Abstract
This paper compares standard conceptions of consent with the conception of consent defended by Kelton Tremellen and Julian Savulescu in their attempt to re-orient the ethical debate around posthumous sperm procurement and conception, as published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online in 2015. According to their radical proposal, the surviving partner's wishes are, in effect, the only condition that needs to be considered for there to be a legitimate moral case for these procedures: the default should be presumed consent to the procedures, whether or not the agent did consent or would have consented. The present paper argues that Tremellen and Savulescu's case for this position is flawed, but offers a reconstruction that articulates what may well be a hidden, and perhaps reasonable, assumption behind the argument. But while the new argument appears more promising, the reconstruction also suggests that the position of presumed consent is currently unlikely to be acceptable as policy.