What this Doctor did was wrong, there's no way around that.
The telling of the story just fails on so many levels though. It focuses way too much on emotion and theory and opinion. What these people are dealing with is real enough.
I wish they would have explored how misleading patients was not criminal or, at the very least, ethically unjust. If the patients are under the assumption their sample is being used for insemination but it was instead replaced with another sample... how is that not fraud and/or malpractice? Maybe there is no legal recourse but was civil recourse ever explored? They should have focused on Who, Where, When, Why, What, and How..... not Would, Could, Should... It just feels like a huge chunk of the actual story is missing.
The telling of the story just fails on so many levels though. It focuses way too much on emotion and theory and opinion. What these people are dealing with is real enough.
I wish they would have explored how misleading patients was not criminal or, at the very least, ethically unjust. If the patients are under the assumption their sample is being used for insemination but it was instead replaced with another sample... how is that not fraud and/or malpractice? Maybe there is no legal recourse but was civil recourse ever explored? They should have focused on Who, Where, When, Why, What, and How..... not Would, Could, Should... It just feels like a huge chunk of the actual story is missing.