Woman becomes pregnant via IVF donor sperm after husband's death

The incident at Hara Medical Clinic in Tokyo's Shibuya Ward has raised concerns over the ramifications for the child's biological father as infertility treatments in Japan are limited to married couples, and when donor sperm is used the husband usually assumes legal parenthood.

Japanese law does not cover cases in which the husband dies during IVF treatments. It is possible that, if identified, the sperm donor may be asked to legally accept recognition as the child's father.

There's your problems. I assume again that the government needs names in the mother and father slot come hell or high water? One wonders what women do that don't want to reveal the father.

The baby population will take another decline even further because of this decision and a stupid one at that. The reason they have the deceased husband's sperm is because he provided it and so clearly wanted children, OMG.

Apparently,, a child registered in a koseki without a father is automatically registered as ”非嫡出子” (hichakushusshi, illegitimate). I don't know what problems that might entail down the line, but one can imagine.

A more serious problem is foreign women who give birth to a child with unknown paternity. As Japan does not recognize jus soli (right of citizenship by birth) and only jus sanguinis (right of citizenship by blood), foreign women who give birth in Japan to a child with unkown paternity who also cannot register their children as citizens of their own country result in stateless children. Several hundred people in Japan are stuck in such limbo. https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14459395

justaskingToday  07:34 am JST

The baby population will take another decline even further because of this decision and a stupid one at that. The reason they have the deceased husband's sperm is because he provided it and so clearly wanted children, OMG.

She never had the deceased husbands sperm.

foreign women who give birth in Japan to a child with unkown paternity who also cannot register their children as citizens of their own country result in stateless children.

First off, I think you really should check your facts on this point. Just because the paternity of the child may be unknown, dies not automatically result in a stateless child. The mother most certainly can register the child in the country that they hold their citizenship with. Unless the mother herself is stateless, she can get citizenship for her child.

You should read your own links before making a blanket statement!

have babies here but choose not to register the births with their own governments, or that they themselves are stateless and unable to go through legal procedures.

The mother is making the choice to have her child be stateless, IF she chooses not to register the child in her country. There is no information about just how many children this accounts for.

Good for her and the dead husband. If he gave consent when donating sperm then I see no problem. Foreseeable that sperm and egg donors might die.

RedemptionToday  09:18 am JST

Good for her and the dead husband. If he gave consent when donating sperm then I see no problem. Foreseeable that sperm and egg donors might die.

The dead husband did not donate his sperm and the article does not imply that. Read it again, slowly.

Very strange situation. The young woman should have notified the clinic when her husband passed away. There are many single men in Japan available to start a family with.

She never had the deceased husbands sperm.

The article clearly states this was what made the pregnancy possible even on the headline.

Good for her and the dead husband. If he gave consent when donating sperm then I see no problem. Foreseeable that sperm and egg donors might die.

The problem is that of course the hospitals will not want to be included in problems where the family of the husband dispute this, so the woman had to deceive the doctors and will have to deal with consequences about this.

A better solution would be to make possible a way for the woman to get official permission from the husband family (and the husband on his will) to use the sperm for insemination, at least for a limited period of time.

The dead husband did not donate his sperm and the article does not imply that. 

On the contrary, the modifications of the rules do not include a new step to confirm the donation of the sperm (implying this was already the case) they call for confirmation on the day the insemination is done.

Better do the natural way when it is possible

This creates unimaginable weird situations.

Just the beginning. Soon, when merging of genes from different people will be technically feasible, expect the worse.

Please keep the child's rights respected above all other personal considerations.

Welcome to Gatacca.

The dead husband did not donate his sperm and the article does not imply that. 

> On the contrary, the modifications of the rules do not include a new step to confirm the donation of the sperm (implying this was already the case) they call for confirmation on the day the insemination is done.

Please, show us where in the article that it clear states the dead husband donated his sperm? Knowingly or otherwise?

You really should read the article again.

According to the sources, the woman deliberately concealed her husband's death from doctors, knowing it would render her ineligible to continue IVF with donor sperm, and attempted to conceive after discussions with her in-laws. She finally revealed her husband's death during a post-pregnancy consultation in June.

Huge difference between donor sperm and dead husbands!

Please keep the child's rights respected above all other personal considerations.

This. Every child has a right to know exactly who their biological parents are or were. In some rare cases it may be impossible to know (baby hatches, disasters), but the act of intentionally withholding this information from the child is absolutely inexcusable. And that should be the government's only focus. Whether the child winds up with a custodial father or not is not the government's business to enforce, as it seems to be trying to enforce with the current rules, which, as I decried in the beginning, can make an inexcuseable situation where the child does not know exactly who their biological father is. The first of every month. November 1st is coming.

Soon, when merging of genes from different people will be technically feasible, expect the worse.

That has been possible since people exist.

