Las Vegas Review Journal Sunday April 12, 2009 From Associated Press Reporter Jamie Stengle
“Ethical doubts abound in case, mother harvests dead son’s sperm wants to raise child.”
Is this a case for the mother to visit a therapist or a new ethical dilemma? Either way the article points out that the technology is available to accomplish the task. Basically we have a young man whose life ceased at the age of 21 and the mother is allegedly fulfilling her sons request to father a child. The son was unmarried and the whole debate stems from the mother wanting this request fulfilled and for her to raise the child as her own son. “Missy Evans, the mother in question, has harvested the dead son’s sperm and hopes to find a surrogate ..” Missy claims this is what her son would have wanted ??????????
Tom Mayo, director of Southern Methodist University’s McGuire Center for Ethics and Responsibility says, “This is a tough way for a child to come into the world.”
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Wow, Bob! What a conundrum . . . I've a number of reactions and thoughts going through my head, too many for a post. I tend to be one of those who considers these situations from all sides and am slow to judge, so I have more questions than answers.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Tom Mayo's statement, "This is a tough way for a child to come into the world" brings to mind something I've been thinking about for the past several weeks and for which I thought about writing a post: how we think about children. I find so often that the only voice I hear for children's rights relate to unborn children. Many in our country and in the world still seem to view children in a dismissive way and without rights. In this situation, Bob, the child has yet to come into being. Yet, it does appear that the pending actions in this situation have more to do with the adults involved (living and deceased) than they do with the child that has yet to be.
We are called to attend to the "widows and orphans" and yet, I'd like to add children in general. However the United States, as a society, in its more "individualistic" rather than "community" approach to life, does not have a comprehensive public policy to address the welfare of its children, those on whose shoulders the future really does rest.
We see incidents that highlight the disrespect for the humanity of children in the United States in addition to the ongoing international situations (Darfur, North Korea, war zones, etc). We all can name several incidents ranging from the incidence of teens on the street who've run away (often for very valid reasons, not just "bad behavior"), abuse and murder of children, etc. Two specific incidents in the media this week really caught my attention. The first has to do with the newly reported number of children born here in the United States to parents who do not have the proper documentation to live and work here. I have already heard people call for a change in law that would deny citizenship to such children. The second has to do with Gov Sanford of N Carolina who has decided not to seek federal stimulus funds for his state. A female senior in high school filed suit in N Carolina challenging requesting the stimulus money on behalf of N Carolina students as the education system there needs the funding. She challenges his right to single handedly make the decision independent of the legislature and the citizens. Gov Sanford responsed to her suit did not address the status of the educational system or the students. Rather his response focused on her--he asserted that her suit is a political ploy of his opponents, and that she is being used for political gain. In other words, he dismissed the seriousness of her suit and I would argue, dismissed her and the students she represents.
In the big scheme of things, does this rank as important of a discussion as many of the other posts? Some would argue "not really." However, I'm really beginning to question the inconsistency of our attitudes and our policies as they relate to children. How many times do we give in to children as they pester us for some item and let them do what they want because it's easier than taking the time to really converse, find out what's going on? How often to we "shush" a child to finish our TV show? How often do we dismiss and not take seriously a child's comment or report of something that's going on, whether good or bad? How often do we not even "see" the child before us? How often do we greet a child in a social situation with equal energy as we give the parent, our colleague, our parishioner?
I remember when I made home visits with families that parents and students who interned with me often commented on something that surprised me. They noticed that I greeted each member of the family on arrival (including the pets!) and that I always asked about the brothers, sisters, and friends, not just about the child, the "identified" client. I just have always done that and did not see anything "special" in my approach. I'm now beginning to understand why this "regard" for children stood out for them.
I could go on and on . . . but I wonder if the situation you put forward, Bob, would be any different if we as a country had a stance of "regard" for our littlest ones and had consistent policies that addressed the welfare of our children, especially those already present among us . . .
I'm wondering if this is a matter of ethics or really just an "ewwww" concern. Certainly it seems gross to me and to probably many other people that a mom would harvest her son's sperm let alone her dead son's sperm. And it also seems odd that a dead person should be able to conceive a child. This seems like a right that the living should have not the dead but why? Maybe I just have an old fashion order of things to think that when your dead you stop doing things that living people do, like reproduce.
ReplyDeleteHowever, from what you wrote Bob, it seems like the wishes of the deceased son are in question. Is that the case? If it is then the ethical concern would be what can and cannot be done with a dead person's body and/or genetic material, i.e. sperm or egg. This also raises the question as to what is regarded as someone's body. Would sperm or eggs still in the body be considered part of a person's body and therefore off limits for extraction in the same way that a limb would be off limits?
