David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Many men, including soldiers, cancer patients, and athletes, have elected to bank sperm. They do this with the intent of using it themselves in the future to father their own children. What inheritance-related issues arise if these men die, and their widows or girlfriends use the sperm to give birth to children? For a postmortem conception (PMC) child to inherit, the widow or girlfriend must obtain the sperm after the man dies, use it through assisted reproductive technology (ART) to become pregnant, and give birth to a child who can prove paternity and make a timely claim against the father's estate. This sometimes even occurs as a result of the sperm being retrieved from the man after his death, which the American Society of Reproductive Medicine prohibits if the man did not provide informed consent, but against which there is no express law. This article addresses the inheritance-related problems that can result from these activities, providing a comparative analysis of state statutory and case law, as well as a discussion of the relevant sections of the Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act (USCACA) and the Restatement of the Law Third-Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers. It discusses the problems associated with not having a uniform national policy, and describes such policies that have been developed in other countries, including Great Britain, Canada, and Australia. Finally, it offers an analysis of the effects of three fundamental wills doctrines (the requirement of survivorship, the class-closing "rule of convenience," and the parol evidence rule) on the PMC child's ability to inherit.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Stephen David Ross (2009). For Giving. International Studies in Philosophy Monograph Series:469-504.
Liezl van Zyl (2002). Intentional Parenthood and the Nuclear Family. Journal of Medical Humanities 23 (2):107-118.
Stephen Wilkinson (2010). Choosing Tomorrow's Children: The Ethics of Selective Reproduction. OUP Oxford.
Janet Malek (2006). Identity, Harm, and the Ethics of Reproductive Technology. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (1):83 – 95.
Bertha Alvarez Manninen (2007). Pleading Men and Virtuous Women: Considering the Role of the Father in the Abortion Debate. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (1):1-24.
Peter D. Sozou, Sally Sheldon & Geraldine M. Hartshorne, Personal View: Withdrawal of Consent by Sperm Donors.
Jeff McMahan (1998). Wrongful Life: Paradoxes in the Morality of Causing People to Exist. In Jules L. Coleman, Christopher W. Morris & Gregory S. Kavka (eds.), Rational Commitment and Social Justice: Essays for Gregory Kavka. Cambridge University Press 208--47.
Kristine S. Knaplund, Legal Issues of Maternity and Inheritance for the Biotech Child of the 21st Century.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #679,627 of 1,941,072 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,098 of 1,941,072 )
How can I increase my downloads?