already brain dead

I don’t agree that this should be permitted, no matter how sad the circumstances. I’m not sure why people think the courts are going to change the law on this, when their job is to apply the law as it stands - it is a waste of time and money. I’m assuming they’ll argue it from a human rights perspective, but I cannot see that there is (or should be) any right to use a dead child’s sperm to create a grandchild.

I dusagree with this completely. Its sad for the grandma I guess, but still..its just creepy and wrong IMO. Being 'left' grandchildren to look after if tragedy strikes is massively different to creating one when your child dies.

I'm so very sorry for this family, but that doesn't give them the right to create an orphan, a parentless child by any definition.

Amazingly (to me) this has already been allowed in a case in California
www.thecut.com/2019/05/peter-zhu-west-point-death-parents-sperm-ruling.html

The parent is clearly in no state to raise another child.

No one should really be thinking they have an absolute 'right' to have a child (let alone a grandchild) - the most we should really have is the right not to be actively prevented from having kids. It's an important difference

Good point! I agree.

Terribly sad situation but I don't believe grief should over ride the rights of the potential child.

This poor family, my heart goes out to them.

I will be interested in what the courts say about this matter.

My understanding of it is that use of sperm after death requires that there are specific written instructions - maybe there's something a bit different if there's a partner but not for anyone else including the person's parents. From what I've read of this case, the sperm were stored because the person wished to become a parent - not so that their mother could become a grandparent, or just for their child to exist.

It's a very sad situation, but there are many parents who lose their children with no possibility of grandkids, the conditions in this case are very unusual.

And then there is the whole issue of surrogacy - the highly questionable practice of effectively renting a woman's body.

No one should really be thinking they have an absolute 'right' to have a child (let alone a grandchild) - the most we should really have is the right not to be actively prevented from having kids. It's an important difference.

Such a sad story but all the idea of a parent having a baby conceived using their dead child's sperm and gestated via surrogacy for them is completely unacceptable. Shame on those diverting this parent into pursuing this rather than supporting her in the awful process of grieving the loss of her child.

Its a dreadfully sad story

I can see where the grandmother is coming from, but i really don’t think it would be a good idea

I would have thought that the Diane Blood case was different because she could argue that her partner wanted her to be a parent, and she would be an actual parent to the child - both biologically and practically.

Somebody who has died cannot parent in the active sense of the word.

I cannot begin to imagine what those parents are going through. Grief can take you to some strange places and I'm sure I wouldn't be immune myself. But it's the job of the courts to look at the bigger picture and I hope they say no.