Aim Postmortem sperm retrieval with consequent artificial insemination has become a technically possible option for future use in assisted reproductive technology (ART). The authors have set out to discuss the social and ethical significance of posthumous sperm retrieval, and the laws currently in force in Italy, the United States and elsewhere. Methods International literature from 1997 to 2020 has been reviewed from Pubmed database, Google Scholar and Scopus, drawn upon American, Italian and international sources (an ethically acceptable solution can only be achieved through an overhaul of the laws currently in effect). One of the most contentious issues was about donor consent. In Italy, a donor's will to retrieve his sperm in the event of premature disappearance can be proven according to the Law 219/2017, through advance health care directives. Results A substantial increase, both in requests and protocols, was documented in the United States. In Italy, over the last two years, three rulings were issued concerning posthumous insemination. However, no official standardized protocols, guidelines or targeted legislation exist at the national level to regulate medical activity in that realm, whereas established laws often set implicit limitations. Conclusion Current legal frameworks appear to be inadequate, because in most cases they were conceived under conditions that have radically changed. The need for newly-updated regulatory frameworks to promptly bridge that gap is increasingly clear, if current social needs related to reproductive rights are to be met in the foreseeable future.
Rothman C. A method for obtaining viable sperm in the postmortem state. Fertil Steril. 1980. p. 512.
2.
Kerr S, Caplan A, Polin G, Smugar S, Neill O, Urowitz K, et al. Postmortem sperm procurement. J Urol. 1997. p. 2154–8.
3.
Hurwitz J, Macdonald J, Lifshitz L, Batzer F, Caplan A. Posthumous sperm procurement: an update. Fertil Steril. 2002. p. 2–42.
4.
Jequier A, Zhang M. Practical problems in the posthumous retrieval of sperm. Hum Reprod. 2014. p. 2615–9.
5.
Freeman T. Gamete donation, information sharing and the best interests of the child: an overview of the psychosocial evidence. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015. p. 45–63.
6.
Robertson J, Kempers R, Cohen J, Haney A, Younger J. Posthumous Reproduction. Fertility and Reproduction Medicine. Elsevier Science; 1998.
7.
Negro F, Varone M, Rio D, A. Advances in medically-assisted procreation technologies: can malpractice claims and “reproductive damage” be identified. Clin Ter. 2020. p. 225–8.
8.
Jones S, Gillett G. Posthumous reproduction: consent and its limitations. J Law Med Ethics. 2008. p. 279–87.
9.
Bahadur G. Death and conception. Hum Reprod. 2002. p. 2769–75.
10.
Landau R. Posthumous sperm retrieval for the purpose of later insemination or IVF in Israel: an ethical and psychosocial critique. Hum Reprod. 2004. p. 1952–6.
11.
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Posthumous reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2004.
12.
Spielman B. Pushing the dead into the next reproductive frontier: post mortem gamete retrieval under the uniform anatomical gift act. J Law Med Ethics. 2009. p. 331–43.
13.
Law 40/2004, enacted by the Italian Parliament on 19 th February. 2004.
14.
Finnerty J, Karns L, Thomas T, West R. Pinkerton JV. Gamete retrieval in terminal conditions: is it practical? What are the consequences? Curr Womens. Health Rep. 2002. p. 174–8.
15.
Tash J, Applegarth L, Kerr S, Fins J, Rosenwaks Z, Schlegel P. Postmortem sperm retrieval: the effect of instituting guidelines. J Urol. 2003. p. 1922–5.
16.
Bahm S, Karkazis K, Magnus D. A content analysis of posthumous sperm procurement protocols with considerations for developing an institutional policy. Fertil Steril. 2013. p. 839–43.
17.
Hostiuc S, Curca C. Informed consent in posthumous sperm procurement. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010. p. 433–8.
18.
Goulding E, Lim B. Life after death: posthumous sperm procurement. Whose right to decide? BJOG. 2015. p. 394.
