A main issue raised by requests for sperm retrieval after death, PVS, or coma as in the case report presented above, is whether it is ethically justifiable to carry out such requests in the absence of the man's prior explicit consent. By explicit consent we mean a patient's written consent or verbal consent that is documented by a health care provider.
Some have objected to the idea that the explicit prior or reasonably inferred consent of a deceased patient is ethically relevant; claiming that the dead no longer have interests (Robertson, 1998). In reply, there is an important reason why we should attempt to act in accordance with the wishes of previously alive patients, whether explicitly documented or reasonably inferred. Specifically, it is considered disrespectful toward the dead to do things to their bodies to which they would have objected when alive. For example, removing organs from a brain dead patient who would have objected is disrespectful toward the previously alive person.
One reason some might value procreation in the ordinary context is that it involves participation in the creation of a person. Such participation can be important to individuals for various reasons. Some might attach meaning to the idea of creating an individual who develops self-consciousness. For others, participation in the creation of a person might have religious significance; some might see it as acting as an instrument of God's will, while others might regard it as fulfillment of a religious duty. Moreover, it is reasonable to say that one can participate in the creation of a person even though the conception and/or gestation occurs after one's death. After all, individuals can take actions when alive that will cause the conception or gestation to occur after death, and it is their own gametes that would be used. Admittedly, the individual would not know whether the attempt to create a person posthumously would be successful.......
