112 replies to this topic

[Mary]

Mother defends harvesting dead son’s sperm

Quote

Lauer asked Evans if she had wrestled with the ethics of her decision.

“I have thoughts about it,” she said calmly. “Of course … his first choice would not be to have children like this. He would want to raise his children, but the bottom line is he can’t. Somebody took that opportunity away from him. As the mother to a son I knew so well, I feel he would have wanted me to do this.”

More via the link above...

[Mary]

Um...I think this is really weird.  From what it sounds like, this kid wasn't in a position where he was ready to have children--it sounds like he was like most young 20-somethings, saying stuff like "oh, yeah, I want to have kids someday" but it's casual planning, not necessarily the top item on their agenda.  

As much as I sympathize with his mother for wanting to find a bright spot in her grief, I think this is playing God in a really selfish way.  I have no doubt that the woman would love having a grandchild and would give it the world, but it seems to me like pretty muddled reasoning and like a lot of baggage to saddle a kid with from the get-go.  I can understand her sense of loss and grief at her son losing the opportunity to be a dad--but this isn't going to make him a dad, this is just making a baby out of his leftover parts.  I'm sorry if that's blunt, but well, that's what it is.

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

Mary said:

Um...I think this is really weird.  From what it sounds like, this kid wasn't in a position where he was ready to have children--it sounds like he was like most young 20-somethings, saying stuff like "oh, yeah, I want to have kids someday" but it's casual planning, not necessarily the top item on their agenda.  

As much as I sympathize with his mother for wanting to find a bright spot in her grief, I think this is playing God in a really selfish way.  I have no doubt that the woman would love having a grandchild and would give it the world, but it seems to me like pretty muddled reasoning and like a lot of baggage to saddle a kid with from the get-go.  I can understand her sense of loss and grief at her son losing the opportunity to be a dad--but this isn't going to make him a dad, this is just making a baby out of his leftover parts.  I'm sorry if that's blunt, but well, that's what it is.

I agree. Her son did not request or consent to this. She's doing this out of her wish to have a part of her child back, but it's fucked up how she made that decision on her own.

[Tronyé]

Maybe she wants another kid to get knocked the fuck out and fall seven stories to their death?

[Driver Eight]

Mary said:

Um...I think this is really weird.  From what it sounds like, this kid wasn't in a position where he was ready to have children--it sounds like he was like most young 20-somethings, saying stuff like "oh, yeah, I want to have kids someday" but it's casual planning, not necessarily the top item on their agenda.  

As much as I sympathize with his mother for wanting to find a bright spot in her grief, I think this is playing God in a really selfish way.  I have no doubt that the woman would love having a grandchild and would give it the world, but it seems to me like pretty muddled reasoning and like a lot of baggage to saddle a kid with from the get-go.  I can understand her sense of loss and grief at her son losing the opportunity to be a dad--but this isn't going to make him a dad, this is just making a baby out of his leftover parts.  I'm sorry if that's blunt, but well, that's what it is.

Sweet Fanny Addams said:

I agree. Her son did not request or consent to this. She's doing this out of her wish to have a part of her child back, but it's fucked up how she made that decision on her own.

Well I don't know what to say on this situation. I can't join in condemning this mother of the deceased, because she may be right - he might have wanted to be a father. It may be bad policy, as a general matter, to allow harvesting of sperm or eggs in cases like this, I don't know. It may be that the law should govern this explicitly, providing that people can sign documents, kind of like a living will or a health care power of attorney, providing that, in the event of their death, the sperm or eggs can be harvested by a named person or persons and used for 1) reproductive purposes, 2) scientific research, or 3) both. Maybe also someone could be authorized by law to sign documents saying in no event would anyone EVER be able to do 1) or 2) with his or her germ cells, as biologists refer to them.

Mary and Etty may be 100% right about the mom's motivations here, and it's tempting to draw that conclusion, but knowing no more than I do - from reading the first post and, in a hurry as I am, not following any link - I will stay on the fence on that crucial question of her motives.

Weird situation, and a sad one for sure. One's heart goes out to her, in any case, losing her son at such a young age. :(

-Chris

[isilida 32]

i'm with mary on this. what a lot to put a potential kid through. and besides what woman would want to take this guy's sperm? this is all just too creepy. the mother has some real deep seated issues.

[Mary]

To paraphrase something I read on another messageboard about this:  if her son was alive, she'd have no bearing in the decision of when/if he was going to have children, right?  That'd be his choice.  So why should she be granted that power after he's dead?  

Again, I feel sympathy for her, but I think this is a decision she's making while blinded by grief.   I mean, if this comes to pass, the baby's going to be an orphan before it's even conceived.

