[Thorgrum]

Source: http://news.yahoo.co.../dead_son_sperm

Quote

Texas judge allows collection of dead son's sperm
1 hr 26 mins ago
AUSTIN, Texas – A judge has granted a mother's request to have someone harvest sperm from her dead son's body, so she can have the option of carrying out his wish to have children.

Nikolas Colton Evans, 21, died Sunday at a Brackenridge hospital after being punched and falling outside an Austin bar March 27.

His mother, Marissa Evans, told the Austin American-Statesman newspaper that he wanted to have three sons someday and had even picked out their names: Hunter, Tod and Van.

"I want him to live on. I want to keep a piece of him," she told the newspaper.

Travis County Probate Judge Guy Herman ruled Monday in an emergency hearing requested by the mother, because of the urgency of collecting the sperm intact.

Court documents said the sperm had to be collected within 24 hours of Nikolas Evans being removed from life support unless the body was cooled to no more than 39.2 degrees.

Herman ordered the county medical examiner's office to continue storing the body at the proper temperature until the sperm could be collected.

Other organs and tissues were already going to be harvested from Evans' body, the judge noted, and there would be no other remedy for the mother if time expired.

Evans and her attorneys were trying on Tuesday to find a urologist or other medical professional willing to collect the sperm for a possible surrogate pregnancy in the future.

University of Texas law professor John Robertson, who specializes in bioethics, said state law gives parents control over a child's body for organ and tissue donations but its use for sperm "is very unclear."

"There are no strong precedents in favor of a parent being able to request post-mortem sperm retrieval," he said.

No arrests have been made in the assault on Nikolas Evans. Investigators said Evans hit his head on the ground after he was punched during an argument with a group of men.

___

Information from Austin American-Statesman:

http://www.statesman.com

___

Information from: Austin American-Statesman, http://www.statesman.com

I'm posting this to garnish peoples views on this, specificly the aspect of the parents needing to go through the courts at all to obtain an emergency hearing on the matter. The article dosent specify but if the deceased has made provisions in a will to have thier organs and sperm cultivated upon thier death should that be a service provided by the hospital and then charged to the insurance company and or the parents?

Also, if specified in the will should the parents then be allowed to dispose of the material for thier economic gain? Essentially I see this as a potential slippery slope, the parents or a girlfriend or a wife could donate or sell the sperm to a reproduction center for economic gain.

I personally dont have a problem with that if its been so designated in a persons will, but I havent come accross much in the way of this anyway. Is my scenario to much of a leap? I'd like to hear constructive thoughts on it.

thanks!

This post has been edited by Thorgrum: 08 April 2009 - 05:25 AM

[SilverHawk]

For what? 50 Dollars? I think the only logical matter involved the collect of sperm/egg from a deceased loved one is the attempt at having children with said person's DNA through a proxy.

[Thorgrum]

SilverHawk, on Apr 8 2009, 02:00 PM, said:

For what? 50 Dollars? I think the only logical matter involved the collect of sperm/egg from a deceased loved one is the attempt at having children with said person's DNA through a proxy.

Yes but a court ruling allowing someone to "collect" sperm or an organ devoid of a will (at least one wasnt mentioned in the article) starts the slope process. My questions werent necessarily geared toward the selling of sperm but rather the ability of the courts to allow loved ones to go back and collect bodily parts and or fluids for a future use.

I'll leave the ethical questions aside, but one of the hats I wore in my professional life was financial planning. I've never has an instance when reviewing documents of having a -harvest- plan (for lack of a better term) for the deceased's body parts. This could be a wonderful economic boon for those who desire to perpetuate thier wealth to family. The potential liberalization of health care might allow the deceased to provide for thier families the ability to sell thier organs and or sperm to hospitals or medical institutes for research or whatever.

So the slope is potentially there, particularly when a court makes a ruling like this it sets a precedent to be used later on as a basis for case law.

How much do you think a dying man would pay for a healthy 23 year old liver? I could make a decent fee off of additional projected future income off of the sale of the deads body parts :lol: I'll call it the "frankenstein clause" to the finanical plan. lol

[Lamuella]

I have no idea how you got from "parents want to be able to have grandchildren one day" to "parents want to sell off their dead son's liver". I don't see the path at all.

The only difference between this and the son having made a donation to a sperm bank is that this is happening after the fact.

[Thorgrum]

Lamuella, on Apr 8 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

I have no idea how you got from "parents want to be able to have grandchildren one day" to "parents want to sell off their dead son's liver". I don't see the path at all.

The path is simple, a court ruling allowing the parents to have anything off an adult child's body, in the absence of a legal will that enables that to occur by default sets a legal precedent.

All my sarcasm aside what we have is a court has allowed private individuals to have organic material from a deceased body with no more then a supposition that the deceased wanted his organs used anyway, and a parents grief which to my knowledge isnt covered in law, at least not its application.

Thats the path B)

This post has been edited by Thorgrum: 08 April 2009 - 08:24 AM

[Lamuella]

Thorgrum, on Apr 8 2009, 10:28 AM, said:

The path is simple, a court ruling allowing the parents to have anything off an adult child's body, in the absence of a legal will that enables that to occur by default sets a legal precedent.

