Woman granted permission to remove sperm from deceased husband
A woman in Western Australia, aged 62, has received approval from the Supreme Court to extract sperm from her deceased husband for possible use in posthumous fertilization. The couple, who remain anonymous due to legal reasons, tragically lost their two children in separate accidents. Following her 61-year-old husband's death last year, the woman urgently sought a court order.
The couple wanted to conceive but age was an issue
According to reports, the couple had discussed having another child after their first two died, but a fertility expert told the woman that her advanced age would prevent her from becoming pregnant. Additionally, the man's sperm was tested and found to be viable.
20-year-old cousin agreed to be a surrogate but challenges surfaced
According to the court, a 20-year-old cousin had offered to serve as the couple's surrogate in an IVF procedure, but she lived abroad. The cousin stated that she thought the couple would have been required to live in that nation for a certain amount of time before proceeding. Due to work obligations, the pandemic, and the woman's mother-in-law's passing, the couple was unable to relocate. Consequently, they missed out on this opportunity.
The hospital's delay led to an urgent court application
After the husband's demise, his body was taken to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, but the court learned that the hospital failed to promptly assign a "designated officer" to manage the woman's request for sperm extraction and storage while it was still viable. Judge Fiona Seaward granted the application, allowing the sperm to be removed but not used, as that would necessitate a separate court order.
Next steps and criticism of the hospital's handling
For the woman to use the sperm for fertilization, she must apply to transfer it to a jurisdiction that permits the procedure, since Western Australia currently does not allow posthumous fertilization. In her ruling, Seaward criticized the hospital for not providing a "designated officer" promptly, expressing disappointment that the applicant had to urgently attend court under traumatic circumstances when a quicker and more efficient process could have been achievable.