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

I think consent needs to be given by someone before their genetic material is harvested by another party. As this man was dead, consent was out of the question and therefore IMO, it's wrong.

[Driver Eight]

Mary said:

... if her son was alive, she'd have no bearing in the decision of when/if he was going to have children, right?  That'd be his choice.  So why should she be granted that power after he's dead?

... I mean, if this comes to pass, the baby's going to be an orphan before it's even conceived.

No disrespect here, but I would put to you to consider why shouldn't the deceased's  mother be permitted to make this decision? Parents, as per the MSNBC article you link, Mary, are given control of their deceased children's bodies for organ donation purposes, so this would arguably be a logical extension of that. The fact is, her son is not alive, so how does the equivalency you attempt to draw hold, exactly? Dead vs. alive is pretty much the ultimate distinction here, no?

And Etty and Mary both, I will give you a perspective to consider, as you see fit. What is the purpose of a family? Well, there are many, but in the rawest, life-and-death sense, core-level biology, the purpose of a family is to pass on life, generation after generation. There as LOTS of other purposes for families, no doubt, but strictly in your basic biology 101 sense, it's to pass on life in perpetuity as best possible.

So what is this mother is doing here, in a way an impartial judge found credible and convincing, but doing her best, in keeping with what appears to be her true and good-faith belief, to pass on her heritage and that of her son in keeping with the wishes he expressed to her, to the extent medically feasible? She's being a mother, is she not? And will any children conceived from this effort be orphans, since she is stating that she will raise the kid(s) as her own? Given her willingness and ability here to go to court in the way she has, going to court again in order to adopt the child(ren) would presumably be a snap for her - does anyone doubt she will?

So will such child(ren) be blessed with a living biological father? No. But will they have at least one loving, devoted parent in their biological grandmother? Yes, seems that way. Is it odd? Oh sure. But do I have a lot of respect for this mother's thoughtful, imaginative and determined effort to make something good out of a godawful situation, the loss of her son at age 21? Yes, I do.

Do I think you, either of you, in any way, have to agree? Of course not. Would I, however, ask you maybe to reflect on what drives your response to this situation? Well, I'll put it this way - what could it hurt to consider, here, that others might see this case very differently from you, and their reasons and feelings might be just as valid as yours. IOW, are any of the condemnations of this or that as "wrong" called for here?

Just sayin'. ...

-Chris

Edited by Christratton2007, 09 April 2009 - 07:24 PM.

[Hezalin]

I can definitely see both points of view in this case. It's hard to say "exactly" what we'd dpo or feel if we lst a child. This may be a twisted way to get part of her son back and she's lying to herself, but with today's techonolgy, things like this are possible. I've heard of legal battles through a divorce when the parties are fighting over frozeb sperm or embryos, and the like. It's a tough call  to make and I'm glad I don't have to make it.

[isilida 32]

Christratton2007 said:

No disrespect here, but I would put to you to consider why shouldn't the deceased's  mother be permitted to make this decision? Parents, as per the MSNBC article you link, Mary, are given control of their deceased children's bodies for organ donation purposes, so this would arguably be a logical extension of that. The fact is, her son is not alive, so how does the equivalency you attempt to draw hold, exactly? Dead vs. alive is pretty much the ultimate distinction here, no?

And Etty and Mary both, I will give you a perspective to consider, as you see fit. What is the purpose of a family? Well, there are many, but in the rawest, life-and-death sense, core-level biology, the purpose of a family is to pass on life, generation after generation. There as LOTS of other purposes for families, no doubt, but strictly in your basic biology 101 sense, it's to pass on life in perpetuity as best possible.

So what is this mother is doing here, in a way an impartial judge found credible and convincing, but doing her best, in keeping with what appears to be her true and good-faith belief, to pass on her heritage and that of her son in keeping with the wishes he expressed to her, to the extent medically feasible? She's being a mother, is she not? And will any children conceived from this effort be orphans, since she is stating that she will raise the kid(s) as her own? Given her willingness and ability here to go to court in the way she has, going to court again in order to adopt the child(ren) would presumably be a snap for her - does anyone doubt she will?

So will such child(ren) be blessed with a living biological father? No. But will they have at least one loving, devoted parent in their biological grandmother? Yes, seems that way. Is it odd? Oh sure. But do I have a lot of respect for this mother's thoughtful, imaginative and determined effort to make something good out of a godawful situation, the loss of her son at age 21? Yes, I do.

