CASES ON POSTHUMOUS SPERM RETRIEVAL
Case one:
In 2009 Amy Vanden Brink’s fiancé died unexpectedly, she had 24 hours to retrieve the sperm from his deceased body if she wanted to conceive his children in the future. She had to be given an approval for a specialist to remove the sperm from the deceased body. Queensland’s Supreme Court allowed Amy Vanden Brink to retrieve her husband’s sperm but there was no precedent in Queensland for approving posthumous use. In 2013 this case was presented in The Weekend Australian Magazine and the approval for Amy Vanden Brink to use her deceased husband’s sperm for her to conceive from the frozen sperm has not yet been decided.
Case two:
In South Australia, sperm can be used posthumously only if it was retrieved prior to death. Despite the strict regime, a court cleared the way for a 28year old Adelaide school teacher to remove sperm in March 2011 after her engineer husband was killed in a road accident. Justice Thomas Gray in the South Australia Supreme Court went further October 2012, opening the door for its use. He described the window as “a determined and courageous woman” who would provide “a loving, caring and stable environment for her child” with the benefit of extended family support. She now waits with fingers cursed for the state’s attorney general to consider waiving the restrictions on IVF so she can proceed. (Legge, 2013)
Case three:
In Australia there have been two live births using post-mortem sperm retrieval, both in Canberra, an IVF haven where reproductive treatment clinics operate under National Health and Medical Research guidelines that govern accreditation but are not legally binding. Although these regulations deny the posthumous use of sperm unless “a deceased person has left clearly expressed and witnessed directions”, clinicians interpreted that caveat loosely to assist these women, emboldened by Supreme Court decisions in NSW and Victoria releasing sperm for this purpose. (Legge, 2013)
In 2009 Amy Vanden Brink’s fiancé died unexpectedly, she had 24 hours to retrieve the sperm from his deceased body if she wanted to conceive his children in the future. She had to be given an approval for a specialist to remove the sperm from the deceased body. Queensland’s Supreme Court allowed Amy Vanden Brink to retrieve her husband’s sperm but there was no precedent in Queensland for approving posthumous use. In 2013 this case was presented in The Weekend Australian Magazine and the approval for Amy Vanden Brink to use her deceased husband’s sperm for her to conceive from the frozen sperm has not yet been decided.
Case two:
In South Australia, sperm can be used posthumously only if it was retrieved prior to death. Despite the strict regime, a court cleared the way for a 28year old Adelaide school teacher to remove sperm in March 2011 after her engineer husband was killed in a road accident. Justice Thomas Gray in the South Australia Supreme Court went further October 2012, opening the door for its use. He described the window as “a determined and courageous woman” who would provide “a loving, caring and stable environment for her child” with the benefit of extended family support. She now waits with fingers cursed for the state’s attorney general to consider waiving the restrictions on IVF so she can proceed. (Legge, 2013)
Case three:
In Australia there have been two live births using post-mortem sperm retrieval, both in Canberra, an IVF haven where reproductive treatment clinics operate under National Health and Medical Research guidelines that govern accreditation but are not legally binding. Although these regulations deny the posthumous use of sperm unless “a deceased person has left clearly expressed and witnessed directions”, clinicians interpreted that caveat loosely to assist these women, emboldened by Supreme Court decisions in NSW and Victoria releasing sperm for this purpose. (Legge, 2013)