Tuesday, March 20, 2012
A fascinating case about death benefits...
Is a child born after it's father's death entitled to receive benefits such as life insurance payments? How about if the child was conceived after his death? This issue is currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Robert Capato froze his sperm and, eighteen months after he died, his wife gave birth to their twins. She, of course, used in vetro fertilization to become pregnant. Ms. Capato has since applied for survivor benefits on behalf of the twins, but the Social Security Administration rejected her claim. The case has since moved up through the courts and is now being heard by the Supreme Court. Obviously a host of fascinating moral and legal implications are lurking here. What do readers of this blog think about all this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
This is a very interesting case and I will be very interested to see how they rule. I think the parents of these twins had plans to make sure the mother could have children to her husband after he died and that is why he went and had his sperm frozen. In a way I think he wanted to have more children with his wife and that is why he went through the measures of having his sperm frozen. I think that the children should get survivor benefits since the father obviously wanted his wife to be able to have more of his children if she chose to. He would not have went through all the processes to have his sperm frozen otherwise. These twins are his biological children and they deserve the same benefits any other child would get from a deceased parent. The children should not suffer just because they were conceived and born after their father had passed away. This is a case of a mother increasing the size of her family with her husband even though he had passed away. I believe since it was obviously discussed before he passed away the children deserve the benefits.
In this situation, I must say that the survivor benefits should be made available to Ms. Capato on behalf of the twins. With respect to IVF, the birth of a child as a result of IVF should be handled in the same manner as a naturally born child. If a surviving parent of a naturally born child has access to these benefits, which it appears they do, then a surviving parent of a child who was brought to life by the means of IVF should too. The only apparent difference I notice in this situation is timing, which does not seem to be a justifiable reason for denying these benefits. If the government (or whatever organizations offer these benefits) is not willing to offer the benefits to a surviving parent of an IVF baby, or any benefits that parents of naturally born children have access to, then IVF should not be administered.
Now, I am not familiar with these types of benefits, but if they are anything like other government aid, then they are most likely susceptible to fraudulent actions. In the case of fraudulent behavior, these benefits should not be granted. For example, if a mother is having children (IVF) after the father’s death specifically for the financial benefits. If the benefits had already been made available in a situation such as this example, then they should be taken away and possibly prosecution. If these benefits are made accessible to a surviving parent of an IVF baby then there will need to be fraud-preventing strategies and policies implemented so that it can assist those in need and deter those who are trying to abuse the system.
Joe Burns
I don't know how I feel about this situation. I could see if her husband had placed in his will that his wife would be allowed to use his sperm once he died. Because she used his sperm once he died, I would have to agree that her kids shouldn’t get the benefits. Giving the benefits to her kids could open up many cases where people abuse the situation of receiving benefits using IVF after someone dies. I do not know the cause of death, but if he died of old age, apparently, there was a reason why he didn’t want to have any kids. This all sounds like a moneymaking scheme, if it was under these conditions.
In different situations receiving death benefits would be fair. Lets say you were a in the military and you had your sperm frozen for your wife. This seems totally fair for your wife to use your sperm if you should die in battle, again, I think it should be documented that you gave approval.
-------After reading the article ----
I still agree that she should receive death benefits because he never placed in his will that he wanted kids. He died of cancer and had plenty of time to discuss with his wife whether he wanted kids after his death. The bigger question is whom was the sperm meant for? Apparently, he left the sperm in the sperm bank for someone, but whom did he live it for? Of course we automatically believe it had to be for his wife, but there is still no indication of the intended receiver. Lastly, it sounds heavily planned because she decided to do IFV 9 months after her husbands death.
This case seems like it is very simple and the answer is completely obvious, but it is not. With the way the court system and government works it will take a long time to determine a final answer. In my own opinion I believe that the Capato family should be accepted for survivor benefits. These twins are biologically the children of this man and woman. The only difference between other families who have survivor benefits compared to the Capato family is; other families who have children and receive survivor benefits had their children before the parent deceased. In the case of the Capato family the twins were born after their father deceased. Survivor benefits should be applied to the Capato family, it is only fair. They are no different then other families who receive the survivor benefits. It is very clear that a conversation was sparked up before Robert died. The Capato parents obviously wanted to make their family bigger, or even have better memories with more children that are biologically his, even if Mr. Capato was not capable of being alive. Having one parent deceased and having children is extremely hard financially. So why should the survivor benefits be limited to only certain people who have a deceased parent. In my own opinion that is favoring certain families, and is not morally right at all. This is because the families that are being denied survivor benefits are going to be going through an even rougher time to support their families. This is not correct because, not everyone ends up happy in that situation.
This is a very interesting case and I am looking forward to see how it is ruled. I personally am very torn on this issue. On one hand I feel that those children are his and if the man was alive it would be his obligation to take care of and support the children. Since he is no longer living I feel like those children should get benefits.
