Dead Trans Girl's Sperm Will Be Stored

It starts getting messy quickly doesn't it?

None of this is about the well being of a child. A child doesn't get a choice and they become a commodity.

Its always about the third party who decides to 'commission' a baby via surrogacy or perhaps a sperm donation with 'special visitation arrangements ' (which i note dont exist in law in terms of grandparents visitation rights).

Identity is a funny old thing but there do seem to be universal needs that persist throughout the centuries. The idea of who we are and where we come from and our heritage is one which seems to be timeless. I dont think that adding genetic mother/birth mothers/multiple fathers etc is going to shake the desire to explore all parts of that despite what surrogate parents might hope.

We are now seeking to somehow undermine these foundations deliberately despite knowing how it can cause distress and uncertainty in adopted children (especially when the truth is withheld) even in loving adoptive families and where they have been adopted in circumstances which are beyond anyones control.

I really think we are undervaluing the importance of this inner need to know 'who we are' and the need to how 'foundation stones' of where we came from.

A child born long after their parent has died at such a young age is going to end up in a situation where their dead parent almost has 'mythical godlike angelic status' and they themselves will have almost a 'miracle status'. How do you ever live up to the shining star of your deceased parent you were created to feel the void of? I'm not too sure the wider family dynamics on that are particularly healthy either. (Imagine being a sibling or the child of another sibling where your grandmother / mother has fought for years to have the miracle child of her lost angel.. ).

I dunno. I cant help but think not enough is being considered here.

Children dont know any different than the circumstances they are born into, but it doesn't ultimately stop them being curious or asking questions to themselves and others about it either. They accept it because they have to, but it may become something that they struggle with in later life.

I do think we need to think very long and very hard about the safeguarding aspects that separating the idea of a birth mother from a genetic mother and adding additional fathers might create. I think we need to think about the psychological aspect of all this and how finding out youve been bought created in a different country with less rights sits with family dyamics and whether someone might still feel like they are missing an important part of their 'heritage' if removed from their birth mother even if they have no genetic link to them. Or being told your mother is your father and your father is your mother and how this affects your understanding of the wider world.

These are moral and ethical questions i really don't think are being asked hard enough. And thinking about throwing grandparents into the mix too?

Are we REALLY putting the welfare of children first?

Good lord. I can't even imagine.

Desperately sorry for this bereaved parent and family. RTB's post above makes a great deal of sense. Some things I thought as I was reading it:

Since there is a lot of current evidence as to how legal precedents often move beyond their original brief in unforeseen ways, there are many things that would have to be thoroughly considered from a number of angles. If for example it was established that there is a right to be a grandparent, and so a right to a child's stored genetic material to create this in the absence of direct consent being available from the child, this potentially opens the door to asking, in the case of an adult child not wishing to use their stored genetic material to have a child, might their parents also have a claim to the material to create a grandchild via surrogacy?

And in turn might there therefore be a right to take an adult child who does not wish to have children to court for that genetic material to be provided so that those wishing to be grandparents have equality in their opportunity to raise a child? And while currently something only done to protect the child's future choices where a child's medical needs create the situation, would this become something parents may choose to do outside of medical necessity as a precaution, to request storage of their child's genetic material to protect their future opportunity of being grandparents?

Really don't envy the legal team who will have to unpack this, and in the context of a bereaved and distressed family.

RedToothBrush, thank you for your excellent analysis upthread re the issues of meaningful consent and the ethics of it all.

I completely agree there is more to this situation than meets the eye.
Transgender from the age of 3?? Half my boys wanted to be puppies at that age - does that make them transspecies??

Is there anything to prevent sperm being transported out of the country?

And there is still a possibility that a woman could still step into this situation to 'help' despite it being a bit of a minefield.

So wrong. The Diane Blood case was different. Her children at least had one parent alive and her husband wanted children. This child will have neither parent.

From what I've read, in UK surrogacy one or both of the intended parents must be genetically related (as a parent, not grandparent) to the child. Therefore this proposed arrangement would not be legal.

We start to get all sorts of ethical questions about who 'owns' the reproduction genetic material of a human after they die.

To me this is the key point, and I am shocked at some of the cases I've now read about (like in the article in my previous post).

They retrieved the sperm after he suffered a fatal accident. I don't think the decision has been made about actually using it, though?

"In 2018, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine issued ethical guidelines for fertility centers on posthumous collection of reproductive tissue. It said it’s justifiable if authorized in writing by the deceased. Otherwise, it said, programs should only consider requests from the surviving spouse or partner."

Jane I'd love to but i think we'd be into stuff that would be (and quite rightly should be) deleted unless this family become more prominent in the press and this case become more significant and important.

If Mama Anderson goes down that route it will open the family up to more scrutiny though. And tbh given the family is grieving and the circumstances are tragic I'm not sure thats in the interests of the family tbh. And any child that comes out of this will be born into this media interest. Thats something that should be taken into consideration before she goes down this route. It will not be a easy experience. It will mean the family and the mother are a centre of attention. Whether she will plough on regardless of the implications and thinking about the family as a whole, is another matter...

There are other aspects to this specific case i find concerning but they are not directly relevant to the wider implications of what the mother is proposing in legal and ethical debate so I will park it there.

I thought that your post was bang on. If you change your mind and want to talk about the "other aspects" then I would be very interested to read that too.

Theres a few things i find really uncomfortable with in this story. Trying to keep this general rather than specific to this case but this is hard given the desire to go down the legal route and make a prescient. Its in the public interest to discuss some of the history here for that reason because of the wider legal and ethical implications.

This is a 16 year old who suddenly became ill unexpectedly and died after being rushed to hospital. They became ill at 10pm and died in the early hours the next morning.

