Science and Technology Committee - Extracting sperm from a comatose man

Extracting sperm from a comatose man

A man is badly injured and goes into a coma. He and his wife had previously let it be widely known that they wished to have a child. Doctors believe he has a good chance of recovery but the woman wishes to take sperm samples from him as there is a danger that his medical care will cause his infertility . Although there is no written consent to the taking or storage of the sperm, the woman says she will only use the sperm for IVF if he consents following recovery. Unfortunately, he does not recover but the woman now wishes to use the sperm for IVF. Should she be allowed to?

Legal status: In common law, gametes may be recovered from someone who is unconscious and hence incapable of giving consent if it judged to be in their best interests for this to happen. However, storage of sperm without written consent is unlawful under HFE Act. A review of this provision in 1997 proposed that the HFEA should be given power to authorise storage of gametes until an incompetent patient, who is undergoing treatment that may render them infertile, recovers and is able to make a decision personally. It is now possible for men whose sperm is used posthumously to be registered as the legal father of a resultant child (Human Fertilisation & Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Act 2003. However, the requirement for written consent is maintained, except in respect of several cases which occurred between the coming into effect of the HFE Act in 1991 and the Act of 2003, where the question of written consent is specifically dispensed with.

Scientific status: Technology currently available

Links:
http://www.newsrelease-archive.net/coi/depts/GDH/coi8851e.ok

Postumous use of sperm

posted 28/01/2004 - 11:12 by Richard Fleming

In this context, the sperm was obtained without consent from the man, which is an abuse; and in the end it was obtained under false pretences.

Consent

posted 16/02/2004 - 12:48 by Martin Foley

At the moment the Human Tissue Bill is making its way through Parliament. This Bill, a response to the Alder Hey and Bristol scandals emphasises the importance of consent when organs and tissues are taken from patients.

Consent requirements are no less important when it comes to the new reproductive technologies. In this scenario, the man has not given his consent to becoming a father, therefore his sperm should not be used. We cannot pick and choose when patient consent will be respected.

consent and confidentiality

posted 28/01/2004 - 17:27 by pmbc2

If the woman feels she can raise the child and it was clear that the man wished to become a father then she should be allowed to use the sperm.

Posthumous conception

posted 01/02/2004 - 23:11 by Josephine Quint...

I think the issues of consent should be respected to the letter, but I am much more concerned for the rights of children.
The law also states that the welfare of the child, including its need for a father, is to be considered. Should children be conceived after the death of a parent? Is this what we mean by fatherhood?

Message from the committee secretariat

posted 09/02/2004 - 11:38 by robertsa

An issue here is that the man probably would have given consent if he had had the chance. Is that good enough?

On the fatherhood issue, could some research help here? Would it make a difference if it could be shown that children raised without fathers are not harmed as a result?

By trying to prevent this, is the state not in danger of trying to make judgements about who make good parents and who do not? If the decesaed father had had a history of violence, or was even a sex offender, could you argue that the child would be better off without him?

posthumous conception in law

posted 10/02/2004 - 04:52 by sarah franklin

dear secritariat,

In the description of this scenario it appears to be stated that in 2003 the question of written consent is specifically dispensed with by an amendment to the HFEA? Could this amendment be provided as a quick link?

sarah franklin

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Act 20

posted 10/02/2004 - 16:05 by robertsa

The legislation referred to was passed largely as a result of the Diane Blood case.

The Act can be found here http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030024.htm

here is a news article with some background

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/3252436.stm

Neglect

posted 12/02/2004 - 19:25 by Fiona

Isn't being physically present a prerequisite of caring for children? Isn't absence, in principle, the same as parental neglect?

Who makes good parents?

posted 17/02/2004 - 14:14 by Danielle

There appears to be an assumption here that it would be inherently wrong for the state to make judgments about who make good parents and who do not. Doesn't this already happen when considering whether people are suitable to become adoptive parents? If, as in the case of adoption and in scenarios such as this one, the state plays a major role in enabling parenthood, maybe it should take some responsibility for its actions by checking that it is acting, in the individual circumstances of each case, in the best interests of both child and parent?

Assuming consent in the absence of evidence

posted 09/03/2004 - 01:53 by Dr Neville Cobbe

In this scenario, one simply cannot prove that consent has been given in the absence of either written evidence or personal testimony from the husband. Furthermore, the fact that the wife claims one thing when her husband enters a coma and another when he fails to recover should therefore throw doubt on her original testimony about her husband’s wishes.

Turning this around, it is clear from other discussions that there is a distinct shortage of human eggs for both fertility treatment and experiments involving cloning by nuclear transfer. Therefore, if it can be claimed that proof of consent is not required to take sperm samples from a comatose man, would this not also permit the removal of eggs from a comatose woman without her consent? I think it is worth questioning what other motives might lie behind any moves to relax the consent requirements...