Parents of dead West Point cadet can use his sperm to produce a child, judge rules
Source: New York Daily News
The parents of a 21-year-old West Point cadet who died after a skiing accident earlier this year can use his sperm to produce a grandchild, a judge has ruled.
Peter Zhus parents were allowed to retrieve his sperm while he was brain dead at a Westchester County hospital in early March, but their request to keep and potentially use the sperm had to be reviewed by a state Supreme Court judge, who announced his decision on Thursday. The couple Monica and Yongmin Zhu will now be allowed to seek conception with a surrogate mother, a move that has raised ethical questions.
At this time, the court will place no restrictions on the use to which Peters parents may ultimately put their sons sperm, including its potential use for procreative purposes, Judge John Colangelo wrote.
The parents wrote in their petition that the procedure would allow them to carry on their familys lineage. The young cadet was the only male child in the family, who comes from China. Each of the fathers two brothers only has a single daughter because of Chinas one-child policy, according to the couple.
Read more: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-parents-of-dead-cadet-allowed-to-use-his-sperm-20190520-jcifzwzqmzb55ns5g76expzxcm-story.html
Just to be clear: there is no partner of Peter Zhu requesting this; only his parents.
rzemanfl
(29,556 posts)Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)"Quick! Suck the sperm out of my dead son's balls! We need a grandchild!"
rzemanfl
(29,556 posts)Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)"We can't leave anything to chance!"
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Ive been a sci-fi fan since I was in my teens. This idea is not unheard of.
Sci fi is the simple extrapolation of a future based on what we have in the present.
This story may make people feel the ick factor but I remember the first heart transplant. There was a definite ick factor in that concept, yet we think nothing about it is out of the ordinary today. Its actually considered a very good thing now.
rzemanfl
(29,556 posts)thing, sometimes not.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Mistakes will happen!
LuvLoogie
(6,995 posts)of disappeared immigrant children.
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)rzemanfl
(29,556 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)but the courts *have* consistently upheld this 'right' when requested by family members over the years...
Demit
(11,238 posts)Are grandpa and grandma going to be satisfied with that?
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)I mean, even assuming they have the means to support multiple grandchildren, I pity any daughters that result. They're going to feel SO wanted.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)The desire of some in the world to "keep trying until they get a son" is nothing new.
Demit
(11,238 posts)LisaL
(44,973 posts)Anything can be done nowdays.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)They would get donor eggs, their son sperm, create embryos, they test them and select male embryos for implantation. In which case they can only get a male baby.
Jose Garcia
(2,594 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)As it is, at present in vitro fertilization is given a choice of various zygotes. Zygotes are fertilized eggs.
By the way these ethical questions have paralleled the development of technology.
Hekate
(90,648 posts)...like hemophilia. It's more than a little desirable to not have a boy with hemophilia.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)For whatever reasons, some medical and some because people want a child of a certain gender.
madaboutharry
(40,209 posts)Male and female sperm can be separated out in a centrifuge. They will most likely use this procedure to guarantee a male child.
IronLionZion
(45,432 posts)This was in a law and order episode or something like that.
jmowreader
(50,555 posts)This falls firmly into the Baby Rabies class of ick, but if its what helps them cope with the loss of their son and they can find a woman whod do it, Im not standing in their way.
IronLionZion
(45,432 posts)so there could be more than one woman involved, one to donate an egg, one to be the surrogate. Could end up in a nasty custody battle with the grandparents.
Hekate
(90,648 posts)Can't remember what the going rate is, but Google is your friend. It's a lot of money and can certainly help with a girl's college costs. It's not without risk, though, as she has to be pumped full of hormones in order to produce a whole lot of eggs to be harvested at once.
The prospective parents in question can select for many traits in advance this way: intelligence, hair and eye color, height, athleticism, overall health and health history. (LOL, Ask yourself if you would qualify -- my family, for instance, has high IQs but a significant strain of ADD and lousy eyesight.)