This is out of the ordinary. This does not happen often.

We also have a 16 year old who had their sperm taken at age 14. Why age 14? Why not wait a few years? Why the urgency to do it whilst still a minor? There had to be some reason why it was done at age 14 not later. The obvious one is that there was a pressing need at age 14 to preserve fertility and this couldn't wait. Why?

It strikes me there is a massive elephant in the room here. One I'm not going to spell out more explicitly than I already have but I find this troubling.

I also think that the ethics of a 14 year old having their fertility preserved because they are trans highly questionable. Its worth pointing out its an option not always available to people undergoing cancer treatment, but where this is available this is absolutely not concerned as giving consent to have a child even if having a family is a future plan of an adult already in a secure life position to start a family.

Persevering fertility to keep the option of having a child open is one thing, but it also neglects a discussion about sexual function and pleasure you can't possibly have with a 14 year old! Also perserving fertility is NOT making a firm decision to having have a child. Having a dream to have a child age 16, is a world from the reality of actually doing so. A 16 year old can dream of being an airline pilot and then decide that actually thats not really for me.

I stress, no consent for actually concieving a child has ever been given here, and certainly not one from an adult in a position to make that decision. Only a desire that having a child in the future might be a possibility. Consent was given to keep options open. Consent was not given to have a child.

The mum is grieving for a lost child. Can that be separated out from the situation here? I find that difficult. Whilst having sympathy its simply not a decision a grandparent should be able to make. We start to get all sorts of ethical questions about who 'owns' the reproduction genetic material of a human after they die. I find this a slightly disturbing concept. If you establish the idea that someone has 'ownership' other that the one (or two parties) directly concerned I think you start to open up a can of worms. Unless you have given explicit directives about what happens to your reproduction material, I fear where this may lead.

In this particular case we also have a situation here where we simultaneously have a child apparently old enough to make decisions about their own fertility but after their death they are suddenly a child whom the mother can make decisions about a potential grandchild (that does not exist) about and has rights/responsibilities to fulfil. I find that questionable in terms of power dynamics and in terms of consent being wholly valid (in a past tense). In this context a surrogate being a sibling should be ethically completely out of question.

What the mother is trying to do is in effect, establish the right of grandparents (a third party) to their children's genetic material without any explicit previous legal directive authorising this, on the basis of the age of their child at the time of death and because they were a minor at the time of donation. Its also using the emotive factor that they were trans to try and add weight to their cause. I dont think it would get as much support / traction as an idea but for these factors. A mother of a 25 year old (also not in a relationship) who had preserved their sperm for cancer treatment would probably be thought of very differently.

Are we going to get into the land of family disputes about who 'gets custody' ownsthe sperm, eggs or embryos of deceased family members? What would be the rights of genetic siblings or other genetic relatives such as grandparents to see each other if raised in separate households after a family dispute if this nature? Is this what a deceased sibling would have wanted? It opens a can of worms...

The mum is already about to become a grandmother as I understand from newspaper reports, so its also a factor in play. A 16 year who has a sibling expecting a baby expressing a desire that they would maybe like a child in the future IS NOT an explicit expression of consenting to have their sperm used to father a child in the event of their death. Its an expression of empathy, trying to identify with their sibling and wanting to perhaps one day have children too, but its still in the realms of fantasy. The fact that sperm has been preserved due to the trans factor is a red herring in that sense. That decision as ive said previously a) was made as a minor (in circumstances that i find slightly ethically disturbing) and b) was about perserving possible fertility and not consenting to have a child.

There are other aspects to this specific case i find concerning but they are not directly relevant to the wider implications of what the mother is proposing in legal and ethical debate so I will park it there.

The focus of all laws relating to the artificial production of children needs to shift from the rights of the people who want a baby to the rights of the babies who are produced. Who in their right mind would create a child whose father is dead? Or whose mother was paid to make them and hand them over to someone else?

I'm going against the grain here but I'm struggling to feel much sympathy for the mother.

The trans thing IS a red herring here, but I think it is contributing to everybody involved being terrified at being seen to Do The Wrong Thing.
It's wokeness gone mental.

I have not heard of any other grieving parent storing her dead child's gametes in the hopes of a further grandchild.

I agree with you. It's all bit weird to say the least.

Who gave consent?

Am I the only person worried about the ethics of the process of how sperm is physically obtained from a child?

This discussion has got me thinking.
My trans child has had their gametes frozen, so my potential grandchildren are sitting there in storage for the permitted 10 years.
Would I want to be able to use them should my child die? All my thinking has been along the lines of the confusion of my child becoming a parent of the "wrong" sex at some future time.
What I have thought about is what happens if the 10 years period comes up and my child hasn't used them -I very much hope my child would donate their gametes so they could give a great gift to someone.
But on balance I do not think it right for me to bring a grandchild into the world in these circumstances.

It's an absolutely horrible situation where there are no winners

What Coco said.
I hope this mother has a lot of real life bereavement support. By which I don’t mean campaigners but actual support for her to work through her loss.

I disagree the trans aspect is a red herring.
I’m not sure how often children at the age of 14 would have had eggs/sperm frozen, but I’m assuming there are very limited circumstances where this happens.
As we know, trans numbers are rising rapidly, and this is therefore turning what is essentially a moral thought experiment into something very tangible, as due specifically to their child being trans, they now could potentially have the means

Heath, I didn't realise, that would be awful! Imagine the MH repurcussions for the surrogate mother/aunt. I feel awful for the mother in this case but hopefully once some time has passed she'll see things differently and not pursue this.
Surely no responsible healthcare provider would agree to it. I've been through IVF with my husband and always the well being of the potential baby produced was the number one consideration. They wouldn't even let us proceed until a minimum of 3 months after my husband quit vaping.