Medical Ethics

[relapse98 634]

I don't know of a thread where this is appropriate, so here's one where we can put all medical ethics questions.

Parents of West Point Cadet Fatally Injured in Accident Obtain Order to Preserve His Sperm

Senior cadet at West Point was fatally injured on their ski slope. They put him in the local hospital as a vegetable and before they could harvest his organs for donation, the requested that the hospital harvest and save his sperm. The hospital had never encountered this before so asked the family to get a ruling. They did - and the judge ordered the sperm harvested and stored, at least temporarily, till they can have a full hearing. He is the only male member in that generation in his Chinese family. With him dead, the name dies with him. The parents say he very much wanted to keep the name alive, but alas Peter is dead.

I have some issues with this. Even if Peter wanted kids.. is this something we should allow? It just seems - odd. My personal feelings are that if the sperm hasn't already started the process of becoming a baby by being implanted in an egg at the time of the owners death, then the sperm should probably be allowed to die with them. I may have an exception if they had a partner at the time of death and they had discussed it or something, but I haven't fully thought that part out.

Edited March 7, 2019 by relapse98

[jimmyjazz 45555]

Peter.

[David Dennison 18655]

I think it's fine If everyone consents and knows the deal. There are probably numerous instances where anonymous donors die before their sperm is used to fertilize an egg.

[relapse98 634]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I think it's fine If everyone consents and knows the deal.

Define the everyone and consent.

The sperm donor in this case is a cadaver. I haven't seen anything where anyone outside of the parents knows of his consent, nothing in writing, nothing other than hearsay or lies.

With that in mind, did the cadaver give it's consent?

[TwiceHorn 31269]

Not directly relevant to medical ethics, but how bizarre.  His parents intend to inseminate a surrogate and raise the child in order to preserve their name?  Chinese, man.

[jimmyjazz 45555]

If the patient in question is a registered organ donor, I doubt it's much of a reach.  Perhaps those policies should be clarified to include sperm and eggs, although some would probably opt out of the latter.  Give them the choice?

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

So the guy died, and then they harvested his sperm?  Do they just go to the source or is there some sort of eletro-muscular (I know it is not a muscle) induction for the deposit?

 

 

[David Dennison 18655]

2 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

Define the everyone and consent.

The sperm donor in this case is a cadaver. I haven't seen anything where anyone outside of the parents knows of his consent, nothing in writing, nothing other than hearsay or lies.

With that in mind, did the cadaver give it's consent?

That's why you have a hearing. 

[relapse98 634]

Just now, David Dennison said:

That's why you have a hearing. 

Yah, I got that part. And the judge will decide based on his feelings and probably some ethicists will weight in during the hearing. (I guess the Hospital is the opposing side in the lawsuit, although I don't think they were actually fighting it more than just wanting a ruling on what they should do, so I'd be interested in who is paying for the lawyers and experts on the defense).

What do you think should happen, based on a cadaver not giving it's consent?

[David Dennison 18655]

Just now, relapse98 said:

Yah, I got that part. And the judge will decide based on his feelings and probably some ethicists will weight in during the hearing. (I guess the Hospital is the opposing side in the lawsuit, although I don't think they were actually fighting it more than just wanting a ruling on what they should do, so I'd be interested in who is paying for the lawyers and experts on the defense).

What do you think should happen, based on a cadaver not giving it's consent?

I have no problem with it as long as there enough evidence suggesting he would have been on board. 

[relapse98 634]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

If the patient in question is a registered organ donor, I doubt it's much of a reach.  Perhaps those policies should be clarified to include sperm and eggs, although some would probably opt out of the latter.  Give them the choice?

It appears that right now, there is an ongoing discussion  about testical donation because it "would amount to assisted reproduction in disguise". Google says there may have been a case or two were they were transplanted, but there was a first ever penis and scrotum transplant at Johns Hopkins but they chose not to  do the testicals because "They determined that the sperm-generating tissue would confer the potential for having children with genetic material from the donor". So I think right now they are still deciding the ethics of doing testicles, and therefore also sperm.

[Incredulity 11565]

Who gives a shit?

Drawing a line here seems hubristic to me.

That said I would draw a line at non-family third party actions of this sort.

[52-80 19086]

27 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

So the guy died, and then they harvested his sperm?  Do they just go to the source or is there some sort of eletro-muscular (I know it is not a muscle) induction for the deposit?

 

 

asking for a friend?

[52-80 19086]

and are we assuming "the family" means only the maternal side?  if his dad's still alive, males produce viable sperm their entire life.  why dont he use his sperm if its about family line and such

[Huckleberry 32699]

It's a really good question, but given that the guy is dead he certainly wouldn't be burdened by any potential children. Therefore I do side with the family's wishes in this case and am probably okay with it based on an initial reaction.

If he were still alive but in a vegetative state my answer would change because there is a chance, no matter how small, that he would recover and become legally responsible for any children.

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

Too bad he went to West Point.  Had he gone to Annapolis, we could be making jokes about his semenship. I'll see myself out.

[RomaVicta 29783]

I don't see who it harms.

I also don't much care.

