The Supreme Court of British Columbia released a landmark fertility law decision where, for the first time, sperm was held to constitute property at law. You can find the J.C.M. v. A.N.A. decision here.
Briefly, here are the facts of the case:
A lesbian couple purchased sperm from a US sperm bank. Using this sperm, they conceived two children at Genesis Fertility Centre. The couple later broke up and divided up the assets of their relationship, but inadvertently failed to come to an agreement about the remaining sperm. The applicant, J.C.M., later met a new partner and wanted to use the remaining frozen sperm to conceive a child who was biologically related to her previous children. A.N.A. refused to allow the use and instead asked that the cryopreserved sperm be destroyed. J.C.M. brought the application seeking a declaration that the sperm was her sole property.
The Honourable Madame Justice Russell ordered that the 13 remaining sperm straws be divided between the parties.
Here is what I had to say about the decision: watch the brief video here
Take home point: while an important decision, I doubt that the issue of whether gametes are property at law is resolved by this decision. How would the judge have decided had the remaining donor gamete been a single cryopreserved egg that could not be divided? Would the decision have differed had the donor sperm not been purchased by the parties, thereby taking away any meaningful argument from the respondent that treating human gametes as property devalues and commercializes human tissue?
Briefly, here are the facts of the case:
A lesbian couple purchased sperm from a US sperm bank. Using this sperm, they conceived two children at Genesis Fertility Centre. The couple later broke up and divided up the assets of their relationship, but inadvertently failed to come to an agreement about the remaining sperm. The applicant, J.C.M., later met a new partner and wanted to use the remaining frozen sperm to conceive a child who was biologically related to her previous children. A.N.A. refused to allow the use and instead asked that the cryopreserved sperm be destroyed. J.C.M. brought the application seeking a declaration that the sperm was her sole property.
The Honourable Madame Justice Russell ordered that the 13 remaining sperm straws be divided between the parties.
Here is what I had to say about the decision: watch the brief video here
Take home point: while an important decision, I doubt that the issue of whether gametes are property at law is resolved by this decision. How would the judge have decided had the remaining donor gamete been a single cryopreserved egg that could not be divided? Would the decision have differed had the donor sperm not been purchased by the parties, thereby taking away any meaningful argument from the respondent that treating human gametes as property devalues and commercializes human tissue?
RSS Feed
