Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

© 2016 The Author(s) The prevailing legal position and opinion of professional societies such as the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine is that posthumous sperm conception should only occur in the presence of explicit written consent from the deceased man. However, in our opinion this is an impractical approach as the majority of deaths of reproductive-age men are sudden and unexpected, thereby precluding explicit consent. Previously in this journal we have outlined arguments supporting a move to a standard of presumed consent for posthumous conception, with provisions for men to ‘opt out’ and safeguards to protect the welfare of the prospective mother and her child. In a recent commentary in this journal, Kroon outlines arguments against our position of presumed consent as an unacceptable violation of the deceased's autonomy. However, such arguments on the primacy of the rights of the dead are in our opinion not paramount, especially since this position blocks access to posthumous conception for the majority who support its use. The objective of this commentary is to provide a rebuttal to the concerns raised by Kroon and hopefully reorientate the discussion towards the rights and welfare of the living (widow, prospective child), not the dead.

Original publication




Journal article


Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online

Publication Date





26 - 29