A cross-cultural analysis of posthumous reproduction: The significance of the gender and margins-of-life perspectives

Abstract

The scholarly discussion of posthumous reproduction (PHR) focuses on informed consent and the welfare of the future child, for the most part overlooking cultural differences between societies. Based on a cross-cultural comparison of legal and regulatory documents, analysis of pivotal cases and study of scholarly and media discussions in Israel and Germany, this paper analyses the relevant ethical and policy issues, and questions how cultural differences shape the practice of PHR. The findings challenge the common classifications of PHR by highlighting the gender perspective and adding brain-dead pregnant women to the debate. Based on this study’s findings, four neglected cultural factors affecting social attitudes towards PHR are identified: (i) the relationship between the pregnant woman and her future child; (ii) what constitutes the beginning of life; (iii) what constitutes dying; and (iv) the social agent(s) seeking to have the future child. The paper argues that PHR can be better understood by adding the gender and margins-of-life perspectives, and that future ethical and practical discussions of this issue could benefit from the criteria emerging from this cross-cultural analysis.

Post-mortem Sperm Retrieval and Posthumous Grandparenthood in the United States and Internationally

“…Israel's mandatory military service unites the country by policy, but also leaves families vulnerable to loss of only children. Empathy for the parents of fallen soldiers may add weight to successful requests for PMSR when they are in the context of combat fatality [23]. Denial of PMSR requests, in these situations, can be viewed as calloused.…”

(Un) Natural Grief: Novelty, Tradition and Naturalization in Israeli Discourse on Posthumous Reproduction

“…In contrast, Israel's regulations are based on a “presumed wish” model created by the attorney general (hereafter: AG) in 2003. According to this model, if a young man dies without explicit instructions regarding the use of his frozen sperm or the option of posthumous sperm retrieval, the default assumption is that he had wished to become a posthumous father, as long as the potential mother was his spouse (Hashiloni‐Dolev and Schiktanz ). A legislative committee on fertility and childbirth in Israel advocated this model in 2012 (Israeli Health Ministry ).…”

“…Courts in several countries, such as Australia, do not necessarily follow legal requirements concerning PR (Simana ). Yet, the Israeli rulings in favor of posthumous grandparenthood are unique and make Israel an exceptional case (Hashiloni‐Dolev and Schiktanz ). Moreover, Israel's Supreme Court has overturned lower courts’ approval of PR in only two cases: when a surrogate was involved (making the surviving parents de facto grandparents), and when the widow objected.…”

“…PR is the intentional application of technology to achieve conception, pregnancy, and childbirth where the genetic father, mother, or potentially both, have been declared dead (Hashiloni‐Dolev and Schiktanz , 22). Technically, PR from a dead father is no different from any insemination where the sperm or pre‐implementation embryo was frozen during a man's life, and posthumous sperm retrieval is also possible.…”

“…The empirical focus of this study is on family members who submitted a request for PR in the unique sociocultural setting of Israel, whose regulations in this area are considered extremely permissive (Hashiloni‐Dolev and Schiktanz ). Within this context, PR supporters have constructed a natural grief model based on a twofold form of justification that combines traditional cultural assumptions with aspirations for modernity, innovation, and progress.…”