When Nikolas Evans unexpectedly died in a fight, he left behind a mother and a spoken desire to have children. In the past, this event would simply be tragic. Now, however, because of modern technology, the situation has become ethically complicated. Evans' mother has a new option that she has chosen to use: harvesting her dead son's sperm and using it to fulfill his wish of having a child. The ethical issues here are profound, ranging from whether Nikolas would have wanted to have a child posthumously to the lack of time available for the grieving mother to reconsider her choice: sperm must be collected from the dead body soon after the passing of the future father.
However, the issue that struck me most was one brought up by Tom Mayo, director of Southern Methodist University's Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility. "That child's biological father will be dead. The mother may be an egg donor, anonymous or gestational surrogate...This is a tough way for a kid to come into the world. As the details emerge and the child learns more about their origins, I just wonder what the impact will be on a replacement child."
Is this a legitimate ethical issue to raise? Can we really decide whether or not to bring a child into the world on the basis of speculation about what his life will be like? On the one hand, it seems wrong to bring a child into the world unnaturally when it is entirely possible that the child's life will not be optimal. On the other hand, it seems paternalistic to make a decision as large as whether or not another human being should exist based on one's own personal views about the potential of their future life. Should we really assess the quality of a future child's life every time somebody wants to conceive a child through nontraditional means?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090411/D97G8FD00.html
3 comments:
This case is crazy, that’s pretty much all I have to say about it but I’ll go on any way. First, I’d most certainly challenge the mother’s state of mind. It’s a bizarre request. I guess it may just seem that way because advancements in technology have made it possible for people to now go against the norm in ways that they weren’t before able, but still, to me this seems a little off, a reflection of emotional instability. Reactions like mine are to be expected as new social scenarios are introduced and new precedents and tested and set.
Due to my gut reaction I think it would be prudent, given the “uncharted waters,” that the mother’s ability to make such a decision be evaluated by a psychiatrist or some else whose capable of making that kind of a distinction. If she is found to be thinking soundly it would make things interesting. Legally I believe it would be acceptable form the mother to have a surrogate mother raise a child for her using sperm from an anonymous donor. That being granted, my question is, what is the distinction between using sperm from anonymous man and using sperm from her son, especially considering that the anonymous man could have died since making his donation? And if no clear distinction can be made what legally would bar the mother from using following through using her son’s sperm in this way? It seems as though she might have the legal right to follow through with her proposed plan.
Second, I thinking the counter presented in the blog, which says that this may cause harm to the status of the future children, is a legitimate and valid one that should be considered and worried about. And Third, I’m stuck in the position of contradicting the point that I just supported, because I of course believe that we should not start making assumptions and subjective relative judgments about the future quality of a person’s life.
Finally I think the weight of the Nikolas’ desire to have children should be readdressed. I think it can be assumed that his desire was not to “have children.” His desire was to be a father, to have a family. This redefined definition of “desire” cannot be attained once he dies, and therefore no longer carries weight. Additionally we have no way of knowing what Nikolas’ desire is when it comes to having posthumous children. If in fact it where the case that he believed that having children posthumously is wrong, then what his mother is doing would actually be going against his wishes instead of fulfilling them.
Just because a person wished for something, however strongly, no one is obligated to fulfill that wish if that person died.
I agree with Brody that Nikolas's "spoken desire to have children" is invalid after his death. Nikolas's mother's misinterpretation of his son's desire could most likely result from a mother's own desire to do what she can for her deceived son.
Even if Nikolas's desire was in accordance to his mother's interpretation, he is no longer alive to give consent to use his sperms to produce a new life through artificial insemination or any other technology. Desire does not equate to consent. If a person desires death, he or she is not giving consent for another to kill him or herself.
I also found the question raised thought-provoking: about whether one should decide to bring a life into the world based upon speculations of the future of this life. A child, conceived through technological intervention, will hold the same autonomous rights as another child who was conceived naturally. Although I think we definitely should consider the potential quality of the child's life, we cannot deny these lives to exist based upon speculations. If we do, then we would also be able to deny lives that are conceived naturally to exist.
Post a Comment