Messy issue

Nikolas Evans, 21, died April 5 as a result of a head injury sustained during a fist fight. His mother, 42-year-old Missy Evans, requested to harvest the sperm of her deceased son, and after receiving court permission, obtained the sample.

Missy Evans believes that using her son’s sperm to conceive a child post-mortem would be a way of fulfilling his dream of having children.

Tom Mayo, director of Southern Methodist University’s Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility, discussed the implications for such a child with The Associated Press.

“This is a tough way for a kid to come into the world,” he said. “As the details emerge and the child learns more about their origins – I just wonder what the impact will be on a replacement child.”

His use of the term “replacement child” stems from a belief that Missy Evans would be using the sperm of her son not to fulfill his dream, but to somehow recreate his life through the birth of another “replacement” child.

According to an Associated Press article, Mark Vopat, professor of philosophy and religious studies at Youngstown State University in Youngstown, Ohio, questioned whether the court should have granted Missy Evans’ request. While Nikolas Evans may have spoken about his desire for children, Vopat believes Nikolas’ mother’s assumption that he would have wanted a child posthumously is wrong.

Perhaps this poses some ethical questions. If her son did indeed desire to have a child posthumously, would he not want a say in the identity of a surrogate or egg donor?

A similar case arose in 1997 when Mark Speranza, a terminally ill man, had his sperm deposited in a tissue bank. He specified in writing that the tissue bank should destroy the sample in the event of his death. He died six months later of cancer.

While sorting through their son’s belongings, his parents, Mark and Mary Speranza, discovered that he had deposited his sperm. They immediately contacted the lab and requested the sample not be destroyed.

The lab’s president agreed to retain the sample under the condition that the parents continued to pay the yearly storage fee. After the Speranzas found a surrogate and requested the sperm, the lab denied the couple’s request, citing the form signed by their son at the time of donation.

Ten years of legal proceedings later, a New York appeals court rebuffed the plea of the parents to use their son’s sperm for the conception of a grandchild. Thus, the sample could be destroyed.

Should the parents of deceased children have rights to their reproductive material without written consent from the child? The issue here is not whether spouses or other designated individuals of the deceased should have rights to their loved one’s genetic material, but rather, if that right should remain without prior agreement by both parties.

Many terminally ill people store reproductive material to ensure that in the event of their death or other bodily injury, their loved one may use the sample for in vitro fertilization. However, should this procedure be allowed for parents or other individuals who did not have prior consent for use of the material? Does Mom (or Dad) really know best?