Do I think you, either of you, in any way, have to agree? Of course not. Would I, however, ask you maybe to reflect on what drives your response to this situation? Well, I'll put it this way - what could it hurt to consider, here, that others might see this case very differently from you, and their reasons and feelings might be just as valid as yours. IOW, are any of the condemnations of this or that as "wrong" called for here?

Just sayin'. ...

-Chris

sorry, but this woman's a few donuts shy of a dozen. she wants her son back. i don't blame her, but that doesn't give her right to do this. none. it's creepy and no woman's going to agree to this. there's nothing imaginative or thoughtful about this. she's no better than the scientist who created frankenstein. she just needs to get over her son in a more healthy way. this clearly isn't it. the woman has more issues than time magazine.

[Driver Eight]

isilida 32 said:

sorry, but this woman's a few donuts shy of a dozen. she wants her son back.

With due respect, Issy, what makes you think you know this woman's state of mind and that she has no basis to speak for, and to effectuate, her deceased son's wishes? How could you possibly know? I think, knowing no more that we do, it's MUCH more likely that she is an authentic spokesperson for her son, whom she brought into the world and knew for 21 years, than it is that you, who have never met her at all and have read a few hundred words about in a news account, that you, Issy, are a capable spokesperson for what is HER state of mind.

People sometimes like to throw words around here like "presumptuous" (as though it, ipso facto, were an insult in all instances). I won't pass that judgment, or cast that aspersion. But I will take note of this clear instance of same, for better or worse. You may be absolutely correct in your assessment of this bereaved mother. I don't pretend to begin to know.

The vehemence of some people's reactions to this case and the reflexiveness of their passing judgment are interesting phenomena in their own right.

-Chris

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

Well, as opposed to organ donation this presents yet another twist. The dead boy's mother wants to raise his child but the article says a surrogate will carry the child.  For a number of reasons, the most obvious being inbreeding of the highest degree the egg cannot be the boy's mother's, so will there be 2 surrogate mothers involved? How will she deal with that? How will she choose the egg donor? This is all too Bill Miller-ish for me, it's bordering on the grotesque. Choosing the genetic parent of one's grandchild, then possibly getting another woman to provide her uterus so this can happen? I'm sorry Chris, but this whole thing is fucked up, and it isn't like organ donation for the reasons stated above. Also, with the number of people involved, the risk of things going wrong on an emotional and legal level are huge.

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

Christratton2007 said:

With due respect, Issy, what makes you think you know this woman's state of mind and that she has no basis to speak for, and to effectuate, her deceased son's wishes? How could you possibly know?  

The vehemence of some people's reactions to this case and the reflexiveness of their passing judgment are interesting phenomena in their own right.

-Chris

Of course it's your perogative to think that we're being hard and jugmental. I have compassion for this woman's grief and longing to have some part of her dead son to ease her feelings of loss. Of course I do. But if (God forbid) one of my children died I would not go foraging in their gonads for  genetic material. If they had specifically requested  I do this, that might be a mitigating factor but this boy made no such request, other than talking about wanting to have children someday. But he's DEAD, so that argument flies out of the window. I don't think anyone in this thread is coldhearted or lacks creative thought. The entire situation is a minefield on many levels. With the best will in the world, I don't see how this can have a happy ending.

Edited by Sweet Fanny Addams, 10 April 2009 - 12:41 AM.

[Driver Eight]

Sweet Fanny Addams said:

With the best will in the world, I don't see how this can have a happy ending.

Here's how it could: surrogate mother(s) is/are found, willing to bear the child(ren). If she/they is/are willing to raise the child(ren), she will also presumably have to be willing to involve the grandmother. The part about the grandmother being willing to raise the child(ren) as her own probably won't stand - that does seem unrealistic on the grandmother's part.

The key that you are totally right to point out here, I think, Etty, is the willingness of a mother or mothers to bring such child(ren) into the world. If someone out there is willing to do so, more power to them. It IS an unusual situation, I think anyone would agree, and it will certainly call for someone willing to think outside ordinary and customary categories. One could see perhaps donating the deceased's sperm to a sperm bank. Let's say a couple comes along in which the husband is infertile and the wife is fertile - if they want to bring such child(ren) into the world, give it/them a loving home and involve this apparently dedicated grandmother, should that not be allowed?

I'll just put it this way - I tend to be libertarian and utilitarian about such things. I agree it is a very uncommon situation, but so are other non-traditional family situations as single-sex couple and single-parent families. The definition of family has become much more open-ended in the past 40 years or so in the industrialized west - this would be an example of that. Not everyone's kettle of tea, but if it works for some, I say God bless and Godspeed.

