Posthumous conception remains one of the most contested practices in assisted human reproduction (AHR), with objections often centering on the invasive nature of retrieving gametes from the deceased or dying. [1] In vitrogametogenesis (IVG) is a developing technique that aims to derive gametes from ordinary somatic cells. The process involves taking non-reproductive cells, such as skin or hair, and reprogramming them into pluripotent stem cells, which can then be guided to become viable gametes for AHR. [2, 3] Though still in the early stages of clinical development, recent IVG studies in non-human animal models have yielded promising results, and some experts have predicted that the technique could be used to generate human gametes within the next decade. [4]

If human application is successful, IVG imagines a pathway where gametes are generated ex vivo without needles into testes, ovarian hyperstimulation, or surgery. As I have argued in a recent paper, this could be particularly significant for posthumous conception in several ways. [5] First, IVG would remove the race against the clock that currently defines post-mortem gamete retrieval. [6] Second, it would weaken one of the most persistent ethical objections to the practice: invasiveness. [1] Third, by avoiding hormone cycles and surgical collection, IVG could markedly increase the availability of female gametes for posthumous use, narrowing a longstanding gender gap in this area. [5]

Less Invasion:

At present, sperm procurement varies in invasiveness depending on whether the source is alive, incapacitated, or deceased. Competent living men can usually provide sperm through ejaculation, sometimes assisted by penile vibratory stimulation or electroejaculation. [7] When a man is comatose or dying, retrieval is generally preferred before circulatory death because sperm motility declines rapidly afterward. [8] After death, the window for retrieval is narrow, with viable sperm typically recoverable for only 24–36 hours. [6] Once circulation has ceased, surgical methods are generally required, ranging from needle aspiration to open testicular biopsy. In practice, guidance recommends open surgical retrieval of testicular tissue post-mortem in order to obtain enough sperm for multiple IVF cycles. [8]

Against this backdrop, objections to posthumous gamete retrieval routinely foreground invasiveness. [1] In comatose patients, retrieval offers no therapeutic benefit, leading some to doubt whether it can ever be in the patient’s interests. Here, “harm” is not limited to pain, but may include non-experiential interests in bodily integrity or in avoiding genetic parenthood. [9] Others argue that once cardiac or brain-stem death has been declared, there is no rights-bearing person left to be harmed, and so bodily-violation claims lose force. [10] Still others maintain that interests in bodily integrity survive death, such that surgical retrieval remains invasive and objectionable. [1, 9]

IVG could directly target this concern. Because somatic tissue can be obtained far less invasively than gametes (and in some cases without touching the body at all, as with shed hairs on a hairbrush or saliva from a toothbrush) the technology could remove both the physical invasion and the race against time that currently define posthumous gamete retrieval.

More Inclusion:

The implications for women may be even more significant. To date, posthumous conception has relied overwhelmingly on cryopreserved gametes or embryos stored during life, or on posthumous sperm retrieval. Egg retrieval, by contrast, is an intensive and invasive process whether the woman is alive, incapacitated, or deceased. [11]

For egg cryopreservation, patients typically undergo controlled ovarian hyperstimulation involving daily gonadotropin injections over nine to ten days, followed by surgical retrieval of mature eggs. Retrieval from a comatose or dying woman is technically possible, but it still requires hormone stimulation and surgery while the patient is incapacitated. Post-mortem egg retrieval is more difficult still. Without oxygen, eggs cease to be viable within hours, making retrieval unrealistic unless stimulation has already been completed. [11]

The practical effect is a persistent disparity between sperm banking and egg cryopreservation. Sperm banking is comparatively simple and inexpensive, whereas egg storage requires hormonal stimulation and surgery. As a result, stored sperm is far more commonly available than stored eggs, even as egg-freezing rates rise. [12] And although egg retrieval from a dead or dying woman is technically possible, it is highly invasive, time-sensitive, and rarely attempted. [13] Here, IVG could be transformative. By bypassing ovarian stimulation and surgical retrieval entirely, IVG could enable women to store eggs without those interventions, increasing the number of women with eggs in storage and improving the availability of female gametes for posthumous use. In that sense, IVG is not only a less invasive technology; it is potentially a more inclusive one.

What IVG Cannot Change:

IVG could narrow the gender gap that currently exists in the availability of gametes for posthumous use. But any parity effect would depend on cost, safety, social acceptability, and clinical capacity. Moreover, posthumous conception using eggs still raises practical asymmetries in that if the surviving partner is male, a gestational carrier would be required. If the surviving partner is female and able to carry the pregnancy, donor sperm would still be needed unless, in some speculative future, IVG made it possible to derive functional sperm from her somatic cells. [14]

More fundamentally, reducing invasiveness will not end debates about autonomy, consent, or the weight some place on the right not to be a genetic parent. IVG may decouple posthumous conception from the specific concern that gamete retrieval is an invasive physical affront, but it does not resolve whether a person authorized posthumous reproductive use at all. Nor can IVG settle broader concerns about the future child’s interests, inheritance and so forth. Those questions remain regardless of how gametes are obtained. [5]

References:

[1] A.R. Schiff, ‘Arising from the Dead: Challenges of Posthumous Procreation’ (1997) 75(3) North Carolina Law Review 901.

[2] K. Bowman, C. Matney and E.P. Dawson (eds.), In Vitro–Derived Human Gametes as a Reproductive Technology: Scientific, Ethical, and Regulatory Implications: Proceedings of a Workshop (National Academies Press, 2023).

[3] H.T. Greely, The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction (Harvard University Press, 2026).

[4] H. Devlin, ‘Lab-grown sperm and eggs just a few years away, scientists say’ The Guardian (5 July 2025), <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jul/05/lab-grown-sperm-and-eggs-scientists-reproduction>.

[5] C. McGovern, ‘From scalpel to statute: IVG’s impact on invasiveness and gender parity in posthumous conception’ (2026) 34(1) Medical Law Review 2.

[6] A. Jequin and M. Zhang, ‘Practical Problems in the Posthumous Retrieval of Sperm’ (2014) 29(12) Human Reproduction 2615.

[7] H. Rozati, T. Handley, and C. Jayasena, ‘Process and Pitfalls of Sperm Cryopreservation’ (2017) 6(9) Journal of Clinical Medicine 89.

[8] C.M. Rothman, ‘A Method for Obtaining Viable Sperm in the Postmortem State’ (1980) 34(5) Fertility and Sterility512.

[9] G. Pitcher, ‘The Misfortunes of the Dead’ (1984) 21 American Philosophical Quarterly 183.

[10] J. Harris, ‘Law and Regulation of Retained Organs: The Ethical Issues’ (2002) 22 Journal of Legal Studies 527.

[11] M. Soules, ‘Commentary: Posthumous Harvesting of Gametes – A Physicians Perspective’ (1999) 27 Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 362.

[12] Department of Health and Social Care, Gamete (egg, sperm) and embryo storage limits: response to consultation(September 2021).

[13] D. Greer, A. Styer, T. Toth, C. Kindregan and J. Romero, ‘Case 21-2010: A Request for Retrieval of Oocytes from a 36-Year-Old Woman with Anoxic Brain Injury’ (2010) 363 The New England Journal of Medicine 276.

[14] A. Le Goff, R. Jeffries Hein, A.N. Hart, I. Roberson and H.L. Landecker, ‘Anticipating in vitro gametogenesis: Hopes and concerns for IVG among diverse stakeholders’ (2024) 19(7) Stem Cell Reports 933.