11–20 of 31 posts
Clear common law battery against the mother. It should be actionable malpractice where brought by children born of this malfeasance because of the incest risks, but most (all?) states frown upon liability for negligent childbirth.
It's odd that the article, which briefly addressed a few ethical issues, did not address the ethical issues regarding the underlying cause of the problem; namely, women using sperm banks.
It's impregnating a woman without her consent. It's a sex crime and should be 10+ years in jail.
I don't think there's a crime called "impregnating a woman without consent". Not only that, he also had consent to impregnate her. The question is about where the sperm came from, but I think it's rather unclear that this would be any kind of legal violation.
It's odd that the article, which briefly addressed a few ethical issues, did not address the ethical issues regarding the underlying cause of the problem; namely, women using sperm banks.
Is there an ethical problem with the idea of sperm banks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there's a crime called "impregnating a woman without consent". Not only that, he also had consent to impregnate her. The question is about where the sperm came from, but I think it's rather unclear that this would be any kind of legal violation.
How is using sperm a patient didn’t consent to not assault?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is using sperm a patient didn’t consent to not assault?
I agree it's wrong, but assault usual implies a physical attack (or, more specifically, the threat thereof). I'm not sure this qualifies; it may be a situation where laws need tweaking to keep up with the times. Certainly malpractice, though.
Clear common law battery against the mother. It should be actionable malpractice where brought by children born of this malfeasance because of the incest risks, but most (all?) states frown upon liability for negligent childbirth.
So the children would be suing a parent for being born?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is using sperm a patient didn’t consent to not assault?
I agree it's wrong, but assault usual implies a physical attack (or, more specifically, the threat thereof). I'm not sure this qualifies; it may be a situation where laws need tweaking to keep up with the times. Certainly malpractice, though.
Clear common law battery against the mother. It should be actionable malpractice where brought by children born of this malfeasance because of the incest risks, but most (all?) states frown upon liability for negligent childbirth.
So the children would be suing a parent for being born?
More likely to succeed are child support-kinds of actions and claims against the physician's estate by all of his unackd issue if he dies intestate or fails to call out and disclaim every one of them expressly in his will.
One thing is certain: This fact set has the makings of a really good bar exam essay question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is using sperm a patient didn’t consent to not assault?
I agree it's wrong, but assault usual implies a physical attack (or, more specifically, the threat thereof). I'm not sure this qualifies; it may be a situation where laws need tweaking to keep up with the times. Certainly malpractice, though.