The parents of a deceased 22-year-old have been told they cannot store his sperm for future use despite his girlfriend's expressed desire to carry his baby, it has been revealed.
The failed bid comes after his parents made the application to the Court of Protection, after their son - who cannot be named - suddenly collapsed while playing sport, and was unconscious in intensive care after suffering from a stroke.
In an urgent "out-of-hours" hearing on November 3, Mr Justice Poole considered the application after it was heard that his girlfriend had "expressed a desire to carry his child ".
While Judges in the Court of Protection consider issues relating to people who do not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, Mr Justice Poole concluded that it would not have been in the man's best interests, especially given that the man at the centre of the case has since died.
Detail of the case emerged on Thursday when the judge's written ruling was published.
The judge said the man had been a student at a university in the south west of England and was previously fit and healthy, but the collapse was "tragic".
Meanwhile, the parents wanted declarations that it would be lawful for a doctor to retrieve their son's sperm and also store it, so it could be "used in the future for the conception and birth of a child or children".
The 22-year-old's father told the judge: “My son had a girlfriend, and he has for many years spoken to me about wanting children of his own.”
“I make it clear to the court that my wife and I would raise the child, but the girlfriend, who is aware of this application, has expressed a desire to carry his child.”
However, Mr Justice Poole concluded that such declarations would not have been in the man's best interests.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Poole said: "Assessment of his best interests involves not merely an analysis of the risks and benefits of the proposed procedure, but also of (his) past and present wishes and feelings, his views and beliefs, and his autonomy," Mr Justice Poole said, in his ruling.
"His right to privacy and to self-determination in relation to reproduction must be considered.
"There is no evidence before the court to persuade me that (he) would have wished for his sperm to be collected and stored in his present circumstances."
He continued to add: "I cannot conclude that making the declarations as sought would be in accordance with (his) wishes, values or beliefs.
"The process of collecting (his) sperm is physically invasive and there is no evidence that (he) would have consented to it or would have agreed to its purpose.
"I take into account the views of his parents about (his) best interests.
"However, weighing all the relevant matters in the balance, I conclude that it is not in (his) best interests to make the declarations sought."
