SUMMER REPLAY: Insemination fraud
When a doctor uses his own sperm to inseminate a patient, is it a crime?
The piece below was originally published early in 2020. It drew from a seminar at the University of Toronto given by Jody Madeira, a law professor at Indiana University.
Madeira argued that physicians must be brought to justice, and individuals who have been harmed should be recognized, supported and compensated. "Failing to hold physicians who engaged in insemination fraud accountable," she wrote, "creates the impression that such conduct is not legally punishable and runs counter to legal frameworks such as informed consent..."
Among the many interesting points Madeira raises is whether the act of a doctor inseminating a patient with his own sperm is similar to that of a doctor having sex with a patient, something that is generally forbidden, often punished, and in some jurisdictions considered a criminal act. Below, I highlight a few of her arguments.
4 minute read
The Three Penetrations
When a doctor covertly uses his own sperm to make a patient pregnant, he is committing a unique kind of wrong. It is hard to find acts that are analogous, says Jody Madeira, a law professor at Indiana University. She wonders, however, if the closest transgression is physician-patient sex.
Physicians are discouraged from having sex with their patients because it's generally agreed there is a power imbalance. That makes it hard for a patient to give meaningful consent. Most prohibitions against doctors having sex with patients, however, come from the professional bodies that regulate them. Only a handful of states, says Madeira, actually have laws that criminalize it.
Some people argue that insemination is not like sex, because it is a clinical procedure, rather than a sexual one. "But is a medical procedure like insemination still clinical when the physician performing the procedure masturbates to ejaculation in a nearby room, catches his sample, walks to the examination room where his patient is waiting and inserts his sample into her vagina via a syringe and catheter?" asks Madeira.
Clinical touching that is performed to help a patient conceive, she argues, could easily cross the line to become sexual touching — performed at least in part for the physician’s own gratification. "It is no longer so clear that the act is a clinical touching, as it involves masturbatory stimulation, potential erotic thoughts of the waiting patient, and intimate touching of the patient almost immediately after the physician concludes his own sexual experience," she writes. "The point at which the touching ceases to become sexual might depend on hard-to-prove factors such as whether the physician became aroused thinking of his patient, and what emotions he experienced while performing the insemination." The boundaries are blurry at best.
Madeira argues that both physical and metaphorical penetration takes place when a physician uses his own sperm in artificial insemination.
"The first penetration comes when the physician inserts medical equipment, including a speculum and disposable insemination catheter, through a patient’s cervix into her uterine cavity, injecting his sperm specimen. Patients have consented to this procedure, but not to its performance with the physician’s sperm.
"The second penetration comes when the physician’s biological material joins with the patient’s, implants into her uterine lining, and forms a placenta, breaching her physiological barriers in the most intimate way possible.
"The third penetration, more sociocultural than physiological, follows from the child’s birth. The resulting child is welcomed into the patient’s family and held out as their own, obtaining legal rights and privileges to their emotional, social, and financial support." The physician has imposed his own procreative capacity; the physician has become the biological father of the patient's child.
Is it rape? That's not clear. Under Indiana law, in order for an act to be considered rape, a person has to be "compelled by force or imminent threat of force," unable to consent, or unaware that the conduct is occurring.
In these cases, the patient is aware that the insemination is occurring, and has consented to insemination. She may even have consented to insemination by an anonymous donor. A doctor might argue that it was anonymous to the patient, and so consented.
But Madeira points out that the conduct is very similar in nature to “sex by deception” cases. Although the courts typically decide against these, arguing that fraud is not force, Madeira points to two instances where it was applied: when sex was misrepresented as a surgical operation and when sex was procured by pretending to be the victim's husband.
Madeira's ideas are compelling. There is something sexual — even rapelike — about this act. In many ways, though, it seems much worse than doctor-patient sex.
The patient is vulnerable, both emotionally and physically. The patient is trusting. The patient has in no way consented to this. The patient is not informed of this. The patient is the victim of a deceit. The doctor knows a secret about the patient that the patient herself is not privy to. The patient continues her life under an illusion. The patient does not get to choose when she finds out the truth. The patient loves the child but hates the act that brought the child into the world. The patient can never leave this behind, because the very act is embedded in her own beloved child.
It smells like a crime to me.
This item was originally published in HeyReprotech on February 11, 2020.
All summer, HeyReprotech will be replaying favourite stories from over the past four years. All items will be open-access, so please encourage your friends and colleagues to sign up.
HeyReprotech is a weekly newsletter exploring the ripples caused by assisted reproduction, written by freelance journalist Alison Motluk.
Jody Lynee Madeira. "Uncommon Misconceptions: Holding Physicians Accountable for Insemination Fraud." Law & Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice. 2019.
I launched HeyReprotech in September 2018 because I had a lot of stories to tell and not many places to tell them. Regular media outlets have a limited appetite for assisted reproduction. Not everyone is interested in the nuances of surrogacy arrangements or thoughts on whether donor conceived people belong in a donor's obit. Yet stories like these can be illuminating, not only about assisted reproduction practices, but about our society in general.
Above all, thank you for being here and thank you for your interest in this field.
Follow me @HeyReprotech
Send questions, comments, or tips to firstname.lastname@example.org