THE “right to life” argument in the abortion debate centers on conflicting rights, particularly the moral status of a fetus versus the bodily autonomy of the mother.
Anti-abortion groups argue that a fetus is a person with a right to life, making abortion morally wrong. Pro-choice groups, meanwhile, argue for a person’s right to control their own body and reproductive autonomy, asserting that restricting abortion violates human rights.
However, there are rare instances when the “right to life” is linked to a man in a reproductive sense.
“Give it back!” became the battle cry of a man deprived of his right to reproduce due to a fertility clinic’s negligence in Episode 2 of the Korean drama Beyond the Bar, titled “Hot water is the best for tea and love.”
The character, Park Gi-beam, entrusted his sperm to Hoseon Fertility Clinic, known as the best place in the world for preservation. Set to undergo surgery for testicular cancer, he stored his sperm before chemotherapy in case the treatment rendered him infertile.
The sample was supposed to be his only chance at fatherhood through in vitro fertilization (IVF). He thought the sperm was in safe hands until he discovered it was not properly stored and, as a result, was inadvertently destroyed.
It was also a way to save his marriage. His wife, whose face was severely burned in a car accident three years prior, had withdrawn from society and even attempted suicide.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 and sends a display cabinet crashing to the floor, splintering glass and damaging expensive equipment worth over 600 million won. He sued the clinic for the lost sperm, seeking compensation, but the clinic countersued for the damaged property.
The strategy of the complainant’s counsel (Yullim Law Firm) was to bury the reputation of the clinic’s legal counsel (Lee & Seo). They planned to gain leverage in negotiations with the aid of reporters sniffing around.
The clinic eventually agreed to settle, dropping the civil and criminal charges at no cost in exchange for no media coverage.
The episode mirrors a 2009 decision by the UK Court of Appeals in Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust, where six men sued the NHS Trust that stored their sperm. The rationale behind the judgment was that the men “had ownership” of the samples, and compensation was due on the grounds that their property had been destroyed.
In the Philippines, the case of Sister Pilar Versoza v. People (G.R. No. 184535, September 3, 2019) touched on the issue of whether a vasectomy performed on a person with a cognitive disability, without his consent, is both an act of cruelty and prejudicial to his development.
The case revolves around Larry, who underwent a bilateral vasectomy at 24 years old. His legal guardians authorized the procedure on the grounds that Larry would not be a good parent due to his disability.
The Petition for Review was dismissed for lack of a party, considering the death of petitioner Sister Pilar Versoza and the absence of an appeal from the Office of the Solicitor General.
However, Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, in a separate opinion, stated that the Court should still resolve whether bilateral vasectomy constitutes child abuse. He cited the novelty and importance of the issue, which deals with the special protection of 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 in which it was performed, but for the circumstances surrounding its commission and the resulting limitations on how Larry will live the rest of his life.
Larry will still grow, and his mental capacity may eventually develop. By prematurely judging 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, and a person’s disability has no direct correlation to being a good parent.
The mark of a good parent is not measured by material wealth or mental faculties. Rather, a good parent is one who exhibits patience, love, and the ability to sacrifice so that the child discovers what it is to be nurtured, protected, and resilient.
(Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the Seafarers’ Division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan Law Offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808)