LisaL
(44,973 posts)There are agencies providing these types of services. Some celebrities have had multiple children that way.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Theyre already a fact of life.
IronLionZion
(45,432 posts)so it could be 2 different women involved who might have a change of heart and battle for custody
Polly Hennessey
(6,794 posts)but I dont. Interesting idea though.
Quackers
(2,256 posts)He was an adult. And yes, even though they became responsible for his wellbeing while unable to make his own decisions, this was done to further their interest, not necessarily his. Did he want children?
RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)What if he was 15? Ick, so many ethical rabbit holes.
If he had a living will desiring this, it would feel more ethical.
JudyM
(29,233 posts)I guess we can assume they had medical power of attorney while he was brain dead, so could decide others could harvest his organs, but creating a new life? I feel compassion for them, but what an ethical mess and precedent.
Their petition to the court says he told them he wanted to have 5 children. So are they going to see this through? After all, theres no guarantee that a single offspring will have kids, which is what theyre saying this is about. That seems so messed up, as is the whole females dont count for the lineage garbage.
Response to JudyM (Reply #12)
Mosby This message was self-deleted by its author.
Delmette2.0
(4,164 posts)That is why a surrogate fits into their plan. Her contribution of DNA isn't as important as carrying and delivering a healthy male.
Paladin
(28,254 posts)I won't be seeing the movie.
Its a future fact of life. This will become as normal as a heart transplant, and it wont even require someones death in order to happen.
Mazeltov Cocktail
(569 posts)That would be where they "harvested" his sperm.
There's a job they don't discuss on Career Day in High School.
waddirum
(979 posts)I don't wanna do your dirty work... no more...
in2herbs
(2,945 posts)With the father (sperm donor) dead, it would appear the surrogate mother would have the custody advantage even with an agreement by her to waive all custody.
Since when do dead people have the right to reproduce? And are the grandparents going to require that the surrogate mother abort the embryo if its not a male?
I see this as a dead person's family having the right to force him to reproduce and with a co-reproducer he didn't chose. Wrong! And how could this decision even be appealed, because no non-Grandparent party exists.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)decrease a chance of this person to want to take custody of the baby. Yes, sometimes lawsuits happen but this would hardly be the first case of people hiring a surrogate to carry a fetus.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)RobinA
(9,888 posts)Sorry, I'm can't get with this. If he had left a power of attorney, maybe. And I'm not impressed with him allegedly saying he wanted 5 children.
I'm sorry your son died, Grandma and Grandpa, but this just ain't right. Yikes, what could possibly go wrong with this scenario? Which will involve an innocent child.
Totally Tunsie
(10,885 posts)A Power of Attorney ends at death, so would provide no legal standing to the parents once the son passed on.
Boomer
(4,168 posts)The use of the word "surrogate" in this context is so debasing to the mother who contributes half her DNA. She's not some empty vessel holding the guy's baby. He can only contribute half the DNA, and the other half is from a woman who is the child's mother.
Unless, of course, they decide to find eggs harvested from a deceased woman to serve as the other half of this screwed up equation. That way they could have a surrogate and two sets of competing grandparents.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)another person. In which case that person is going to be a surrogate and not related to the child in any way.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)This way, the surrogate has no biological claim to the child.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Surrogate is much less likely to try to keep a child if she has no genetic connection to the child. And less likely to prevail in lawsuit, since she isn't actually a biological mother.
BigmanPigman
(51,585 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)We ARE the party of reproductive freedom, are we not?
Mosby
(16,301 posts)The hospital had nothing in writing from the deceased and there was no spouse.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)In which case they are the ones making decisions.
Mosby
(16,301 posts)This wasn't an end-of-life decision or a tissue/organ donation.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)with parents allowing organ donation. In fact most people would approve of it. But patient him or herself doesn't benefit in any way from organ donation. In fact their son's organs were donated to help others.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)So the hospital was following the court order, there is nothing unethical about that.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)They did this without their 21 year old son's permission. They in essence forced him to procreate. That is a chilling precedent.
