Question

Read the case study below and write an original response. Your response should be a minimum of 500 words in length in order to be eligible for full credit.

John, a 30-year-old male, married and the father of a two-year-old daughter, is diagnosed as brain dead after a motorcycle accident. Mary, his wife, arrives at the hospital and signs the papers for multiple organ procurement and makes one additional request—that her deceased husband’s sperm be obtained and frozen. She intends to arrange for in vitro fertilization using her own ovum and the salvaged sperm from her now deceased husband. She tells the attending chaplain, “I don’t want our daughter growing up alone. Now that she has lost her father it’s all the more important for her to have a sibling.” The surviving widow admits to finding personal comfort in the thought of bearing another child with her deceased husband’s sperm, though she also admits that her husband was reluctant to have another child—a point of some contention between them while he was alive. Finally, she acknowledges that if the vitro fertilization is successful, she prays that God will give her twins.

You are a member of the hospital bioethics committee quickly convened to give guidance to the hospital staff. Are there any reservations on ethical grounds you can envision to this request to harvest the sperm? You will need to consider who has legal possession of the deceased man‘s sperm and whether there are moral or legal limits to his widow’s use of his sperm. You will need to consider the rights of the deceased husband, his now widowed wife, their sole child and the possible additional members of the family, using the basic principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. (You may find it helpful to use the ethics rubric, C.A.R.E., provided by Dr. Winslow in his lecture available in this module as a PDF document, "G. Winslow and discussion: "Close up on Baby Doe and the Aftermath.")

Answer 1

Rules for recovering semen from dead patients exist, they may not cover each case. Here, a group of specialists portrays the instance of a man who experienced orchidectomy in the wake of being confirmed mind dead, and an obstetrician, neurosurgeon, and humanist open deliberation the moral issues.

The note was dealt with as a propel order, however it didn't cover the circumstance in which the patient got himself. He had considered the making of an orphan kid utilizing his sperm, however the gathering essentially incorporated a contacting by a specialist and is along these lines a strike without appropriate assent. Back rub, electrical incitement, and testicular biopsy are for the most part nosy methods, but negligibly in this way, however we can't expect that the patient would have consented to having his gonad expelled precisely. Without appropriate bearings the specialists couldn't know his desires nor could his prospective dowager and they ought to have held back, as they had no expert for medical procedure.

To admit to the shortcoming of dreading a later test is definitely not an adequate motivation to submit the most essential of moral damages the intrusion of substantial honesty without assent and the regarding of one individual as a way to another's finishes. What lawful cure could the dowager have summoned? She couldn't request that specialists play out an illicit activity. On the off chance that the specialists were uncertain, they could have proposed that the spouse apply for a statutory affirmation that the activity would not have been unlawful. On account of cesarean segment, courts have given earnest choices about assent, so time isn't an inconceivable hindrance.