In the same token you have to question the mothers reasons for doing what she did. It is kind of strange that she waited so long to conceive and have the children. Did she do this merely for the benefits? Or did she do this because she loves and misses her husband and just wanted to have his children so that a little piece of him could live on.
Its also questionable on what the couples original reason was for freezing the sperm?
It is very hard to say what is right or wrong in this case without knowing the truth to the mother/couples motives.
Obviously if she is doing this just for the financial benefits it is not right, but if she is doing this because she wanted her husband to live on and she wanted her children to live the quality of life (financially) that they would have if their father were still alive, then I cannot say that this is morally impermissible. You also have to put into consideration that maybe the mother is only seeking this help because she cannot support the two children and maybe she was only expecting one.
This is a pretty tricky case. If the father wanted his wife to have more children, I guess it doesn't seem like those children should be denied of those benefits. However, on the other side, the children were conceived after the father's death. That doesn't fulfill the requirements to receive the benefits. I think they should receive the benefits. The Capato family obviously wanted to expand their family before the death of Robert. It only makes sense for them to receive the benefits. Morally, the right thing to do would be to give them the benefits.
I have to agree with what Kelsey is asking. If the mother had the kids solely for the sake of receiving the benefits, then I don't think she should receive them. There are a lot of factors that need to be accounted for. So it comes down to if she had kids because her and her husband wanted to, or if she had kids for the sake of receiving the benefits.
If she had conceived a child by another man after the death of her husband, I don't believe the child should be able to lay claim to the deceased husband's life insurance policy. But with a case like this, the couple clearly planned ahead of time for this eventuality. The fact that the child is still the deceased husband's kin should let the family qualify for his life insurance policy. The fact that the man is dead is circumstantial.
I think that in a situation like this, there needs to be more investigation to see if the mother did concieve those children soley for the benefits rather than to expand her family. If that is the case then the mother should not recieve the benefits for the twins, but if she did concieve them to expand her family or to have more children by her husband then those twins should recieve the benefits.
Even though the twins father is no longer living, I feel like he can still take care of them by having the twins recieve his benefits to make sure that those children have what they need to get through stages in life. Without those benefits, the children won't have the help from their father that they need, even though he is dead.
I think that the people who are deserving of survivor's benefits are one's concieved before death or on the way of conception but not by unethical reasons--more along the lines they had relations before passing and she realized she was pregnant--but not in cases like this.
This is another in a long list of puzzling cases that arise related to the advent of new procedures in reproductive medicine. These include issues related to: prenatal diagnisis; research on human embryos; in vitro fertilization; freezing of embryos; artificial insemination; cloning of human embryos; and surrogate parenting (to name a few).
Intrestingly, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that a divorced man could prevent his former wife from using, or donating to someone else, embryos that had been fertilized in the laboratory with his sperm and then frozen for possible later implantation. The court held that the man dannot be made to become a parent against his will. Some philosopher made the comment that this might be the first man in America to win the right to abortion! The woman appealed to the Supreme Court, which turned it down without comment.
I completely agree with Roland. This whole thing just seems sketchy and seems like a set-up. Before reading the case, I was kind of debating, leaning more towards the child receiving the life insurance benefits. But after reading the article, it just confirmed to me that the whole scenario seems very well planned out. The husband was diagnosed with cancer, and the article stated that it was never stated in his will whether or not he wanted to have kids…(Why would he leave his sperm then?)…She went and did this herself without his legal consent (due to the fact that he is deceased) and went through with IVF and is now stating that the children should receive some benefits, which I believe is completely unethical. The fact that she was his wife, gives her right to the life insurance benefits, but the children have no legal right to that and the mother has no right to demand it either in my eyes. Like Roland said, it just seems like a planned out money-making scheme. A completely unethical and selfish act by the wife/mother I would say.
Another point I agree with Roland on is the idea of a documented approval of the use of the sperm. If this were the case, the child conceived with the deceased’s sperm would indeed be entitled to the benefits and this wouldn’t even be a case. But the fact that it wasn’t just make this situation very suspicious.
In a case like this I would say that the children should be entitled to the benefits. He and his wife clearly new that there was going to be a chance for her to have more children after his death, or they would'nt have frozen the sperm.He is still their father even though he has passed away.As long as there is proof of his paternity,than there should'nt be a problem. I do however, feel that once someone has passed away there should be a time limit as to how long their sperm can be kept frozen before being disposed of. this way a woman could'nt decide years later that using the sperm to become pregnent would be an easy way to obtain more money.
That seems like it is a tricky situation. In a case like that I would have to say that they should not receive benefits for having kids. She knew that her husband was already dead before she went and got pregnant therefore in my mind she knew she wasn’t going to get benefits and she was just trying to cheat the system. So in a situation like that I feel as though she shouldn’t receive any benefits. However in a situation where a woman ends up getting pregnant and then her husband dies during the pregnancy I think they are entitled to get benefits. That I feel would be the best way to make it fair so that people do not try to cheat the system.
Post a Comment