Insight
The slippery slope of presumed consent in post-humous reproductive health cases
By Bethany Corbin, healthcare innovation and femtech attorney
It sounds like something out of a sci-fi film: A young man, on the cusp of starting a family with his wife, suffers a serious accident that renders him brain dead.
His wife, longing for the family they never started, requests access to his post-humous sperm to become pregnant and build the family she was denied.
After a long and arduous battle with the court system, the wife is granted permission to use her dead husband’s sperm to create her family, even though her husband never stated his family-building preferences in a will or otherwise provided consent to the use of his sperm.
If the situation seems fantastical (and a bit scary), beware: This is a true and landmark case that has shifted the consent paradigm for reproductive health on its head in the UK.
While the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990 (as amended in 2008) requires written, informed consent to the use of a person’s reproductive materials, the case of Y v A Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWCOP18 (affirmed by the Court of Protection in Re X (Catastrophic Injury: Collection and Storage of Sper) [2022] EWCOP 48) departed significantly from this requirement to allow “presumed consent” as an alternative to informed consent.
This trend by the UK courts does not align with the strict letter of the law and is more akin to an opt-out organ donation framework for reproductive health. It begs two questions: (1) What is really in the best interests of a patient who lacks capacity to procreate? (2) Should gametes be treated the same as all other organs?
These are heavy questions that have sparked global debate. On one end of the spectrum, a 2016 article published in the journal Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online argues that gametes, similar to organs, are resources that should be considered for use after death, given their life-creating properties.
The authors contend that once an individual is dead, they no longer have a meaningful interest in the use of their reproductive material and post-humous conception should follow a framework of presumed consent.
The authors base their argument in large part on studies conducted showing that the majority of men support their partners accessing their sperm for post-humous conception.
On the other end of the spectrum, however, is the fundamental need to protect the best interests of the patient, who is no longer capable of understanding or consenting to the creation of life.
Numerous situations may arise where a partner seeks to exploit a vulnerable individual for their reproductive materials. For example, imagine the situation where a husband has repeatedly said “no” to creating a family. If he then suffers a life-threatening accident, his spouse could claim that he had agreed to start a family and that his consent should be presumed.
The same rationale could apply to an abusive boyfriend seeking to exploit his girlfriend’s reproductive materials and demanding the post-humous harvesting of her eggs to be used in the future. This creates an environment that can easily result in exploitation of incapacitated individuals who do not have the ability to defend their own interests.
The rights and wishes of the deceased must have meaning if we are to respect human autonomy. These individuals are vulnerable, unable to protect their own interests, and at the mercy of others who may try to exploit them.
This becomes particularly concerning when we add in the scenarios of abusive relationships, suicide, and reproductive coercion. If the law does not protect the rights of the vulnerable, who will? In essence, the trending case law prioritises the interests of the living over the rights of the dead.
Presumed consent for post-humous conception is an incredibly slippery slope. Reproductive material is fundamentally different from other organs in that it is not lifesaving, but rather life-creating. If we allow an individual’s partner or family to make their post-humous reproductive choices, where do we draw the line?
In the case of Y v A Healthcare NHS Trust, the court relied on circumstantial evidence to presume the husband’s consent – such as the early fertility treatments undertaken by the husband. But what about cases in which such evidence is fabricated or in which consent has been withdrawn prior to the accident?
The fact of the matter is, there will always be factual permutations and attempts by individuals to manipulate existing legal frameworks to obtain the outcome they want. It won’t always be clear what the deceased wanted or whether the evidence of their desires has been forged.
As a society, our laws have historically protected the most vulnerable. Any decision to depart from this history should be made by a body of elected representatives that can carefully consider the broader ethical implications of this decision and its downstream impacts, not the courts.
Bethany Corbin is a healthcare innovation and femtech attorney on a mission to help thought-leading companies revolutionise women’s health. Through her company, FemInnovation, Corbin partners with emerging companies at the forefront of healthcare transformation to ensure they are building robust, scalable, and legally compliant businesses focused on enhancing health equity.
By Somayeh McKian, a member of the clinical advisory board of Vea, the AI-powered mental health journal app
The danger of efficiency culture in women’s mental tech is that we are inadvertently optimizing the very patterns that drive our collective burnout.
When we look at the explosive growth of the femtech sector, the dominant narrative remains focused on speed, tracking, and passive compliance.
We build apps that treat a woman’s emotional state like a broken supply chain or a medical deficit that needs to be optimised, streamlined, or forced into submission.
But true psychological resilience cannot be quantified by a simple mood slider or an algorithmic checkmark.
As a psychotherapist and gender studies scholar, my research into the lived experiences of women, particularly how cultural mandates and bodily surveillance are pathologised, reveals a deep-seated form of suffering.
When women constantly say “yes” while meaning “no,” or ignore a chronically depleted body to maintain a rigid role, they are living out what I call an “inkless life.”
It is a blank manuscript in which their physical and emotional existence has been entirely authored by external critics, medical charts, and the “Discourse of the Other.”
They aren’t suffering from an efficiency problem; they have been stripped of the agency to author their own skin.
If femtech platforms simply digitise these rigid, externalised “shoulds,” they risk becoming high-tech tools of compliance rather than portals of liberation.
The investment community and health tech innovators need to realise that the next frontier of mental health tech isn’t about managing symptoms on the fly; it is about existential archaeology.
We must build digital spaces that serve as a “corporeal pen,” transforming self-reflection from a passive hobby into a defiant, existential act.
True innovation lies in helping women find the meaning, the latent metaphors, and the unique tasks already written into their struggles and transforming inherited pain into a human achievement.
This is exactly the structural paradigm shift we are anchoring at Véa. Instead of building superficial tracking logs, our architecture treats life as a manuscript.
We design clinical narrative journeys that help women decode where their internal boundary scripts were written, recognize how somatic depletion is a truth-teller, and wield phrases like “stop it” not as external policing, but as internal, defiant boundaries.
If we want to build a sustainable ecosystem for women’s health, we must stop funding platforms that merely help women endure their exhaustion more efficiently.
In the intersection of meaningful life and technology, we look at the human spirit not by its current restrictions but by its latent potential for change.
It is time to back technologies that give the fluent soul a sharp new set of instruments to rewrite its own narrative.
Somayeh McKian is a certified psychotherapist, in-training logotherapist, gender studies scholar, published author and part of Véa’s clinical advisory board.
Women’s Health Week Europe 2026 has released its full programme ahead of the October event at The Emirates Stadium in London on 7–8 October, with 700+ senior decision-makers and 80+ speakers confirmed across what will be the organisation’s most ambitious edition to date.
For the first time, the event will run across two dedicated stages, each built around a distinct set of questions facing the women’s health industry.
The Global Stage takes on the macro forces shaping the sector: where capital is flowing, how AI is transforming diagnosis and treatment, the gender data gap, wearable technology, stigmatised markets, and the policy landscape across Europe.
Confirmed speakers include Merete Clausen (EIF), Frida Polli (MIT), Nichole Young-Lin (Google), Alison Cave (MHRA), Emily Darlington MP, Kerry Buckley (Boots), Tim Davis (LSEG), Henriette Hessen (Verdane), Hillary Ball (Atomico), and Christine Hockley (British Business Bank).
The Scale Stage runs in parallel, focused on execution: how to navigate regulatory approval pathways, survive the valley of death, build the evidence stack that wins payers and partners, implement AI into a women’s health business, and position for acquisition. Sessions include a reverse pitch format, in which corporates and investors pitch to founders, and a founder’s guide to getting acquired.
The programme also includes two Pitch competitions, one per day, across the Consumer & Tech and Medical Devices & Therapeutics categories, with 16 finalists competing on the mainstage in front of the full delegate audience.
Every session is case study-driven, with speakers selected on the basis of having lived the problem they are on stage to solve.
Women’s Health Week Europe 2026 takes place 7–8 October at The Emirates Stadium, London. The full programme is available now.
View the 2026 programme here
Pre-agenda pricing ends 26 June
Tickets are currently available at pre-agenda pricing, with savings of up to £600 off standard pricing. The deadline is midnight on Friday 26 June. After that, prices go up.