I mean, I am of the opinion, that usually the best situation for a child is to have her or his own biological mother and father available and present to raise her or him, with lots of friends and extended family of varied walks of life available - gay, straight, different ethnicities and religions, viewpoints, cultures and backgrounds involved - to assist in the effort. It takes a village, as the saying goes. But who would say that immediate family of a child always must be the traditional Ozzie and Harriet family structure?

Unusual situation here? Sure! Should we prohibit it or condemn it? I'm reluctant to do so - on what basis? Whose religious code, mores or tradition are to prevail here? Should the law step in and prohibit this, and should others stand in judgment? Religious fundamentalists and conservatives of many stripes certainly would. I seldom find myself joining them in condemning others.

Edited by Christratton2007, 10 April 2009 - 06:38 AM.

[isilida 32]

Sweet Fanny Addams said:

Of course it's your perogative to think that we're being hard and jugmental. I have compassion for this woman's grief and longing to have some part of her dead son to ease her feelings of loss. Of course I do. But if (God forbid) one of my children died I would not go foraging in their gonads for  genetic material. If they had specifically requested  I do this, that might be a mitigating factor but this boy made no such request, other than talking about wanting to have children someday. But he's DEAD, so that argument flies out of the window. I don't think anyone in this thread is coldhearted or lacks creative thought. The entire situation is a minefield on many levels. With the best will in the world, I don't see how this can have a happy ending.

thank you! i could not agree more.

[Driver Eight]

isilida 32 said:

thank you! i could not agree more.

Fortunately for this bereaved mother, you were not the judge in this case, though you do appear willing to offer your services in that regard.

[Driver Eight]

Sweet Fanny Addams said:

... if (God forbid) one of my children died I would not go foraging in their gonads for  genetic material. If they had specifically requested  I do this, that might be a mitigating factor but this boy made no such request, other than talking about wanting to have children someday.

I don't smoke, Etty, nor do I drink, anymore. Am heterosexual and, as I've shared, am creeped out, personally by the notion of participating in gay sex. Don't gamble to speak of.

All these things, and many more, are things I don't do. I'm sure you could list many more that you don't or wouldn't do. Does that mean others should be prohibited from doing them? Some of them? Sure - stealing, murdering, etc.

I don't see where the evil in this situation has been demonstrated, unless one takes a particular conservative, religiously-freighted tack on the matter as, not surprisingly, Issy has - not surprisingly, given that he tends to be conservative on most things, best as I can tell.

[Hezalin]

Sweet Fanny Addams said:

Well, as opposed to organ donation this presents yet another twist. The dead boy's mother wants to raise his child but the article says a surrogate will carry the child.  For a number of reasons, the most obvious being inbreeding of the highest degree the egg cannot be the boy's mother's, so will there be 2 surrogate mothers involved? How will she deal with that? How will she choose the egg donor? This is all too Bill Miller-ish for me, it's bordering on the grotesque. Choosing the genetic parent of one's grandchild, then possibly getting another woman to provide her uterus so this can happen? I'm sorry Chris, but this whole thing is fucked up, and it isn't like organ donation for the reasons stated above. Also, with the number of people involved, the risk of things going wrong on an emotional and legal level are huge.

Why couldn't a surrogate also be the egg donor? That does happen as well.
I'm sure someone will be willing to take money to be the donor and surrogate.

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

Christratton2007 said:

I don't smoke, Etty, nor do I drink, anymore. Am heterosexual and, as I've shared, am creeped out, personally by the notion of participating in gay sex. Don't gamble to speak of.

All these things, and many more, are things I don't do. I'm sure you could list many more that you don't or wouldn't do. Does that mean others should be prohibited from doing them? Some of them? Sure - stealing, murdering, etc.

I don't see where the evil in this situation has been demonstrated, unless one takes a particular conservative, religiously-freighted tack on the matter as, not surprisingly, Issy has - not surprisingly, given that he tends to be conservative on most things, best as I can tell.

  
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything was evil. As far as prohibiting anything, that hasn't happened either. This woman has her dead son's sperm. I think it's badly misguided and the situation you set out where things could work out well have so many "if"s as to make the outcome pretty improbable of ending as a good situation. It has the potential to crash and burn in so many ways.
You don't drink, smoke, are straight and have some kind of phobia about gay sex. But you're prepared to let others enjoy those things. Whoopdedoo. So does the majority of society allow others vices they don't indulge in themselves.
Gay sex creeps you out. Women  obtaining samples of their dead children's genetic material to make new babies with as some kind of replacement creeps *me* out.

Edited by Sweet Fanny Addams, 10 April 2009 - 09:11 AM.