Sinnamon Wolfe
This may sound a bit harsh but unless he has left written consent or by another reliable means (such as more than one witness) then it seems to me that the mother should not be allowed to harvest his sperm. I think there are probably many people who would have liked to pass on their genetic information but life does not always allow such options.
ReplyDeleteI think the larger issue, of which this case is one example, that needs to be addressed is the advances in medical technology and the ethical issues regarding them. Clearly, we are capable of exceeding what humans are capable of naturally, for example invitro fertilization, reattaching limbs, cloning and so forth. I think the question of whether or not we should pursue something is not considered enough. Research and advances in technology are progressing far faster than our ability to address the ethical obligations of those innovations.
I read the article about the woman harvesting her son's sperm from a link in an article where a fiancee was able to harvest her fiance's sperm. According to the fiancee, she and he were talking about having another child and within days he died of a sudden heart attack at a tragically young age. While a grieving fiance's love cannot compare with the grief of a mother, two things occurred to me. One, the potential child of the fiance would have the same genetic materials as his or her sibling. Presumably, the child would be wanted and loved and there would be no underlying financial motive which is probably why the court relented.
ReplyDeleteWith the Texas mother, the ruling seems to get on the slippery slope of the reproductive choice debate. The man intended to have children, she says. Just because one wants to have children, does not necessarily mean that person will have a child in his or her lifetime. Would this begin a precedent for all of the frustrated grandparents to be to harvest the eggs or sperm from the corpse of their adult child because the parent insists that the adult child wanted children? What would be the lower limit of harvesting eggs and sperm? Eighteen? Thirteen? Puberty, since onset tends to be earlier than thirteen these days?
If the young man had not taken himself out of the gene pool in a bar room brawl, what are the implications? The mother says that she will want a surrogate. So this child will be the result of a paid incubator, and a father who was killed at a bar. What is to say that the mother would not go to a fertility clinic to have the sperm fertilize donated eggs, and carry the child to term herself. Mother? Grandmother? Would this begin to give rights to sperm and eggs as potential life? Ethical questions abound for sure, but as Seth wrote, the technology is progressing far too fast with so much potential, there is not time to grasp all of the ethical implications when putting the technology to use.
A tough way to come into the world, indeed, Mr. Mayo. The issue you have raised is a compelling one, Bob, but my interest is piqued by Elaine's observations of how we in this country treat children once we have them. For the most part, God bless their little hearts, they survive quite nicely in spite of us. Elaine gives excellent examples, I think, of how poorly many tend to parent -- not really attending to the child entrusted to their care, not taking fully to heart their responsibility for the life that they have brought into this world. They didn't even get an owner's manual when they left the hospital. Maybe that's part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteI sound too cynical, don't I? I'll just stop and post this now.
I’m wondering about how death affects sperm. Is this something we know – i.e., have there been children born who are the result of harvesting of the deceased, and have there been genetic or health issues? Or is it just something we think we know: it’s theoretically possible so let’s do it and find out?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me there is an underlying attitude here that children are our possessions. It seems that we are being driven to permanent action (bringing a child into the world) as the result of a more time-limited concern: grief. What if the child doesn’t look/act like its father? What if it does, and that’s a bad situation for all concerned?? Why must this be the solution instead of, say, resolving to become a foster or adoptive parent in honor of the love family members felt for the deceased? Harvesting/surrogacy seems like a “simple” solution to grief and parenting that is not going to be simple at all in practice.
Yes, Patti and Sande, I think underlying attitudes drive many adults's reactions related to children. I think you stated it well, Sande, when you wrote, "It seems that we are being driven to permanent action (bringing a child into the world) as the result of a more time-limite concern: grief." I think we adults often mistake the "need" to do something as meeting the need, want, desire of another when in fact the action we take is more about our needs as adults rather than noticing and addressing the needs of the child.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, technology does push far ahead of our thinking many times.
Elaine you bring up an important and overlooked issue across the globe, about the welfare of children. And what you say is a good point, that “the pending actions in this situation have more to do with the adults involved (living and deceased) than they do with the child that has yet to be.” Children are seen almost as property, or as a bother, not so much as another life needing our loving care and protection. Some children are seen as hiccups that need to be dealt with for 18 years and then they become society’s problem.
ReplyDeleteNow about the lady who wants to raise her dead sons’ child, I don’t find odd. I have a child and she is my only child (so far) and if she died at such a young age I would give anything to have any part of her back with me. But yes as Sande says, the real concern here is grief. And I don’t blame her for wanting her son back, so maybe it’s not an ethical question but one where she should visit a grief counselor.
