Is posthumous semen retrieval ethically permissible?

Viable sperm can be recently recovered from dying people and corpses. This sperm can be frozen for later use by his wife or partner to produce his genetic grandchild. However, technological feasibility alone can not prove ethically that this approach is correct. Semen retrieval after death poses questions about consent, respect for corpses, and welfare of children.

As long as we present two cases, discuss these three issues, and there is no convincing evidence that the deceased wishes to carry his intention to have children, these requirements are usually I concluded that I will not be respected. Even if consent is obtained, the welfare of potential children should be considered

In the case report above, one of the main questions posed by death, PVS, or sperm collection request after coma is that it is morally necessary to do such a request without the prior explicit consent of the person himself / herself It is reasonable. Clear consent is patient written consent or verbal agreement and is recorded by health care provider. In the case of Diane and Stephen Blood, there were some discussions on this issue. In 1996, Mr. Xue was diagnosed as meningitis and died within 4 days. When he was in a coma before he died, the doctor took out two sperm samples according to his request. When speaking with his wife before sickness, Xue is said to have approved the idea of ​​using his sperm to fertilize her after death (Blyth and Cameron, 1998; Blood, 1998). In discussing this case, some critics argued that an explicit prior consent was required for recovery, storage and use of autopsy sperm.

Ethics of sperm collection after death: ethics of sperm recovery after death or sustained nutritional status

Obtaining from an incompetent donor would be wrong if effective consent is the necessary condition to gain ethically-approved organs from life. However, it is not clear not only where people can provide it, but also why consent is a necessary condition in all situations. Several arguments have been proposed to enable searches from incompetent people. Utilitarian debate seems to allow search because donor's loss is lower than recipient's income. But on the surface, this argument will also support the adoption of competent personnel. In some situations, this person sometimes wants to make a donation, so in other cases we use the idea of ​​a nearby alternative judgment to judge the incompetence of the patient. However, if this person is not so and has never been done so far, the replaced sentence is misused (Buchanan and Brock 1990).