Also, this child will not be identical to their son. He--or she--may look exactly like the surrogate mother. Half the kid's DNA will be the mother's. They will be disappointed, and that will reflect on how they treat the kid.
How weird will it be for this kid to know how he came into the world, and with no biological parents around? He will just have grandparents, who may not even live long enough to see him reach adulthood. And he will always know he was born to replace his biological dad, not because anyone wanted him specifically.
Why can't they just ADOPT a poor kid who needs a home and is wasting away in foster care? Their "lineage" does not need to be preserved at all costs. The megalomania of this is sickening.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)To think that someone could take something from your body to create another person, w/o your permission, is disturbing. Maybe the son wouldn't mind. But it's creepy.
Coventina
(27,104 posts)There's a reason Chinese names have the family name first, and then the individual name.
Family is EVERYTHING in Chinese history/culture. It is the basis of Confucian thought.
If this young man was the hope for the future of the family, his parents' actions do not surprise me in the least.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand the cultural mindset that led to that decision.
ansible
(1,718 posts)Pretty insane, family is really serious business for the chinese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_Confucius_in_the_main_line_of_descent
PupCamo
(288 posts)but it's not me or mine who are involved so go for it!
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)But it's not for me to say that it's wrong. They're not hurting anyone, are they?
But it still seems really wrong, on a visceral I-think-I'm-gonna-throw-up level.
PupCamo
(288 posts)milking your dead son isn't
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)If you are someone who tends to flirt with the law on how to treat dead people.
PupCamo
(288 posts)have a good evening
Sapient Donkey
(1,568 posts)And no, that doesn't necessarily mean defending the livings right to molest corpses, but rather arguing the point that certain rights should extend even past death. I say certain rights because I don't think dead people should be allowed to drive or vote.... Freedom of speech is also questionable when it comes to dead people. That sort of spooky behavior should not be tolerated in a civilized society. #BanOuijaBoardsAndHauntings
PupCamo
(288 posts)and we have a long history of the dead voting
almost heaven and all that
Gore1FL
(21,128 posts)LisaL
(44,973 posts)This was their only child. Of course they want grandchildren, most people do. It would be devastating for anybody to lose their only child.
Dont see a problem with this.
The future is now.
Mosby
(16,301 posts)They dont want his story to end: Efforts to save the sperm of the deceased come with heartache and tough questions
The child would be born to a father who was dead before his sperm fused with an egg. That egg and the womb in which the child was carried would belong to women who might not be a part of the childs life. And it would all happen because of the determination of the childs grandparents, enabled by the fateful signature of a judge.
In the case in question, a New York judge earlier this month ordered a medical center to save the sperm of Peter Zhu, a 21-year-old cadet at West Point Military Academy who died after a ski accident. His parents sought an emergency court order on March 1, the day his organs were going to be removed for donation, and just a few days after the accident, when their entire world collapsed, as they wrote in a petition to the court.
......
For a 2017 study, Ramasamy, the University of Miami urologist, and colleagues asked the top 75 academic medical centers in the country for their policies on posthumous sperm retrieval. Of the 41 that replied, only 11 had policies. One banned it, four required prior written consent, and six allowed for a persons partner to provide consent. Five of the centers had a built-in bereavement period.
I was surprised by how few academic centers had any policies in place, he said. Its imperative that institutions have them. (At Miami, doctors will only perform a posthumous retrieval if a wife requests it, Ramasamy said: If its a girlfriend or parents or even a fiancee, we wont do it.)
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has also urged medical centers to establish policies so that clinicians and administrators are not making a call on the fly. In the latest version of its recommendations, published last year, the societys ethics committee wrote that hospitals are not ethically obligated to fulfill requests for posthumous sperm retrieval. But if a hospital is willing, the committee wrote, it should only do so when such requests are initiated by the surviving spouse or partner, not the parents.
In other words, its not up to our parents to decide if and when we have children.