All my sarcasm aside what we have is a court has allowed private individuals to have organic material from a deceased body with no more then a supposition that the deceased wanted his organs used anyway, and a parents grief which to my knowledge isnt covered in law, at least not its application.

Thats the path B)

were his parents his next of kin?

If so, they would be making any decisions about organ donation anyway.

I agree that this is a little stranger than, for example, the Diane Blood case, but it's not that much of a stretch, and certainly doesn't go anywhere near commercial sale

[Thorgrum]

Lamuella, on Apr 8 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

were his parents his next of kin?

If so, they would be making any decisions about organ donation anyway.

I agree that this is a little stranger than, for example, the Diane Blood case, but it's not that much of a stretch, and certainly doesn't go anywhere near commercial sale

Fair point on the next of kin issue, the article didnt specify.

And yes i am stretching but legal precedent is legal precedent. If this were challenged and upheld then someone could go back and take organs for any use not governed by other laws.

Small cases like these are often the catalyst for larger issues that impact social morals, I see that in this case in multiple possible avenues.

Anyway, it struck me as odd so I wanted to see what others thought, thanks for the back and forth I appreciate it.

[El Pilchinator]

uhhhh okay.

i mean i guess if they're next of kin then this request isnt that weird

[Tolkien]

I don't find this odd at all. They are his next of kin, and they already have the legal power to do this.

[Thorgrum]

Tolkien, on Apr 8 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

I don't find this odd at all. They are his next of kin, and they already have the legal power to do this.

Well if they did already have legal power to do it, why was a court involved? (part of what I find odd after considering the "next of kin" point).

A court made a ruling thats what got my intrest piqued, ive got no problem with the practice at all and to be honest im fairly libertarian so if they can somehow sell the kids liver to science and make 10k power to them. Just dont recall seeing courts issuing orders to allow someone the right to go and extract something from a corpse. (other then autopsy for a crime investigation) Perhaps I need to read more.

This post has been edited by Thorgrum: 08 April 2009 - 08:59 AM

[Lamuella]

Thorgrum, on Apr 8 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

Fair point on the next of kin issue, the article didnt specify.

And yes i am stretching but legal precedent is legal precedent. If this were challenged and upheld then someone could go back and take organs for any use not governed by other laws.

Small cases like these are often the catalyst for larger issues that impact social morals, I see that in this case in multiple possible avenues.

Anyway, it struck me as odd so I wanted to see what others thought, thanks for the back and forth I appreciate it.

you might have a point, except that the National Organ Transplant Act already makes it illegal to sell human organs in the US.

[Lamuella]

Thorgrum, on Apr 8 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

Well if they did already have legal power to do it, why was a court involved? (part of what I find odd after considering the "next of kin" point).

A court made a ruling thats what got my intrest piqued, ive got no problem with the practice at all and to be honest im fairly libertarian so if they can somehow sell the kids liver to science and make 10k power to them. Just dont recall seeing courts issuing orders to allow someone the right to go and extract something from a corpse. (other then autopsy for a crime investigation) Perhaps I need to read more.

the court order was, presumably, because it wasn't explicitly spelled out in the will, and because this wasn't a case of a transplanted organ but harvesting semen.

[Thorgrum]

Lamuella, on Apr 8 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

you might have a point, except that the National Organ Transplant Act already makes it illegal to sell human organs in the US.

Im glad I posted then because I was unaware that there was an actual "act" in place that addresses this. This would trump my premise and therefore discussion on the "slope" point i made is fairly moot. On the other hand, if this "act" makes it illegal for individuals to allow thier organs to be sold after they are deceased im pretty certain there would be a constitutional argument against that (Perhaps one of the more fluent in the constitution could chime in).

Im going to lunch and when I get back i'll do a search on this act (maybe i should have before posting eh? ) and see what it says specifically.

Again, thanks for the back and forth.

[shoe the fifth]

I'm going to say that the first time skimming the article, it really seemed like the mother was going to use the sperm.

then I read it a bit more closely.

other than that there is no big deal from this.

[Lord GVChamp]

Seems to be kosher to me.

[deja]

heh

Dude died from being punched and "falling down"?

Man... why let that guy procreate?!?! Have the got shot 4 times and still took down the perp reproducing.

[Kenadian_2006]

deja, on Apr 8 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

heh

Dude died from being punched and "falling down"?

Man... why let that guy procreate?!?! Have the got shot 4 times and still took down the perp reproducing.

Not sure if my sarcasm meter is broken, I honestly can't tell.

[edikroma]

Kenadian_2006, on Apr 8 2009, 12:30 PM, said:

Not sure if my sarcasm meter is broken, I honestly can't tell.

Same here. Also, I can't tell what exactly "Have the got shot 4 times and still took down the perp reproducing." means.

[-Wolverine-]

I don't see an issue with it.

However, that will be an awkward conversation "you father died long before you were even conceived".

[Sunake]

What?