Judges: No Dead Son's Sperm to Create Grandchild

A couple's desire to use their deceased son's sperm to produce a grandchild was shot down by a NY state appeals court. The New York Law Journal reports, "When Mark Speranza deposited sperm samples at Repro Lab in 1997, he gave no reason for his donation, but signed an agreement directing the tissue bank to destroy the semen in the event of his death. Six months later, he died of cancer." His parents "learned about the sperm deposit while sorting through their son's personal belongings" and paid $400/year for the storage of the sperm and lined up a surrogate mother. But when Repro refused to turn over the sperm, the parents sued. The judges ruled that giving the sperm to Speranza's parents would violate a law requiring sperm donors to be screened, "even though we recognize the joy that ignoring the regulations could bring to plaintiffs." The Speranza's lawyer is considering their options, pointing out, "There has been no case like this ever." Related: In vitro babies created after their father's death were ruled heirs to their grandfather's estate.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on March 4, 2009 10:56 AM

Comments [rss]

DonnieDarko

He wasn't the only son, they also have kids and grandchildren. The mother, who is in her 70s now, is still greiving over her lost son 10 yrs later.

It's sad, but I totally agree with the court's decision. It's selfish for the mother to even want to go through with this against her dead son's wishes. He only deposited the sperm because he was going in for chemo treatments and was afraid that he might not be able to procreate afterwards. On the contract he stated that he wanted his specimens destroyed should he not survive.

Why did this case even get this far? Why didn't Awillda Grillo obey the law and destroy his specimen like she was supposed to (under law and contract) This is a sad case on so many levels. The only true winner here is the lawyer Kerry Kathoris who is getting money (obviously) for taking advantage of the stupid old lady and getting his name out there for this bizzare, outlandish case.

There's a HUGE difference between a donor and a depositor. When you're a depositor the sperm bank does NOT have the right to touch your specimen unless you say so. Also when you are a depositor, blood screenings are not neccesary since your intentions are to use the specimen yourself (not for public use like this case demonstrates)

Let's just say even if they won the right to the sperm, what surrogate mother would allow UNTESTED, cancer cell sperm inside of her? On top of that, let's say they found a surrogate mother who didn't care about that...what type of life would this kid live? His/her mother/grandmother is already in her 70s..they would end up being taken away.

This is just wrong on so many levels..

NannyState

A lot of cancer patients set aside their junk out of fear that chemo and radiation might make them infertile. It has to be viewed as an informed choice to destroy after death so the judge would weight that heavily.

tangent

Was he the only son? Perhaps the father has no other children to carry on the family name?

Besides, who cares about his wishes? He's dead. His parents are alive right now.

Outter Burrougher

i'm very glad that the decision under the law also matches up with the intentions of the son who didn't want a situation like this to occur

ANGRYGOD11

I somehow doubt the son wanted a situation like death by cancer either. But, we have to respect people wishes and not treat them like breeding stock.

gossipgirl

I don't understand...if he deposited sperm, hasn't he been screened?

Jen Chung

It's confusing, but (based on the NY Law Journal article) apparently sperm must be screened if it's not being used by the donor's regular sexual partner.

laisla

But it was screened when they accepted it in the first place? They cannot screen the sperm they have now? I still don't understand. I understand that it does not jive with the son's intentions. But I don't understand the reasoning of the court.

What prevents them from hiring a random person who chooses to use his sperm? Once a man donates, it's the sperm bank's to sell right? And if someone wants it, they sell it?

Jen Chung

From what the articles suggest, it doesn't seem like his sperm was screened at the initial deposit—maybe (back then) donors could do that and then their partners could later come. I think he may have deposited the sperm "just in case" he was sick (since radiation treatments can damage sperm?)—I don't think he deposited it for the lab to sell.