Toowoomba woman wins court bid to use her dead boyfriend's sperm to have a baby - Sensationalist Headlines

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-20/court-ayla-cresswell-use-dead-boyfriend-sperm-to-have-baby/9889068 Ayla Cresswell's partner Joshua Davies died suddenly in August 2016, and within hours the court granted permission for his sperm to be harvested. The court heard Ms Cresswell and Mr Davies were in a relationship for three years, were saving for a house and planning to get married and have a family. The court made the orders subject to a number of conditions, including that Ms Cresswell was the only person who had a relevant interest in the sperm and the practitioners who removed the sperm did so for her benefit. The court further decided the sperm was capable of being deemed "property" and that Ms Cresswell was entitled to permanent possession of it. It's quite awful given this sets a precedent for future cases and no form of consent was necessary for the harvesting of his sperm, not only that but it was also considered property that can be taken possession of by another party. I see a lot of ethical issues with this especially with parental rights. "Yeah, he probably would have wanted me to have his balls." *Judge nods in agreement.*

I dont think its quite that bad. The main reason I would not want to have kids with somebody is because it would be a huge responsibility, a money sink, and it could ruin my life. But if Im dead, none of those things are relevant to me anymore. Why the hell would I care, Im already dead. If you want a piece of my DNA over my dead body, come and get it.

I don't quite see the problem with this as long as this precedent isn't used for alive people.

The problem lies with there being no consent given written or otherwise by the dead person to have his sperm harvested, you shouldn't lose your ability to determine if you will have kids or who has your kids simply because you're dead. I have no problem if consent was given before he died however that is not the case here.

I don't have that much of a problem with this. They were dating and all and presumably were planning for a family, so this way that legacy can carry on despite the sadness of the boyfriend's death. Her kid will still be "their" kid.

Presumably they were however that doesn't it make it OK. Perhaps in the end he didn't want to have children with his girlfriend, felt trapped, and committed suicide (not completely inconceivable given he had a history of depression). It's not the greatest example but the point is that you can't know of sure what he wishes have being towards the end and his ability of self-determining who has his kids shouldn't be removed simply because he's dead.

I feel like this is a good thing because it can help in cases where the couple really wants to have kids but one of them dies too soon, like the one in the article. I mean, if you dont want this to happen to you or it offends your religious beliefs, just leave a note saying you dont allow it and I guarantee no court will allow it. It seems that in every concievable cases where this could be really misused, the only person that knows that that something would potentally be not okay with it is the dead man itself. And hes dead.

You could make the same argument for determining what happens to a persons property after he/she dies, let the bank/government take it because in the end the only person that could care is dead. I agree it would be a great thing for couples when one of them dies however it doesn't make it OK if no consent was given.

This might be my paranoia talking but I'm worried that this could escalate into claiming ownership (and then IP ownership) over some dead person's genome. For this particular case its seems innocuous enough, but depending upon the legal language used I'm worried this could be justified as some sort of precedent for larger cases. I guess the next closest example would be Henrietta Lacks, whose been dead since the 50s yet her cells were donated to science for decades (and still going) of cancer research due to immortal cancer cells. So keeping ownership to non-profit ventures seems to be the real deciding factor if this is to be allowed in the future.

That's dedication. Give her a metal.

Great since dead people can't pay child pension

https://www.mariowiki.com/images/1/11/BrawlMetalBoxArtwork.jpg ???

I fail to see the big deal here, there's no way this would be applied to other cases, especially if the person was still alive. I assume the court saw enough to be convinced that they were going to have kids, so it seems like a nice gesture to appeal to somebody that is emotionally devastated and wants to continue making their relationship meaningful.

I hadn't considered that, I can totally see this being used as precedent in a test case in the future for allowing corporations to own a persons DNA. Of course it depends on the legal language used but another concern would be relatives who are tempted to sell your DNA to a corporation after you've died.

