Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who gets the baby? A mix-up at OHSU's fertility clinic creates a tangle of lawsuits.
The Oregonian ^ | 9/22/06 | ELIZABETH SUH and ASHBEL S. GREEN

Posted on 09/22/2006 8:52:55 AM PDT by momfirst

He says the clinic gave a stranger his sperm and then lied about it.

She says the clinic coerced her into taking the morning-after pill and then offered her a free abortion.

Now he wants to know whether he's a father without his consent.

And she just wants to be left alone.

Oregon Health & Science University concedes it gave his sperm to her, but beyond that it's not saying much.

On Monday, a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge will be asked to sort out whether the man has the right to learn whether the woman has had a baby and if it is his.

The case involves a high-stakes clash of an anonymous woman's right to privacy and an unwitting sperm provider's desire to have a relationship with a biological child.

It also raises serious ethical questions about how OHSU handled the mistake.

"OHSU is deeply sorry for this situation," Barbara Glidewell, OHSU patient advocate and ethicist, said in a statement. "Health care providers are human, and error is inevitable. Our goal now is to respect the decision-making and privacy of everyone involved."

Experts say the man, who goes by the initials M.H. in court papers, might have a chance to find out whether he is the father based on the unusual circumstances of the case. But they all agree that state law and court precedent strongly favor the woman.

"It's his right against hers and the child's," said Caroline Forell, a professor at the University of Oregon School of Law. "My guess is they add up the rights of the child and her and that trumps his."

Mistakes and allegations

In September 2005, M.H. gave workers at OHSU's fertility clinic a container of his sperm to be used to artificially inseminate his fiancee.

(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: fertility; ivf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-64 last
To: nickcarraway
It would never work. The courts would never be contrained by that.

That why I said "law" not "contract"...While I agree that our courts often fail to follow simple, clear law, it's the best we can do...

"That's why I'd rather have the law say"...

51 posted on 09/22/2006 2:03:57 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some Freepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

I'm aware of that.


52 posted on 09/22/2006 3:06:57 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Reality is not optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: stultorum

And the mother?
Should she not be allowed to raise the child as she sees fit, irrespective of the desires of a total stranger she never wanted to be connected to? Since they resorted to an anonymous sperm donor, instead of a friend or relative, I assume they didn't want any extra legal or emotional entanglments.

I don't believe either one has a greater moral claim to the baby.


53 posted on 09/22/2006 3:18:22 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs (You can do that, and be a whack-job pedophile on meth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

Then what is the woman's husband? The one who, presumably, will raise him, and support him? It's says alot of bad things about our society that we have to make these distinctions, but I don't think it's fair to relegate Jane Doe's husband to step father, or surrogate father, or just meal ticket.


54 posted on 09/22/2006 3:22:11 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs (You can do that, and be a whack-job pedophile on meth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

I'm sure there was some sort of paperwork when M.H. made his donation. It would be interesting to know if he relinquished all rights upon making the bank "deposit", or if there is some sort of clause about what rights he actually does have. Whatever the case, I'm sure the simple donation process will undoubtedly require pages of legal documents in the future.


55 posted on 09/22/2006 3:28:35 PM PDT by CheneyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CheneyChick
I'm sure there was some sort of paperwork when M.H. made his donation.

That's what makes this issue so troubling, he didn't "donate" his sperm, it was intended for his fiance ONLY - it was the clinic's error in giving it to another female. He fully intended to create a baby that he would be there to help raise, not a baby for a strange couple.

He doesn't appear to be some shmoe selling his seeds for profit. It was not a donation for science, it was a donation to his loved one.

56 posted on 09/22/2006 3:46:07 PM PDT by momfirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs
I see the problem, I think. I think,though, that "step-father" or "adoptive father" just gets bad press. Too many fairy tales.

C.S. Lewis points out the problem I'm trying to identify(So does Plato, come to think of it). He says a "gentleman" used to be someone who didn't have to work with his hands for a living. It would not be remarkable so say,"Mr. Smith is a gentleman and a scoundrel." Then somebody said,"Ah, but TRUE gentlemanliness is about courtesy and consideration and ....[so forth]." And that sounds very good, But we already have the phrases "good person","Educated person","polite person" and using "gentleman" in this new was just takes away a term of socio-economic meaning and gives us nothing in return.

So the "sperm-donor" is, IMHO, a BAD father, an ineffective father, a hindered or irresponsible father. And the guy who raises the child, knowing it is not his and doing so voluntarily is a good step-father. And the word "father" maintains the root meaning of "donor of some of the genetic material..." and the paradigm or "norm" of donating genetic material taking place within a certain context of relationship and all that is also maintained.

But then, I'm funny that way. I don't think we add anything by derogating or re-defining father. I think we confuse language and then thought.

57 posted on 09/22/2006 4:57:25 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Reality is not optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

"He says a "gentleman" used to be someone who didn't have to work with his hands for a living. It would not be remarkable so say,"Mr. Smith is a gentleman and a scoundrel."

My definition of gentleman: Gentleman you are born; rich you become.


58 posted on 09/22/2006 5:03:58 PM PDT by stultorum (In hoc signo vincet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: stultorum

That's GOT to be closer to the root even than Lewis's explanation. (Hey, are we kind of going astray here?) Gens, gentis? Race? "Gentle", like "kind" originally conveying more of the sense of "one of us" (or, for us peasants, "one of them") than anything else. Already in the 16th century, the usage is getting interesting or Hamlet's wry line "A little more than kin, but less than kind," wouldn't have the bite it has. For the Lancashire Poet, "rich" and "righteous" seem closely related, if my failing memory serves me.


59 posted on 09/22/2006 5:14:38 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Reality is not optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: CheneyChick
I'm sure there was some sort of paperwork when M.H. made his donation.

He may not have made a general donation, but a donation for use with a specific person's egg. If they used it for someone else, that would be a problem. I still think that the issue should be the clinic compensating him, not him wrecking some family.

60 posted on 09/22/2006 5:27:43 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some Freepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: momfirst

Oops. I guess I should have read the article. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out.


61 posted on 09/22/2006 5:35:31 PM PDT by CheneyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: CheneyChick

No prob. ;)


62 posted on 09/22/2006 7:20:29 PM PDT by momfirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

you are mostly right. but that law states also that if the husband is sterile, his legal father status is waived


63 posted on 09/25/2006 9:44:42 AM PDT by nicovu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: nicovu

No such provision exists in traditional common law -- not surprising since it was virtually impossible to establish sterility until fairly recent times. But the nature of common law is that it evolves via case law, and I'm sure some states have established a proven-sterility exception, either via case law or via legislation.


64 posted on 09/25/2006 11:54:03 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-64 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson