Dead Trans Girl's Sperm Will Be Stored

[Collidascope]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2901fea0-f3b5-11ea-aeed-ec95eac61729?shareToken=e475e57d5e0b12c1f4a19deb8fc0a46a

Oof. I feel for the mother, she must be distraught. I don't however think that gives her the right to try and bring a child into the world whose father is dead at the point of conception and who will be the product of this dead father and "a donor and a surrogate."

I think if we forget the trans angle for a moment, this is a mother asking that sperm from her dead 14-year old son be used to father a child. I don't think this is a good idea for all the obvious reasons.

How unbelievably sad. Reminds me a bit of that case with the pregnant Irish lady who was effectively kept alive for months to have her baby, even though she was brain-dead.

It’s very sad but the future child would just be used as a sticking plaster for the grieving grandmother.

“It’s very sad but the future child would just be used as a sticking plaster for the grieving grandmother.”

Oh, definitely.

I'm uncomfortable with what the process must have been to obtain the sperm from a child.

Is it similar to what it would be for an adult? (Send them into a cubicle with a cup and some well thumbed porn magazines).

@Kit19

The trans thing is a red herring here, it really doesnt matter materially, what matters is should a parent use the eggs or sperm of their dead child to bring another child into the world if that was the express of their child?

Personally I think not and I do think this is a way of the mother chanelling her grief but Ive not had a child die sooooo. I certainly wouldnt want to be the judge!

This must be an all too potential a scenario for parents of children with cancers who may have frozen sperm or even ovaries in the hope of future fertility. There are other conditions where a child may not survive far into adulthood.

I feel for them. I really do. It has happened to a couple of the parents of the children that my children grew up with.

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

@namechange9357

Using a surrogacy arrangement to create a baby with no parents in his or her life would plainly be wrong on multiple levels and I'd hope a court would see that immediately.

It must be very painful for the parents of the child who died to think of the sperm sample being destroyed. Perhaps they might decide to do something different with it, like donate it to a single woman or a lesbian couple in the basis they would play a role as grandparents.

That is a terrible idea. No child should grow up knowing their father is a dead child and that is the reality of what is being proposed here.

I feel desperately sorry for anyone who loses a child - I cannot begin to imagine the devastation - but this is not the way to keep that child's memory alive.

However, if I was the mother of a child who died suddenly and in circumstances that are apparently still not understood, I would hope that my main priority would be finding out why the child died and if the experimental drugs given to the child were a factor.
This reflects my thoughts on the situation Heath - I am so sorry for the parents and maybe they are focussing in this issue as a means of processing the grief but I would also be pushing to get the cause of death established because if there was any chance that the hormone treatment had anything to do with it I’d want urgent action to help prevent that happening to anyone else.

Even if given permission to go ahead I think they'd have a very hard time finding a surrogate who would agree to this!

I always assumed some sort of notice of intent is made by the donor and stored along with the sperm.

Trixie, the child was one of 7 siblings, a few of whom are girls, so I hope they wouldn't feel pressured by their grief into being a surrogate.

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.

@SerenityNowwwww

No grandparents have ‘the right’ to a child. Consider the potential child. Who is this really for?

Seeing as she has six other children, the odds of her becoming a grandmother at some point are high. It's not like this is her only chance to have a grandchild, which makes me suspicious this child is more of a 'replacement' than anything else.

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

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.

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.

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

@TinselAngel

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

It seems the least of the concerns here. Men and boys generally don't have much trouble in getting erections and being able to masturbate.

Who gave consent?

@TinselAngel

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

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

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

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?

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.