[Huckleberry 32699]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

I don't see who it harms.

I also don't much care.

That's basically why I answered how I did, however it should be noted that any eventual children would be "harmed" in that they would be guaranteed never to know their father. It's a matter of weighing that against the living family's wishes, ability to support any children, etc.

[jimmyjazz 45555]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

That's basically why I answered how I did, however it should be noted that any eventual children would be "harmed" in that they would be guaranteed never to know their father. It's a matter of weighing that against the living family's wishes, ability to support any children, etc.

I'll posit that those children would prefer life over never existing in the first place.

[Incredulity 11565]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I'll posit that those children would prefer life over never existing in the first place.

[GRHorn 105]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'll posit that those children would prefer life over never existing in the first place.

Great point. 

[High Plains Drifter 10976]

 

11 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's a really good question, but given that the guy is dead he certainly wouldn't be burdened by any potential children. Therefore I do side with the family's wishes in this case and am probably okay with it based on an initial reaction.

If he were still alive but in a vegetative state my answer would change because there is a chance, no matter how small, that he would recover and become legally responsible for any children.

Would his estate, if any, be burdened?

[Huckleberry 32699]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'll posit that those children would prefer life over never existing in the first place.

That's a pretty odd thing to say, in addition to being irrelevant. They can't prefer to be alive until they're alive. Do you feel like you've let down every sperm you've ever ejaculated for non-reproductive purposes?

[Huckleberry 32699]

5 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Would his estate, if any, be burdened?

I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that his parents who are making this decision are the ones who are responsible for his estate.

[GRHorn 105]

I have no strong feelings either way, but I hope they didn’t damage viable organs waiting for the sperm to be collected. Also, who do they think they’re gonna get to impregnate with their dead son’s sperm to maintain the family name?

[relapse98 634]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Also, who do they think they’re gonna get to impregnate with their dead son’s sperm to maintain the family name?

Well that one's an easy hit.

They're chinese. There's 3/4 of a billion chinese women. I bet one of them could be paid.

[Incredulity 11565]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I have no strong feelings either way, but I hope they didn’t damage viable organs waiting for the sperm to be collected. Also, who do they think they’re gonna get to impregnate with their dead son’s sperm to maintain the family name?

money talks.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

You going for the reckless abandonment plea ?

 

I see no issue. He's a donor, what he doesn't know ain't gonna hurt him now anyway.

[jimmyjazz 45555]

15 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That's a pretty odd thing to say, in addition to being irrelevant. They can't prefer to be alive until they're alive. Do you feel like you've let down every sperm you've ever ejaculated for non-reproductive purposes?

I don't think it's odd at all.  You're talking about the harm inflicted on children who will never know their dad.  I don't think that harm is insignificant -- I think it's something most would accept over the alternative, which is not ever being born.

You're correct in your angle that we would never have to worry about that harm should those children be precluded from fertilization and birth.  We could also cure all diseases say 100 years in the future by sterilizing everyone.

Edited March 7, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[WhatTheBuck 28710]

The article doesn't mention a wife or girlfriend. I wonder how they'll go about finding a woman to bear a fatherless child sired by a man she never knew. Or how they plan to ensure a male child to carry on the family name. 

I'd say the deceased should have put it in writing first. If he didn't then no one should have the right to harvest and use his sperm. Sorry about your luck. 

[Incredulity 11565]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The article doesn't mention a wife or girlfriend. I wonder how they'll go about finding a woman to bear a fatherless child sired by a man she never knew. Or how they plan to ensure a male child to carry on the family name. 

I'd say the deceased should have put it in writing first. If he didn't then no one should have the right to harvest and use his sperm. Sorry about your luck. 

Put it in writing isn't really an impediment. I doubt any medical professional/organization would go far beyond a extremely basic analysis of a document.

[Asithappens 974]

2 hours ago, relapse98 said:

 

I have some issues with this. Even if Peter wanted kids.. is this something we should allow? It just seems - odd. My personal feelings are that if the sperm hasn't already started the process of becoming a baby by being implanted in an egg at the time of the owners death, then the sperm should probably be allowed to die with them. I may have an exception if they had a partner at the time of death and they had discussed it or something, but I haven't fully thought that part out.

No, we shouldn't allow it. This is just some bat-shite parents at work. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Put it in writing isn't really an impediment. I doubt any medical professional/organization would go far beyond a extremely basic analysis of a document.

I think what he means is that the decedent should express his own intention in some tangible form, rather than have family speak for his intentions, which is kind of a hazy, hazardous business.

[Asithappens 974]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think what he means is that the decedent should express his own intention in some tangible form, rather than have family speak for his intentions, which is kind of a hazy, hazardous business.

It might be too late, but the dead guy really, really wanted me to have his car, about 20,000 in cash, and his favorite pokeman card.

[Horn Dog 9671]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

 Do you feel like you've let down every sperm you've ever ejaculated for non-reproductive purposes?

I cry everytime I jerk off for this very reason.

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

That's a pretty odd thing to say, in addition to being irrelevant. They can't prefer to be alive until they're alive. Do you feel like you've let down every sperm you've ever ejaculated for non-reproductive purposes?