Please, show us where in the article that it clear states the dead husband donated his sperm?

The argument is already in your quote. If the dead husband never donated its sperm a new rule would also be necessary to confirm the sperm is donated willingly by the person, that this new rule is not being included in the necessary reforms clearly indicates this was already the case. Which would be natural to think since hospitals doing IVF usually do not receive sperm but directly from the donor.

Huge difference between donor sperm and dead husbands!

Again, it is irrational to think a hospital would make a problem about a donor already identified being deceased, and still allowing a woman to bring sperm by herself and accept her word it comes from an specific person.

I know a family with several kids, and the last was in the womb when their father died.

How is their situation any different than a woman who got IVF after the husband died? Its the same excepting that the sperm is donated. In either case, the huband fully intended to be a custodial father, but died before the child was born, and both men intended to become biological fathers.

The grandparents and mother in that family are busy, but are they any less worthy? Are the kids? Its not the government's, public's, or clinic's business if the woman is married or not. It only matters that the kids are supported. So leave this woman alone. This situation can also happen without IVF.

In fact, the father exiting stage left is almost the same thing. Are those kids any less worthy?

Any woman who can show she has the means and support to raise a child should be allowed to get IVF. In fact, any single man that can show he has the means and support should be able to adopt. Remember November 1st.

So many weird rules to trip up women. A married woman can use ivf but needs her husband’s consent for an abortion. A single woman can get pregnant naturally but does not need anyone’s consent for an abortion. A single woman cannot use ivf.

Basically an example of the extreme people will go to skirt an archaic system.

But what do you expect when government(s) as the US is not without scrutiny are governed by 100 year old bags of rocks aka old men, clinging to the old ways when women were considered chattel (personal property).

Humans screwing with nature and natural processes always sees us ending up with more problems, especially regarding ethics and legal rights.

...THEN what happened ?

This isn't "News" in the other 90% of the world.

The now deceased husband was believed to be infertile so they were going through the IVF process with 3rd party sperm donors.

That clarifies the situation, the description of the husband as infertile (not sterile) could mean the IVF can still be performed with his sperm, which is not the case if other donors are involved.

It is possible that, if identified, the sperm donor may be asked to legally accept recognition as the child's father.

I was a donor in college. I certainly wouldn't have considered signing up if this had been a possibility back then.

virusrexToday  10:04 am JST

The dead husband did not donate his sperm and the article does not imply that. 

On the contrary, the modifications of the rules do not include a new step to confirm the donation of the sperm (implying this was already the case) they call for confirmation on the day the insemination is done.

I'm surprised that you of all people cannot comprehend what is written in this article. Stay with the topic and THIS article and not hypothetical situations.

I'm surprised that you of all people cannot comprehend what is written in this article. Stay with the topic and THIS article and not hypothetical situations.

The explanation is about what is written in the article, IVF is frequently used with an infertile patient sperm precisely because the word means insemination is difficult, not impossible.

What part of the comment you quoted means there is a lack of comprehension? that the husband was described as infertile or that other donors are involved?

So by definition she chose to bring up a child either as single mother or with a possible step father. It is her life, but both are are suboptimal choices. I think she made a bad decision.

The first sentence of the Japanese version of the Kyodo article clearly states it was a third party donor.

Children's rights, which should be paramount, mean that much of this fertility treatment should not be allowed.

What part of the comment you quoted means there is a lack of comprehension? that the husband was described as infertile or that other donors are involved?

I am surprised that you of all people are having a hard time understanding a very simple situation here.

The woman conceived a child, through IVF, using donor sperm, but failed to notify the hospital that her husband had died, previous to the IVF, which they would have never done in the first place, had they known about the death.

Your lack of comprehension and I repeat a quote from your reply to my post

The dead husband did not donate his sperm and the article does not imply that. 

On the contrary,

Rules have nothing to do with anything other than the hospital was not informed by the woman of her husbands death prior to the IVF procedure. Which used DONOR sperm!

Let me make it even easier to understand.

A woman had a IVF procedure done, (which she should never had done in the first place) because her husband was deceased.

Now it's very possible that some poor donor, could possibly be asked to legally accept recognition as the child's father. due to the woman's negligence

Thanks for all that, now I understand .

Single woman should be allowed to have a child and register it. A lot of nonsense is causing a lot of fuss for nothing. You just need a bit of intelligence and some open mind in the legal system.

Japanese law does not cover cases in which the husband dies during IVF treatments. It is possible that, if identified, the sperm donor may be asked to legally accept recognition as the child's father.

Aaaannnnnnnnd there go the sperm donations!

the sperm donor may be asked to legally accept recognition as the child's father.

I see a good movie, dark comedy: "Surprise Dad" And of course, he is not ready for the responsibility, but a heartwarming pregnant woman will turn him around. Coming this Spring. PUN INTENDED.