The desperate pleas of Li Hsin-yu (李幸育) -- the widow of Army Captain Sun Chi-hsiang (孫吉祥) who died last week in an armored-vehicle accident -- to retrieve sperm from her husband's body for the purpose of in vitro fertilization, which were refused by the Department of Health, elicited a lot of public sympathy and support. As a result, events took a drastic turn, literally overnight, when the department finally okayed the process. The department said in a statement that there is no law regulating and therefore prohibiting in vitro fertilization using the sperm of a deceased person. This saga provides some food for thought from many different perspectives, including the cultural, legal and ethical aspects of the matter.
The biggest problem highlighted in this chain of events is, of course, that there is currently no law regulating this type of in vitro fertilization.
In reality, a draft of the relevant law has been in limbo for a very long time, awaiting approval by the Legislative Yuan, along with countless other important bills. Ironically, while the nation's lawmakers have been too pre-occupied to complete the legislative process and enact the law, many have had the time to accompany Li on her visits to government officials seeking special approval for her request. If these lawmakers genuinely had sympathy for Li's plight, they surely should know that they can help even more people in similar positions simply by doing the work they're getting paid for and passing the appropriate bill. Also, had the bill been passed, Li would not have had to run around in utter desperation to beg for special government approval for her request.
One of the reasons cited by an official for refusing Li's request was that it was at odds with the spirit of the relevant bill, implying that if it had been passed, post mortem sperm retrieval would have been prohibited. There are no legitimate grounds for this argument. A bill is only a bill, after all, and has no legal effect until enacted. In reality, what departmental opposition to Li's request really reflected was an unacceptable paternalistic mentality on the part of the government.
The reasons they cited were, while well-intentioned, primarily based on their own cultural and moral opinions and values. These included that it would be difficult for Li to raise the child alone and asking whether it would be fair to the child to grow up without a father.
While the extra-legal concerns and considerations raised by the department were legitimate, in the absence of appropriate legal guidelines it still had to respect and give due consideration to Li's wishes, rather than opposing her request citing legal grounds that do not exist.
Of all the extra-legal ethical and moral issues raised by Li's case, the biggest one is probably whether a child born under these circumstances does not solely serve the self-interest of adults. These include more than just money and material goods, but also a sense of emotional comfort and peace of mind in a time of grieving. This in turns raises the question of whether a cooling-off period is advisable before an emotional and grieving adult makes such a major decision. It also leads to the matter of the wishes of the deceased. Many countries where laws exist to regulate post mortem sperm retrieval require either the consent of the deceased before his death, or strong circumstantial evidence proving his consent.
The story of Li should serve as a wake-up call to the public that Taiwan should, like many other medically and legally advanced countries, adopt a law to regulate fertilization in general. As highlighted by Li's case, there are many ethical and moral issues involved in the matter. How to give due consideration to those issues through regulation is an extremely challenging task.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under