In the case of a partner or spouse, they presumably have a shared reproductive plan with the decedent, said Judith Daar, a visiting professor of law at University of California, Irvine, and the chair of the societys ethics committee. Thats just not the case with parents. Their own reproductive rights and aspirations are independent of their childs.
.....
https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/13/postmortem-sperm-retrieval/
erpowers
(9,350 posts)I do not have a problem with this. Hopefully they will be happy if the child turns out to be a girl, or if his sperm only produces girls.
Hekate
(90,648 posts)When I was very young, about 18, one of my professors put it this way: "We put all our genetic eggs in one basket." He and his wife were unable to have more than the one because her health did not permit it.
China's one-child policy has been very hard on individuals and on society. There's currently an imbalance of many millions in the male/female ratio because so many female fetuses were aborted in favor of sons. Not saying this family did that, but there they are with two girl cousins and no boy at all in the extended family. I am very sorry for their loss.
Hekate
(90,648 posts)Somehow I thought that by now nearly everyone understood the technology of fertility treatments, at least in outline. There is absolutely nothing new about what this family is undertaking.
Ethically, legally, and techologically, everything they are going to do has already been done all over the world. There is no guarantee of success, but as long as they can pay for it, doctors and cryolabs, egg donors and pregnancy surrogates, will be lining up to help them out, and as surrogates have to sign a contract that will be held up in court, no custody battle will ensue.
RobinA
(9,888 posts)are making decisions about whether he/she will reproduce and with whom without any kind of consent from the person? Well, if this is happening all over the world, I'm still against it. Talk about entitlement. Not to mention the appalling violation of their son's boundaries.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)reproductive technology that exists today to make it all possible.
As for son being dead, since he is dead, then presumably he isn't able to care about boundaries.
It's not like he is going to be asked to pay child support for the child that he didn't want to have. And as far as we know, he actually did want to have children, so parents in fact are following his wishes.
So how could having a child possibly hurt him?
Hekate
(90,648 posts)In one case an infertile woman and her husband were divorcing, and their mutually-produced frozen zygotes were her last chance ever to have a baby of her own. I would not have wanted to be on that jury, as I have sympathy for both sides.
In another case, a wealthy old man died and his much-younger widow wanted an heir. His adult son by a previous marriage strenuously objected.
It's been a good 40 years since the first "test tube baby" and reproductive law and medical ethics are still all over the map.
Nothing stopped that crazy woman in Los Angeles from having 8 zygotes all at once implanted and then carrying them to term even when she already had a bunch of kids she couldn't take care of. I think the parents of the West Point cadet have a much better ethical case for attempting to have one grandchild than Octomom did for trying to have litters.
RobinA
(9,888 posts)for any of the cases you mention, because they all fall into the "Wwwhhhaaa...I want..." category. As does the deceased skier guy case. Can't have kids because your divorced husband won't let you use his half of a zygote? Tough luck. This isn't life or death.
To make these ethics questions less problematic it should be considered standard practice to designate, when you make a deposit of any kind of material capable of reproduction, what gets done with it in a variety of situations. Kinda like a will. And it's up to you to update as circumstances change. Also like a will. Sure, humankind will always come up with circumstances never imagined, but at least relatively common things will be covered - death, divorce, incapacitation.
Octomom -
Hekate
(90,648 posts)In a way, you can see why. Infertile couples make a huge investment in the production of their potential offspring: physical, emotional, and financial. Some women hit the genetic jackpot when given a cycle of drugs to force ovulation, and produce a dozen or more eggs all at once. Then they get lucky again if hubby's sperm produce viable zygotes with the eggs, of which only a few may be implanted, the rest frozen.
If the woman is not lucky, all this effort goes for nought. A friend of mind produced only 3 eggs after many cycles of producing none at all. None of them -- well, she and her husband finally accepted their infertility rather than taking out a second mortgage.
In the US couples pay the cryobanks for long term storage, year after year. There's quite a glut of them -- these are the so-called "snowflake babies" that were being made so much of by the pro-birthers a few years ago when they needed something new to bang on about. They even had couples lined up promising to bear and raise the precious snowflake babies.