I completely understand the consent argument and agree with it fully, if no consent was given, then this does set a dangerous and incredibly weird precedent, but just to be clear, was he an organ donor? It doesn't say whether or not he was in the article, at least from what I can tell as I'm admittedly kind of skimming it, but if he was that would explain how the court agreed to this so quickly. That said, though, I suppose being an organ donor would be considered consent and the article says no consent was given.

The article doesn't say if he was an organ donor although the problem with that is there is no distinction between donating your organs to someone else and whether a person can be impregnated with your sperm without your consent. For many I can see this being two different issues, parental/reproductive rights vs organ donation.

He didn't consent directly to this but they did have plans to have a family, and his family gave their blessing. It's a tough one. Both sides have merit, I think.

You definitely could not make the same argument because we have a myriad of laws dictating what happens to property after owner's death, not to mention that's something that affects the living, not the dead. You literally lose your ability to self-determine because you die and no longer exist as a person. No one "takes that right away" by not speculating what you might want after your death. Grave robbing is also a false comparison. Grave robbing is considered immoral, but the underlying reason it's forbidden is not because it bothers the dead, but because it causes measurable harm to the living, in the form of property damage, emotional disturbance and disease to name a few. What I'm saying is that the benefit of the living should win over the benefit of the dead should those come to face

Yes, it would be taken away. If your wishes are being ignored for how your property or your body should be handled after you've died then your ability to self-determine is being taken away. You are self determining what happens to your property (who receives what) and what happens to your body (does it get donated to science or organs harvested and given to someone who needs them?) after you've died. Grave robbing is a fine example, you are taking something from the dead that they do not wish for you to have whether that be their organs, belongings, or other. The benefit of the living is a shitty argument on it's own. Perhaps a person doesn't want to have kids and as such doesn't want their sperm to be used to impregnate someone, just because they're dead doesn't mean their wishes should be ignored. Might as well raid every dead persons body for organs, fuck their wishes because it benefits the living?

I mean they were planning to have a family and he didn't make an advance directive to not let her do what she wanted with his body, so I don't see a problem.

That's gonna make for one hell of a story when that kid grows up. "My father was a dead man."

While I don't agree that dead people are capable of forming opinions or should have the same rights as the living, you shouldn't confuse these two scenarios: A deceased person's staten, written or implied will is being ignored. Since you know what it is, ignoring it is kind of shitty and regarding property has legal consequences. That's talking about the will the person had, not what they have. There is no will left behind. You could speculate endlessly what the person would've wanted, but you're no more likely to be right than wrong when blindly guessing. What if this person would've wanted the most to have children? What if he didn't, what harm does that cause? I don't think you realise how death works. The dead don't "wish" things. Even if they did that would be entirely inconsequential since they're not coming back to enforce their desires. The living wish for graves not to be disturbed because it harms them, as I said. Why is the benefit of the living shitty argument? What is there shitty about putting the needs of those people who have needs, before those will never care about or need anything ever again? You seem so afraid of "government owning your body" but that's how it works normally. Unless your will states something else be done with your body (and the government permits it) you'll end up in a government owned grave they're contractually obligated to keep up for X years after which the grave will be re-used. Your vision regarding the rights of the dead is very rosy tinted. Yea I think we should raid every dead person's body for organs (unless they opt out of that while living) since that would save countless lives while causing no harm to anyone.

If he was in a coma she would of been responsible for his life, once hes dead allowing a spouse to have control over your sperm/eggs isn't a big deal. It seems like this should be a right for spouses, if you don't want your SO harvesting your eggs/sperm just tell them and if you don't trust them then that is a bigger issue and one that you deal with when you're alive, should you /would you stay with someone who you thought would harvest your sperm if you died even if you told them not to?

Dead are objects with sentimental value and therefore they themselves are property. Problem solved As for divorces? No-fault divorces should be deleted anyway I'm all for grinding up anything dead and using it as fertilizer anyway. Conserves space, helps environment and agriculture

Much like taxes not even death can save you from paying child support.