Embryo Harvesting and Freezing/Genetic Manipulation is valuable, because it allows a family to be conceived even after the loss of the father. The father of the children may fall ill of a life-threatening disease or be injured, which means that reserving sperm posthumously allows for the continuation of the father’s line. In addition, the insemination of the mother posthumously will fulfil the wishes of the couple to have a child together (Ahluwalia & Arora, 2011). The autonomy of the couple needs to be respected, because they have chosen to create a family. This means that it should not matter if the child is conceived after the death of the father.
Respecting the couple’s wishes is no different from putting the patient first and supporting their autonomy (Bahadur, 2002). Consequently, if the father has given authorization for frozen sperm to be used after his death then this should be respected, because this is his wish and desire (Bahadur, 2002). Modern technology has created an opportunity that once never existed, which is the perpetuation of genetics and the family name. In the case of the man who has cancer and allows his sperm to be collected, in order to have a family with his wife/designated partner, is an opportunity that once did not exist and has legal support. It does not make sense that this family cannot be created, just because he dies.
Creating a family, in life of death, is the decision of the mother and father, which means that it is essential that the law recognize this. The right for posthumous insemination is legitimate, nevertheless the child does not have the benefit of being considered the child of the father due to posthumous insemination (Beeler v. Astrue 641 F.3d 49 (4th Cir. 2011)). Ethics of autonomy requires that the child be recognised, as his /her father’s descendent, because this is what the father wished in allowing posthumous insemination.
- Ahluwalia, U & Arora, M. (2011) Posthumous Reproduction and Its Legal Perspective. International Journal of Fertility and Fetal Medicine Vol. 2 Iss. 1, 9-14
- Bahadur, G. (2002). Death and Conception. Human Reproduction vol 17 iss. 10, 2769-2775
- Beeler v. Astrue 641 F.3d 49 (4th Cir. 2011)