In Britain, medical ethicists have wisely given frozen zygotes an expiry date. If they have not been used after so many years, then the test tube is defrosted and clear liquid with nothing visible to the naked eye is poured away.
As for your "deposit" statement, it is to laugh. Men (often medical students) have been making "deposits" in sperm banks for generations -- they earn a bit of money this way, records are kept on his physical description and health, but otherwise it is as anonymous as possible, and the man walks away free as a bird, with absolutely no say in the future of his genetic material.
walks away from a sperm bank he obviously doesnt care how it is used. I would also be very surprised if he doesn't sign something relinquishing all claims.
Im really talking about people who enter an unanonymous situation and wish to stay out of court. Im also suggesting what I think should be standard operating procedure in this area. People are free to do what they want. Leave your reproductive cells lying around with no limits on their use at your own risk.
And apparently, die fertile at your own risk, because your parents may decide to grow the family by making you a posthumous parent. Whether you like that idea or not.
RobinA
(9,888 posts)it's the larger issue. It hurts us all in the long run, because it erodes rights. It puts what the Grandparents want (and creates a precedent) over issues of consent, which used to be inviolable. I have sympathy for the parents for the loss of their son. I have absolutely no sympathy for their notion that they must have another male heir no matter what it takes. No you don't.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)having an abortion hurts all of them.
How does these grandparents having a grandchild affect you in particular?
RobinA
(9,888 posts)Its the larger erosion of rights, the importance of consent in a society, and whose claim prevails. It isnt about me, you, deceased skier, or entitled Grandparents. There are larger issues in many ethical questions than how one person is affected. Look, you either get that or you dont.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)I have absolutely no problem with this.
RobinA
(9,888 posts)reproductive freedom. The government and a third party deciding you should reproduce without your consent? Freedom? Just, no!
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Unless he left a living will, his consent is irrelevant.
Im just going to forget I read that on a supposed liberal board.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Dead person can not give consent, so I am assuming you are against organ donation?
Assume I make a distinction between organ donation and fathering a child. Also, assume that since I never used the word "immoral," it, along with its opposite "moral" was not a word that I use to describe any of my thinking in this case. Actually, in no case. I find it vague to the point of meaninglessness.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)Whether the grandparents try to keep her from her own child or not, she is the mother. It would be terrible to keep the child from her.
If she is using donor eggs then they plan on using a woman to procure themselves an infant. And even without a biological connection it can be very hard on a woman to simply leave the life of a child who she bore. That is why I oppose for-profit surrogacy. In fact, Jay Inslee's position on this matter cost him my vote.
The best option would be for them to seek out a woman who is single and looking to have a child. I am sure that many women would prefer to have a sperm donor whose identity is known to them so that their child has full knowledge of their paternal heritage.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)In fact that's how male gay couples are able to have children. You'd be opposing to that as well?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)I oppose for-profit surrogacy. There is too much room for exploitation and coercion.
I am willing to consider being supportive if the surrogate is a family member, like one of the husband's sister, and she is guaranteed a relationship with the child as part of the surrogacy contract.
RobinA
(9,888 posts)as well, but in the sense that I personally wouldnt do it and I would advise anyone asking my opinion that I think its a massively bad idea. People should be free to do it if they decide they want to. I do think there should be safeguards in place. Hire an experienced lawyer. And in case of any dispute, the child must have an independent lawyer appointed by the court.
Sapient Donkey
(1,568 posts)I dunno, about this. I understand the family's motives and sympathize with them to an extent, but without some sort proof it's what he would want, it doesn't seem right.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Parents claim he told them he wanted children.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)It's probably not something I would do.
But, it doesn't look like it's going to hurt me, or anybody else.
So, it's none of my business.
RobinA
(9,888 posts)taken into a public forum (court) and is the subject of a court opinion potentially resulting in a precedent, it becomes everybody's business if they choose to engage with the issue.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)However, whether or not someone personally chooses to do this, isn't any of mine.