19.
Batzer F, Hurwitz J, Caplan A. Postmortem parenthood and the need for a protocol with posthumous sperm procurement. Fertil Steril. 2003. p. 1263–9.
20.
Collins R. Posthumous reproduction and the presumption against consent in cases of death caused by sudden trauma. J Med Philos. 2005. p. 431–42.
21.
Shenfield F. Consent and intent in assisted reproduction. Law Med. 2000. p. 317–25.
22.
Planchon S. Comment the application of the dead man’s statutes in family law. Journal of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. 2001. p. 561–77.
23.
Check M, Summers-Chase D, Check J, Choe J, Nazari A. Sperm extracted and cryopreserved from testes several hours after death results in pregnancy following frozen embryo transfer: case report. Arch Androl. 1999. p. 235–7.
24.
Belker A, Swanson M, Cook C, Carrillo A, Yoffe S. Live birth after sperm retrieval from a moribund man. Fertil Steril. 2001. p. 841–3.
25.
Zaami S, Busardò F. Elective egg freezing: can you really turn back the clock? Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015. p. 3537–8.
26.
Wang A, Kumsa F, Kaan I, Li Z, Sullivan E. Farquhar CM. Effectiveness of social egg freezing: protocol for systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ Open. 2019. p. 30700.
27.
Zaami S, Stark M, Malvasi A, Marinelli E. Eggs Retrieval. Adverse Events, Complications, and Malpractice: A Medicolegal Perspective. Springer; 2020. p. 347–59.
28.
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Posthumous retrieval and use of gametes or embryos: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018. p. 45–9.
29.
Orr R, Siegler M. Is posthumous semen retrieval ethically permissible. J Med Ethics. 2002. p. 299–302.
30.
Panagiotopoulou N, Karavolos S. Let Me Keep My Dead Husband’s Sperm": Ethical Issues in Posthumous Reproduction. J Clin Ethics. 2015. p. 143–51.
31.
Disposizioni in materia di prelievi e di trapianti di organi e di tessuti. 1AD.
32.
Italian Ministry of Health statement n. 110, issued on 20 th August. 2019. p. 2–4.
33.
Napoletano S, Rio D, A. Reproductive medicine between advancement and ethics. Clin Ter. 2018. p. 108–9.
34.
Caso Englaro-Interruzione dei trattamenti e incapacità Sentenza di Cassazione. 2007.
35.
Kroon F. Presuming consent in the ethics of posthumous sperm procurement and conception. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016. p. 123–30.
36.
Tremellen K, Savulescu J. Posthumous conception by presumed consent. A pragmatic position for a rare but ethically challenging dilemma. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016. p. 26–9.
37.
Zaami S. Assisted heterologous fertilization and the right of donor conceived children to know their biological origins. Clin Ter. 2018. p. 39–43.
38.
Montanari V, Marinelli E, Di Luca N, Zaami S. Gamete donation: are children entitled to know their genetic origins? A comparison of opposing views. The Italian State of Affairs. Eur J Health Law. 2018. p. 322–37.
39.
Tremellen K, Savulescu J. A discussion supporting presumed consent for posthumous sperm procurement and conception. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015. p. 6–13.
40.
Vergallo M, Zaami G, S, Luca D, Marinelli N, E. The conscientious objection: debate on emergency contraception. Clin Ter. 2017. p. 113–9.
41.
Minerva F. Conscientious objection in Italy. J Med Ethics. 2015. p. 170–3.
42.
Ethical considerations of the new reproductive technologies. Ethics Committee of The American Fertility Society. Fertil Steril. 1990. p. 1S – 104.
43.
Simana S. Creating life after death: should posthumous reproduction be legally permissible without the deceased’s prior consent? J Law Biosci. 2018. p. 329–54.
44.
Yoon M. The Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act: does it protect the best interests of the child in a surrogate arrangement? Am J Law Med. 1990. p. 525–8.
