peter Glover wrote:
> I wonder if anyone shares my views on the poor lady who is trying to use
> her dead husband's sperm for the child they both wanted. Not enough to
> face the legal establishment but now the geriatric old farts at the BMA
> have got to get their oar in. For God's sake what's the matter with
> everyone? do they really think her husband would not have wanted a
> child? To add insult to injury, who has got the right to stop her taking
> his sperm abroad for someone with some common sense to sort her out?
> Surely she has inherited all her dead husband's possessions to do with
> as she will and don't a few spermatazoa count as possessions? Today I
> feel ashamed to be part of a profession that is standing in the way of
> this sad woman.
But the most important consideration must be the welfare of the
child. spermatozoa are not 'just' a possession: certainly not if the
intention is to 'marry' them to an ovum. They are a future human
being.
I am concerned about the mother's mental health, in the sense that
this does not seem to be a very good way of coming to terms with her
husband's death does it?
I suport the BMA view on this one. Does that make me a boring old
fart as well?
Actually childish insults are not much help in an ethical debate such
as this.
Jim Parle
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|