Secure your place: https://wplatform.co/summits/womens-health-week-europe-2026?utm_source=advocacy&utm_medium=ext_email&utm_campaign=whw-europe-26-femtech-world#tickets
Also at The Emirates: Women’s Sport Summit 2026
The day before WHW Europe, on 6 October, The Emirates Stadium will also host the inaugural Women’s Sport Summit, a dedicated one-day event bringing together 400+ attendees from across sport, business, and investment. Focused on the commercial side of women’s sport, the Summit covers the full sports cycle: money, product, and market. Where women’s sport means business.
Most IVF add-ons lack reliable evidence, with benefits either absent or inconclusive, the largest review of its kind has found.
More than 70 per cent of IVF patients in the UK, Australia and New Zealand reportedly pay for one or more additional treatments.
However, researchers found that most of the procedures, medicines and techniques had no effect on fertility or were backed by limited or low-quality evidence.
Unproven add-ons can also lead to false hope, greater financial strain and unnecessary medical procedures at an already difficult time for patients.
Dr Sarah Lensen, of the University of Melbourne, said: “In many countries, infertility care is largely provided by private clinics where IVF is highly commercialised, and some add-ons are extremely expensive.
“Our review finds a lack of evidence that most of the IVF add-ons we assessed provide any benefit to patients. Unproven add-ons can lead to false hope, greater financial strain and unnecessary medical procedures at what already can be a very difficult time for patients.”
Researchers said concerns have grown in recent years about potentially untrustworthy randomised controlled trials in reproductive medicine, including studies of IVF add-ons.
The team set out to review the effectiveness and safety of 10 commonly offered add-ons using trustworthy studies.
Researchers initially identified 157 potentially eligible randomised controlled trials but excluded 72 because of concerns about their reliability.
Randomised controlled trials compare treatments by assigning participants to different groups, helping researchers assess whether an intervention causes a particular outcome.
The team combined data from the remaining 85 trials in a meta-analysis, which brings together findings from several studies.
The review found no effect on fertility or inconclusive evidence for seven of the 10 add-ons examined.
These included acupuncture, which involves inserting thin needles into points on the body, and corticosteroids, medicines that reduce inflammation and suppress immune activity.
Endometrial receptivity testing was also not backed by reliable evidence. The procedure involves taking a sample from the lining of the womb to examine patterns of gene activity.
Another add-on was intralipid infusion, which delivers a fat-containing liquid into the bloodstream.
Researchers separately examined injections of platelet-rich plasma into the ovaries and infusions of platelet-rich plasma into the womb.
Platelet-rich plasma is made from a patient’s blood and contains a high concentration of platelets, which play a role in healing.
The seventh treatment was pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, which examines embryos to check whether they have the expected number of chromosomes.
The review found only weak evidence of a possible benefit from three other add-ons.
EmbryoGlue, an embryo transfer medium containing hyaluronic acid, may increase the probability of pregnancy and live birth. However, the evidence on live birth rates was not considered robust.
Endometrial scratching, a minor procedure that deliberately disturbs the lining of the womb, may also increase the probability of pregnancy and live birth.
Physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection, known as PICSI, selects sperm based on their ability to bind to hyaluronic acid. Weak evidence suggested it may reduce the risk of miscarriage.
Lensen said: “There is widespread misinformation about IVF add-ons with private clinic websites and patient forums on social media – major information sources for patients – often overstating the benefits and omitting the costs and risks of add-ons.
“IVF clinics and clinicians should carefully consider whether it is appropriate to offer unproven add-ons, as their availability is often perceived by patients as implicit endorsement of benefit.”
News1 week agoOvum secures US$4m in seed funding
Entrepreneur1 week agoXella launches AI-powered precision health platform
Menopause2 weeks agoHormone therapy users report healthier lifestyles
Insight2 weeks agoWomen’s health summit to tackle ‘enormous’ AI opportunity
Wellness2 weeks agoStrength training may lower heart disease risk in women, study suggests
Adolescent health2 weeks agoWUKA launches UK’s first heavy flow period-proof competition swimwear range
Menopause1 week agoEU committee warns of women’s health ‘blind spot’
Insight1 week agoMost IVF add-ons not backed by reliable evidence, research finds
4 Comments