I’ve heard of parents wanting grandchildren but this woman takes the cake. I think we need to talk about how far some people are willing to go to get what they want. In this case science isn’t the issue, how the child is raised isn’t the issue, but the mother is the issue. I think this type of behavior is indicative of some larger issues i.e., grief, separation anxiety, extremely selfish.
ReplyDeleteIn looking especially at technology and scientific discoveries, I think that we, human beings, really shouldn't attempt to do everything just because we have the power to. Although death is a huge hardship, it's been around from the beginning of time and no matter how much science advances, every single person born into this world will face death. I believe death makes life that much more precious, and I think living forever and not being able to die would be just as torturous as hell itself. Just because science allows us to do something, really doesn't mean it's going to be helpful to mankind in the long run.
ReplyDeleteFirst a comment on Jenn's post. Sometimes the greatest advancement of technology is the choice not to use it.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'm as concerned as others about how the son's wishes are validated. Assuming that he did indeed want a child at virtually any cost, why the insistence on harvesting - as has been adequately illustrated already - genetic material that may or may not be of usable quality since it was removed from a deceased person?
Following this line and taking into consideration my own experience as a parent, being a father doesn't mean biology. I think adopting a child would be a wonderful way for this grieving mother to honor her son's wishes - again, providing they are truly his wishes and not her own grieving (or selfish?) desire to replace her son.
I have great compassion for the woman in this situation as losing a child can make one crazy with grief. Wanting to (literally) keep a part of her son alive in the manner above is of questionable ethics when viewed dispassionately and “logically”, but that is not the way this mother is probably functioning. Grief counseling and intense support and compassion are called for. And no, I don’t think that she should harvest her son’s sperm without his permission as this leads to a very slippery slope regarding use/abuse of body parts.
ReplyDeleteAs a tangential issue, when Kathleen points out several times that the young man was killed in a bar-room brawl, it made me wonder if there would have been a different (more positive) reaction had the man been a Nobel Laureate or other esteemed person?
Oh! This topic is shocking to me because I’ve never heard this story. I could understand the mother’s behavior because I know that how much she was sad in this situation. However, I think that harvesting her dead son’s sperm to raise childe is terrible conduct. Also this is not ethical because the mother only thought of her dead son’s willing. How about the next generation born by her dead son’s sperm?
ReplyDeleteAlthough the current technology is possible to give birth with dead person’s sperm, the baby born by the technology cannot have the parents. In other words, the baby will never have the right to have parents because his or her parents will never existence. I know that all children cannot and don’t have parents. But I mean the event of the baby born by the mother’s willing of dead son is not natural and normal situation. The history of the baby will be made by the mother’s purpose without any common senses. The mother’s willing and purpose is not ethical and right.
Finally, the birth and death is the destiny and does not depend on human’s willing and plan.
Thanks, Bob, for bringing yet another thought-provoking dilemma to this forum! People have children for a lot of different reasons. For some, their children were planned to the nth degree...for others, they were an unexpected but blessed event. And for still others, they are unexpected, unwanted, and unloved...which is an absolute tragedy in itself. But it seems to me that this mother who has harvested her own son's sperm is simply attempting to re-create what she has lost...her son. Is this an ethical dilemma? You bet it is. One that I hope I never have to face.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate what you wrote, Elaine, about the status of children in today's world. Children are a precious gift from God, and yes, sometimes they give you grief! But the rewards far outweigh the challenges...but I digress. Unfortunately there are so many people who have children either by accident or by design, who don't understand what a great gift they have been given. And yes, many children are mistreated or worse. I heard on the radio just a couple of days ago how a judge in one of the states was going to rule on whether or not a child's rights outweighed those of her parents. The "talking head" on the radio was outraged...but it got me to thinking: maybe if the rights of childrend were given the attention they deserve, maybe there would be fewer instances of child abuse and neglect in the world. Something to think about...
I, too, agree with Elaine. The current children of the world should concern us, as there is much to be concerned about. I know too many people who have brought children into the world for purely selfish reasons, only to live to resent the limitations posed. Yes, this mother is grieving and needs counseling. This is a great post, a dilemma for the ethics textbooks. As a graduate of southern Methodist University, i salute you!
ReplyDelete4) If we ignore the circumstances around which the son died it seems the situation at hand is primarily a case which reveals the unusual tension between human interaction with technological advances. Apparently, with the introduction of new technology comes privileges that otherwise would not exist. People seem to be readily vying for rights which would not have been created had technology not become this advanced. In this sense, then, it seems modern technology breeds ethical situations. Seth, I feel, has correctly revealed the underlying issue here. In order for ethical systems to meet the novel demands of modern times there needs to be a functional system that is circumstantially malleable. Even contextual ethics may not suffice in these instances. It seems what is needed is an ethical system capable of changing to meet the ethical demands technological advances are creating.
