Perimortem gamete retrieval: should we worry about consent?

Anna Smajdor

Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract
Perimortem gamete retrieval has been a possibility for several decades. It involves the surgical extraction of gametes which can then be cryo-preserved and stored for future use. Usually, the request for perimortem gamete retrieval is made by the patient’s partner after the patient himself, or herself, has lost the capacity to consent for the procedure. Perimortem gamete retrieval allows for the partner of a dead patient to pursue jointly held reproductive aspiration long after their loved one’s death. But how can we know if the dying patient would have consented to gamete retrieval? In the UK, consent is a legal necessity for storing or using gametes – but this is not always enforced. Moreover, although the issues related to posthumous reproduction have been discussed at length in the literature, few commentators have addressed the specific question of retrieval. Gamete retrieval is an invasive and sensitive operation; as with any other intervention performed on the bodies of dead or dying patients, the nature and justification for this procedure needs to be carefully considered. In particular, it is important to question the idea that consent for such an intervention can be inferred solely from a person’s known wishes or plans concerning reproduction.


Smajdor A. Perimortem gamete retrieval: should we worry about consent? J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101727

In Defense of Ectogenesis

Anna Smajdor

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

Extract
In his article ‘‘Research Priorities and the Future of Pregnancy’’ in this issue of CQ, Timothy Murphy evaluates some of the arguments I advanced in an earlier publication, ‘‘The Moral Imperative for Ectogenesis.’’ In this reply to Murphy’s article, I acknowledge some of his points and seek to show why some of his objections are not as powerful as he thinks. I start here by summarizing the argument put forward in my original article.

Smajdor A. In Defense of Ectogenesis. Camb Q Healthc Ethics (2012) 21 , pp 90-103

The moral imperative for ectogenesis

Anna Smajdor

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

Abstract
Rather than putting the onus on women to have children at times that suit societal rather than women’s individual interests, we could provide technical alternatives to gestation and childbirth so that women are no longer unjustly obliged to be the sole risk takers in reproductive enterprises. In short, what is required is ectogenesis: the development of artificial wombs that can sustain fetuses to term without the need for women’s bodies. Only by thus remedying the natural or physical injustices involved in the unequal gender roles of reproduction can we alleviate the social injustices that arise from them.

Keywords:

Smajdor A. The moral imperative for ectogenesis. Camb Q. Healthc Ethics. 2007 May 09;16(3):336-345.