Why Australian SC Allowed Woman To Use Sperm From Dead Husband's Body

The Supreme Court of Western Australia allowed a 62-year-old woman to remove sperm from the dead body of her husband. The woman wanted to use the sperm to cause posthumous fertilization and pregnancy. 

The woman's 61-year-old husband died towards the end of 2023. The dead body was taken to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital where the lady was not provided with the designated officer who would look into the matter of removing sperm from the dead body of the husband. 

The woman files an urgent appeal at the Supreme Court

As a result, the woman had to file an urgent appeal to the court hastily. After going through the application, the court got to know that the couple had two children and both of them died in separate accidents.

After the deaths, the couple decided to reconceive a baby. However, the fertility expert had said that the woman couldn't conceive due to her age but her husband's sperm remains viable. Hence, the couple decided to go for surrogacy after a 20-year-old cousin agreed to be a surrogate through the IVF process.

Why surrogacy failed

However, the couple was living in a different country and the woman thought that the couple was required to stay in the country for some time before undergoing surrogacy. However, due to the pandemic, work commitments and the death of the woman's mother-in-law, the couple could not move and missed the opportunity of surrogacy. 

In the verdict, the court said that the removal of sperm can be granted but its usage post that will require another case and order. 

Court's verdict

Judge Fiona Seawardsaid, "These orders are limited to permitting the removal of the spermatozoa and do not constitute authorisation for the spermatozoa to be used by the applicant, and do not in any way consider whether the applicant can or could meet any statutory criteria in that regard."

The court said that currently Australia doesn't allow posthumous fertilisation and so to do that the woman will have to undergo a separate trial. She will have to transfer her case to a separate jurisdiction where the procedure is allowed. 

Expressing disappointment at the negligence of the hospital in providing a designated officer on time, the judge said," It is disappointing that it appears that, once again, an applicant has been required to attend court on an urgent basis and in traumatic circumstances to obtain an order that may, if the designated officer considered all criteria to be met, be granted in a faster and more streamlined manner."