Who owns a dead women's eggs
Just hours after her life support system was switched off, the woman’s husband asked for it to be turned back on to allow for collection of her eggs. His reason: to use IVF to create a child.
What is the appropriate thing to do here? We have the technology to do this and create a child, so why not? The ethical consensus at the time was to deny the father his wish, mostly, it seems, because of the lack of consent from the dead spouse. This implies that if there had been agreement between the husband and wife before her death to allow egg collection the medical team may have granted his wish.
Yuk factor
I tend to agree with the medical team in this instance, first because there was that lack of consent, but also because of that creeping yuk factor that I have mentioned in previous posts. This is the factor that means intuitively I think it is wrong, but I can’t explain why. I have this position, of course, without having any first hand experience of what the husband above is going through.
There has been some interesting commentary on this case, but the problem I see is that courts have allowed sperm from dead husbands to be collected for insemination. In fact children have been born from dead man’s sperm. Born from a dead man’s sperm, Bruce Springstein – ah, no more yuk factor emerging… In some, if not most cases, this has been without the dead husband’s consent. So what is the difference between eggs and sperm?
See commentary
American Journal of Bioethics blog
An Aussie perspective
There was an Australian (QLD) case a few years ago which went against the woman seeking permission to retrieve a dead fiance’s sperm. The judge ruled there was no precedent for ruling in favour of the woman. In Queensland, it is a criminal offence to “interfere with the body of a dead person without lawful justification” and “lawful justification” requires consent prior to death for “specific use of body tissue”.
Merle Sprigg, an ethicist at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute comments on this case and ultimately argues that from an ethical perspective there should be no cause to refuse a woman the right to retrieve a dead partner’s sperm. She suggested the legal position in this case was based on strict and predictable precedents and rooted in outdated values and ethical standards.
Other related articles here
This case is the exception for the male gametes as there are plenty of cases where the woman has successfully got hold of their partner’s sperm. All of this makes my yuk factor reasoning, and especially from lack of consent reasoning, seem a bit lame, as by all reasonable pondering if all parties (apart from the dead one) are happy and nobody is harmed, society itself is not diminished in any way, then why my inability to capitulate in favour of the living? I am prepared to drop my lack of consent argument, but the the yuk factor lingers. Why, I can’t answer that. It is how it is.
I do however like John Harris’ rationale about why a dead man’s sperm should have fewer ethical complications. This is from the Merle Spriggs article linked above:
John Harris describes concern for the destiny of male gametes as an ‘‘overly precious attitude’’ not ‘‘reflected in custom or practice’’ given that ‘‘men are notorious for leaving their gametes behind in all sorts of places, some of which may well result in the creation of life’’. And, they ‘‘almost always’’ do this without ‘‘counselling, formal consent, and time for reflection, and usually without missing them…’’.
Men, whoda thought.
I guess it is harder for women to leave their gametes behind, consciously or otherwise. So on Harris’ rationale maybe eggs should receive greater ethical/legal scrutiny?
More info
The case for the request for the dead woman’s eggs was reported in the New England Journal Medicine, 15 July 2010, Vol 363 (3)
News article from Fierce Healthcare
More ethics in the Journal of Medical Ethics