In the course of preparing a medico-legal report in civil proceedings
instituted by a couple contaminated by EW, the case of Mr B, was broug
ht to our attention. At the end of 1984 Mr B. had a serious accident i
n consequence of which he received a number of blood transfusions. The
post-transfusion inquiry established blood contamination. Several yea
rs later (in 1990), and for reasons closely related to the above accid
ent, Mr B. and his wife were having difficulty in having a child. They
decided to resort to intraconjugal artificial insemination (IAI) firs
t through a private laboratory and then through a CSCOS (Centre for th
e Study and Conservation of Human Ova and Sperm). In 1992, Mr B. and h
is wife were both found to be HIV positive; the infection was ascribed
to the IAI, as the most plausible cause. In the face of such dramatic
events, we wondered why neither the laboratory nor the CSCOS had chec
ked whether the couple were HIV positive. Reflecting on this led us: (
a) to make an inventory of the different organizations and facilities
empowered to manipulate sperm for medically assisted procreation (MAP)
; (b) to investigate their obligations in terms of the prevention and
control of specific diseases.