The battle for the sperm and right to life

The “right to life” line in the abortion debate centers on the conflicting rights, particularly the moral status of a fetus  versus bodily autonomy of the mother.

Anti-abortion groups argue that a fetus is a person with a right to life, and therefore abortion is morally wrong while  pro-choice groups argue  a person’s right to control their own body and reproductive autonomy, and that restricting abortion violates human rights.

There are very rare instances when “right to life” is  linked with a man in a reproductive sense.

“Give it back!” became the battle cry of    a person deprived of his right to reproduce due to the negligence of a fertility clinic in Episode 2 of the Korean Drama Beyond the Bar, “Hot water is the best for tea and love”.

Park Gi-beam entrusted his sperm to Hoseon Fertility Clinic known as the best place in the world for preserving sperm.

He was set to undergo surgery to beat testicular cancer. He  stored his  sperm before undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer in case he becomes  infertile after the treatment.

The  sperm he entrusted  was supposed to be  his only chance at fatherhood  through in vitro fertilization (IVF). He thought they were in safe hands,   until he discovered that the sperm was not properly stored and as a result was inadvertently destroyed.

It was also a way to save his marriage with  his  wife whose   half of her face was  severely burnt due the result of a car accident they suffered three years ago. After the crash, she withdrew from society and even attempted suicide. Their dream of having a child became their shared hope to rebuild their lives.

In a maddened rage, Park  storms into the clinic,  sends a display cabinet crashing to the floor, splintering glass and damaging  expensive equipment that amounts to over 600 million won.

He sued to the clinic   for the lost  sperm   and wants compensation, but the clinic made a countersuit for the damaged property.

The  smoking gun of complainant’s counsel (Yullim Law Firm)   is  to bury the reputation of the  clinic’s legal counsel ( Lee & Seo).  They planned on gaining leverage in the negotiations with the aid of  reporters sniffing around.

The clinic eventually agreed to settle, to  drop the civil and criminal charges at no cost in exchange for no media coverage.

The episode is similar to a  decision of the UK Court of Appeals on an actual 2009  UK case (Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust)  where six  men sued the NHS Trust that stored the sperm. The rationale behind  the  judgment is  that the men ‘had ownership’ of the sperm, and that compensation was thus due on the grounds that the men’s property had been destroyed.

In the Philippines,   the case of  Sister Pilar Versoza v. People (G.R. No. 184535, September 03, 2019)  touched on the issue whether or not  vasectomy on someone with cognitive disability, without his  consent, is both an act of cruelty and an act prejudicial to the person’s’ development.

The case revolves around Larry, who at 24 years old, underwent a bilateral vasectomy procedure. His legal guardians  authorized the procedure on the ground that Larry will not be a good parent due to his disability.

The Petition for Review was dismissed for lack of party, considering the death of the petitioner Sister Pilar Versoza and absent an appeal from the Office of the Solicitor General.

However, SC Senior Associate Justice Marvic  Leonen in a separate opinion said that  the Court should still resolve the issue of whether bilateral vasectomy constitutes child abuse  because of the novelty and importance of the issue, which deals with special protection to children from all forms of abuse.

One’s autonomy over his or her life and body is inextricably linked with the right to privacy.

Reproductive health rights, being within the sphere of autonomy, are protected from interference by private individuals, including parents and guardians. At most, they can only provide guidance and education.

The unconsented vasectomy on Larry is clearly a case of cruelty, not so much for the manner it was done, but because of the circumstances surrounding its commission and the resulting limitations to the way Larry will be able to live the rest of his life.

Larry will still grow, and his mental capacity will be beyond 18 at some point. In their premature judgment that Larry would be incapable of becoming a responsible adult, the  legal guardians curtailed his liberty and violated his decisional privacy.

Being cognitively disabled is not a barrier to parenthood. A person’s disability has no direct correlation to being a good parent.

The mark of a good parent is not measured by his or her material wealth or mental faculties. Rather, a good parent is one who exhibits the patience, love, and ability to sacrifice so that the child discovers what it is to be nurtured, protected, and resilient.