A man's right to choose...

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Woman loses frozen embryo battle (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/07/embryos.ruling/index.html) CNN
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a British woman has no right to use frozen embryos to have a baby without the consent of the man who provided the sperm.

Although I definitely feel for the woman, I personally have to agree with the court ruling.

Thoughts?

[msnicolea]

What an interesting case!
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-I have to think about this, though my immediate reaction was that it was the correct/appropriate ruling.

[jnettie]

I agree. It is a difficult case, as they obviously made the choice together to use IVF before her cancer treatments. So, one could say he did agree to have children at one time. However, it really isn't fair to future children if they are divorced now.

If she or her doctors had thought of if, they could have had some unfertilized eggs frozen at the same time. That way, she could still have the chance for a biological child. Of course, she probably assumed that she'd still be with the same guy, rendering egg freezing moot.

It is a complex issue!

[chrisinluv]

I agree with the court. She shouldn't be able to use the embryos without his consent.

[BTB]

However, it really isn't fair to future children if they are divorced now.

This couple was actually never married. He was her boyfriend at the time the IVF was done, and they later broke up. Given that they weren't married - although I imagine they thought the relationship would last at the time - it's sad and unfortunate she didn't have eggs frozen instead, which might be less "durable" but at least would be an option to her now.

[jnettie]

Ah, that's what you get for skimming!

Well, then, if they weren't married, I have no idea why she didn't have eggs frozen! I certainly understand the idea of having embryos frozen when faced with infertility from cancer, and I really feel for her. She did think ahead enough to consider her options, she just didn't think of all the options. :(

[phoenics]

Whew that's really tough. I feel so badly for her. Basically, he gets all of the rights to make the decision that he made - but the sad part is that his decision basically kills any chance she'll have to have children of her own.

I wish she'd saved her eggs. Gosh that's rough.

[t3h_wookiee]

I'm really torn on this one.

[maxandmolly]

I really, really hate it, but I think the court made the right call. Unless he signed some kind of document at the time allowing her to use the embryos in any way she saw fit (or somehing to that effect) then they should be, for lack of a better term, "joint property"-and they should both give permission to allow them to become children.

[flygirl]

Very, very tough. I understand the reasoning behind the ruling, but I keep thinking about how this isn't that much different from getting pg the old-fashioned way. The man agreed to donate his sperm to create the embryos with the expectation that they would be implanted, similar to a man who has sex knows there is the possiblity of a pregnancy. So didn't he give tacit consent, regardless of when the embryos are brought to term?

If Johnson's reason for not agreeing to let the embryos be used is solely because he doesn't want to be responsible for a child right now, could he not sign over parental rights? At that point he is simply a sperm donor.

Final thought: What if the man was dead? Would that change the legal requirement for his consent?

[curlyjr]

Man, I definately feel for the woman but I think I have to agree with the others that the court made the right call. It's too bad the guy wouldn't change his mind.

[dionysia]

I think that the ruling was correct, at the very least for upholding current British law on the subject.

Di

[flygirl]

I didn't realize that British law on IVF is extremely clear. Permission of both parties is necessary at every step of the process.

But I still want to know, what if he were dead?

[imagirliegirl]

Hm...interesting. I mean, in one way he did give his consent by agreeing to the procedure in the first place. But at the same time, I agree with the court's ruling. I understand her want to have children but that's the risk you take.

it's sad and unfortunate she didn't have eggs frozen instead, which might be less "durable" but at least would be an option to her now.

I agree with this. She should have given herself another option.

[jnettie]

But I still want to know, what if he were dead?
I'll grill DH later, but I *think* that they'll implant the embryos in US IVF clinics if the male partner passes away. I recall him telling me about at least one such case. It was a regular practice to freeze embryos at his clinic for cancer patients as well as sperm or eggs for couples undergoing such treatment. I think there were times when the man had cancer and then he died so the woman had her eggs fertilized.

[flygirl]

I think there were times when the man had cancer and then he died so the woman had her eggs fertilized.I remember such a case. But I believe, at least in the US, it's different if the couple is married vs. having broken up. I'm curious to hear what your DH has to say.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Wow, if it's allowed after death in the U.K., the guy in this case better watch his back...
;)