No bar on fathering a child after death, rules Delhi HC

• The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered a city-based hospital to release the frozen sperm of an unmarried deceased man to his parents, to enable him father a child posthumously.

Highlights:

• In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has allowed a city-based hospital to release the frozen sperm of an unmarried deceased man to his parents, permitting the possibility of posthumous reproduction.
• The ruling sets a significant precedent in Indian law, affirming the rights of individuals and their heirs to access reproductive material after death, provided clear consent is established.

The Case and Court’s Rationale:

• The case involved a 30-year-old man who had frozen his sperm at Ganga Ram Hospital during his treatment for cancer, anticipating potential fertility issues due to chemotherapy. Tragically, he passed away in 2020.
• His parents sought access to the preserved sperm, desiring to continue their son's lineage. However, the hospital required a court order to release the sample.
• Justice Prathiba M. Singh ruled in favor of the parents, emphasizing that Indian law does not prohibit posthumous reproduction. The court’s decision rested on several key factors:
• The deceased had explicitly given consent to preserve his sperm for fertility purposes, confirming his intention to use it in the future.
• As heirs, the parents were deemed legally entitled to the genetic material, which the court classified as a form of property.
• The parents’ wish to continue their son’s legacy, using the preserved sperm, was considered both valid and reasonable in light of modern reproductive technologies.

Legal and Ethical Considerations:

• The court took care to highlight that enormous caution is necessary when dealing with such cases. While the judgment is rooted in Indian legal principles, the court drew upon international precedents to bolster its decision:
• In Israel, a precedent involved a 19-year-old soldier killed in 2002, where the court allowed the parents to access his sperm sample posthumously, resulting in the birth of a daughter to a chosen mother.
• By contrast, the court acknowledged the more conservative approach taken in Germany, referencing the debated case of the "Erlanger baby," where attempts were made to keep a brain-dead pregnant woman alive to save her pregnancy.
• Justice Singh affirmed that there was no prohibition under Indian law against posthumous reproduction, dismissing concerns over potential restrictions. She further added that the grandparents were capable of providing for and raising the future child in a manner that integrates them into society.

Broader Implications:

• The court’s decision is significant for several reasons:
• It expands the interpretation of reproductive rights in India, specifically in the context of posthumous parenthood.
• The ruling affirms that genetic material can be considered a form of property, over which heirs may have rights.
• The decision aligns with advances in assisted reproductive technologies, recognizing the role of modern science in enabling families to continue legacies, even after the loss of a loved one.

Conditions and Safeguards:

• The court stressed that while the parents were granted access to the frozen sperm, it should not be used for any commercial or monetary purposes. This ensures that ethical boundaries are maintained, preventing exploitation of the genetic material.

Prelims Takeaways:

• Assisted reproductive technologies