Judge blocks parents’ bid to use dying son’s sperm to father a child

The man’s father said his son had spoken about wanting children and his girlfriend had ‘expressed a desire to carry his child’

Natalie Crockett
Saturday 19 November 2022 08:24
Comments

Related video: Humans May Face Reproductive Crisis As Sperm Count Declines

The parents of a dying man have failed in their court bid to collect and store his sperm to allow his girlfriend to have his child.

The 22-year-old student, who cannot be named, collapsed suddenly while playing sport and was unconscious in intensive care after suffering a stroke when his parents made the application to the Court of Protection.

The man had spoken about wanting children and his girlfriend had “expressed a desire to carry his child”, Mr Justice Poole heard at an urgent out-of-hours hearing on November 3.

But the judge concluded that allowing it would not have been in the man’s best interests.

Details of the case emerged on Thursday when the judge’s written ruling was published. The man at the centre of the case has since died.

Judges in the Court of Protection consider issues relating to people who do not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Mr Justice Poole, who is based in London and oversees hearings in the Family Division of the High Court, said the man had been a student at a university in the south-west of England and was fit and healthy before his collapse, which he described as “tragic”.

The man’s parents had sought declarations that would allow a doctor to retrieve their son’s sperm and store it lawfully so that it might be “used in the future for the conception and birth of a child or children”.

The man’s father told the judge: “My son had a girlfriend, and he has for many years spoken to me about wanting children of his own.”

“I make it clear to the court that my wife and I would raise the child, but the girlfriend, who is aware of this application, has expressed a desire to carry his child.”

Mr Justice Poole concluded that such declarations would not have been in the man’s best interests.

In his ruling, the judge said: “There is no evidence before the court to persuade me that (he) would have wished for his sperm to be collected and stored in his present circumstances.

“I cannot accept that there should be a default position that sperm should be collected and stored in such circumstances as being generally in a person’s best interests.”

He added: “The process of collecting (his) sperm is physically invasive and there is no evidence that (he) would have consented to it or would have agreed to its purpose.

“I take into account the views of his parents about (his) best interests.

“However, weighing all the relevant matters in the balance, I conclude that it is not in (his) best interests to make the declarations sought.”

Reporting by Press Association

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in