ReplyDeleteBob, thank you so much for your bring this issue. Last Friday, on the way home, I heard a mother ask the lawyer on the Vietnamese radio the similar issue that you posted. Her son is disability; she would like to take her son’ sperm to produce offspring for her family. I understand her situation, but I disagree with her desire. To me the mother just thinks for herself or her family, but she doesn’t think about the child. I agree with Jody’s states that “the mother...who has harvested her own son’s sperm is simply attempting to re-create what she has lost...her son.” I also agree with Insuk that “the mother’s willing and purpose is not ethical and right.” The sad thing that the lawyer accept that case to fight for this mother.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read your post Robert I was taken by surprise. It wasn't until I moved to the United States that I have heard about things of this nature.
ReplyDeleteI find that the deeper problem lies is the mental thought processes of the mother who can't cope with losing her son and wants a grandson so that her sons memory lives on through the child.
Although the advancements in technology might permit for such a thing to be possible I feel it is not only disturbing but also wrong for the mother of the son that pasted away to request such a thing. Regardless if she claims that he wanted this.
From a Christian perspective if God intended for this young man to live his life to only the age 21 and live in this world without producing any offspring than that's what God had planned for him."Behold, thou hast made my days a few handbreadths, and my lifetime is as nothing in thy sight. Surely everyman stands as a mere breth!" (Psalm 39:5).
I do understand that her son's death must have brought the mother a great amount of grief and pain but her son's life that was cut short was the will of God and it is not right for her to find a surrogate to reproduce her grandchild.
Wow Robert, this is a good one. This is something out of the norm. I don’t think this happens so often, does it? I am really confused. Maybe the mother wants to give a new life to his son. But I think first of all a child needs to have parents to look after him/her.
ReplyDeleteChildren without parents almost all of them have psychological problems. Plus I agree with Sim, dead should be left alone. Let them rest in piece. If there was something written by the son or if he had left a written consent then everything would have been
easier. But now we have a third party involved. You really made me think…..
For me there is no ethical doubt. Yes, the son wished to father a child. I'm sure he said it in the context of one day getting married and raising his child with his spouse. He never said (at least to our knowledge) that he wanted his mother to raise the child. I think the ethical dilemma will fall on the shoulders of the doctor who will be asked to perform the procedure if a surrogate is found. While the technology is available, it does not mean that the doctor needs to fulfill the mother's request. I agree with the SMU's director's opinion that it is a tough way for a child to enter the world.
ReplyDeleteWhen will we learn that it's not really all about us? What about the child? What kind of life will the child have never being able to connect with it's father, and not having a tie to the mother? This is another example of science outpacing ethics. I wonder will we get to the point when we just have to click on a website and select the genetic make up of the child we want. Wasn't there a Twilight Zone like this?
ReplyDeleteThis is crazy on one hand, but interesting on the other.
ReplyDeleteEven though i totally disagree with harvesting a child, to find a possible alternative, maybe the mom could allow someone else to have this baby, so it wouldn't seem totally gross and then raise the child as she say's her son has requested.
I don’t really know what to do with this one to be honest. This is a great example of an ethical situation that immediately provokes a strong opinion but I am unsure why? BTW, this is something that worries me. I really don’t like knowing that I naturally have strong ethical proclivities and not know why I feel the way I do. It reminds me that the great Wizard of OZ was really just a small man pulling levers. don’t want my strong ethical positions being provided by an unknown source. I want to look behind the curtain. I want to make sure there is not some small, devious little man ultimately responsible for pulling my ethical buttons.
ReplyDeleteWhenever considering the continuation of life or family line, I wonder how much consideration is put in for the child's upbringing. From what people tell me, there is great joy in being part of a child's rearing and raising, yet the concept of being responsible for another child, to me, needs to be well thought out and prepared for. Though technology has become so great to help a couple produce a child, why must adoption be such a far-away topic, good to consider but not so much enticing to follow through with.
ReplyDeleteBy Sangjae Lee
ReplyDeleteThank you for your posting Robert. It's really interesting aticle. I agree with Chrystal. I mean why and how the mother thinks that kind of extraordinary thing. Of course I can understand
how her heart was filled with grief because of her son's death. However, the mother have to think about the life of baby who will be born by her son's sperm. If the baby is born, can the baby live her or his own life because of the mother's attachment to the son? As Chrystal said, in this case science or bringing up the baby isn’t the issue, but the mother's thought is the issue.