45.
Brumback K. Judge tosses suit claiming sperm bank misrepresented donor. The Associated Press. Published October 21 st. 2015.
46.
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Uniform Parentage Act. American Bar Association; 2002.
47.
Kindregan C, Snyder S. Clarifying the Law of ART: The New American Bar Association Model Act Governing Assisted Reproductive Technology. Family Law Quarterly. 2008. p. 203–29.
48.
Katz K. Parenthood from the Grave: Protocols for Retrieving and Utilizing Gametes from the Dead or Dying. 2006. p. 11.
49.
Cummings B, Paris J. From death to life: ethical issues in postmortem sperm retrieval as a source of new life. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2020. p. 369–74.
50.
Kocher T, Wagner R, Klausegger A, Guttmann-Gruber C, Hainzl S, Bauer J, et al. Improved double-nicking strategies for COL7A1editing by homologous recombination. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2019. p. 496–507.
51.
Marinelli S, Rio D, A. Beginning of life ethics at the dawn of a new era of genome editing: are bioethical precepts and fast-evolving biotechnologies irreconcilable? Clin Ter. 2020. p. 407–11.
52.
Baldini D, Beck R, Negro F, Viti D, D. Assisted reproductive technologies and metabolic syndrome complications: medico-legal reappraisal. Clin Ter. 2019. p. 364–7.
53.
Asplund K. Use of in vitro fertilization-ethical issues. Ups J Med Sci. 2020. p. 192–9.
54.
Baldini D, Savoia M, Sciancalepore A, Malvasi A, Vizziello D, Beck R, et al. High progesterone levels on the day of HCG administration do not affect the embryo quality and the reproductive outcomes of frozen embryo transfers. Clin Ter. 2018. p. 91–5.
55.
Beck R, Brizzi A, Cinnella G, Raimondo P, Kuczkowski K. Anesthesia and Analgesia for Women Undergoing Oocyte Retrieval. Springer; 2020. p. 99–119.
56.
Ricci G, Campanozzi L, Marinelli S, Midolo E, Ruggeri L. The human embryo, subjectivity and legal capacity. Notes in the light of art. 1 of the Italian law on "medically assisted procreation. Clin Ter. 2019. p. 102–7.
57.
Jonlin E. Informed Consent for Human Embryo Genome Editing. Stem Cell Reports. 2020. p. 530–7.
58.
Marinelli S. Medically-assisted procreation and the rise of off-center, new types of “parenthood”: it is incumbent upon lawmakers to intervene. Clin Ter. 2019. p. 241–4.
59.
Benagiano G, Filippi V, Sgargi S, Gianaroli L. Italian Constitutional Court removes the prohibition on gamete donation in Italy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014. p. 662–4.
60.
Marinelli S. No more only one mom? European Court of Human Rights and Italian jurisprudences’ ongoing evolution. Clin Ter. 2020. p. 36–43.
61.
Vergallo M, Zaami G, Bruti S, Signore V, Marinelli F, E. How the legislation on medically assisted procreation has evolved in Italy. Med Law. 2017. p. 5–28.
62.
Waler N, Clavijo R, Brackett N, Lynne C. Ramasamy R. Policy on posthumous sperm retrieval: survey of 75 major Academic Medical Centers. 2018. p. 45–51.
63.
Zinkel A, Ankel F, Milbank A, Casey C, Sundheim J. Postmortem Sperm Retrieval in the Emergency Department: A Case Report and Review of Available Guidelines. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2019. p. 405–8.
64.
Storrow R. Judicial review of restrictions on gamete donation in Europe. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012. p. 655–9.
65.
Vergallo M, Zaami G, Sparic S, R. Medically Assisted Procreation: European Legislation and Ensuing Ethical Issues. Springer; 2020. p. 361–73.
66.
Supreme Civil Court -1 st Section. Ruling 13000. 2019.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
