to ask opinions on this IVF court case?

[iogo]

I've had a quick look but can't see another thread, apologies if there is one.

I've just read this story on the BBC about a man losing his court case for damages against an IVF clinic where his ex wife forged his signature to undergo a second round of IVF after they'd split, resulting in a daughter.

I feel so desperately sorry for that child and the man involved. I can't quite wrap my head around what his ex wife did. I can understand the court not forcing the clinic to pay damages such as school fees, future wedding etc. I can understand the father not wanting to pay for the upkeep of the child and I'm not sure it's fair to make him. But then how unfair would it be to pay maintenance and school fees for one child but not the full sibling (I mention school fees as it's mentioned in the article so I'm presuming the older sibling goes to private school and the ex wife was in a position to be able to afford priveate IVF as the NHS is not mentioned)

BBC link www.bbc.com/news/health-41525215

By the logic that he agreed to the creation of an embrio it should be argued that a man should have a say in whether his wife has a termination then and if he doesn't agree she should have the baby and be financially responsible for it. No? Didn't think so.

Would people's feelings be different if he had forged his wife's signature, used the embryos with a surrogate and made the biological mother pay maintenance?

"I have sympathy for him but tbh at the time you created those embryos and agreed to their freezing you basically agreed to this." no you don't. The very fact that consent is required from both parties is a very clear indication that his agreement was needed to proceed and when he didn't agree she created it fraudulently.

The mother was wrong to forge the signature but I can understand her desperation. It must be absolutely heartbreaking to know your frozen embryos are there but will be destroyed because a once willing party now won't consent. I really think eggs should be frozen as eggs not embryos as there have been several of these heartbreaking stories over the years.
Having just seen the father on the news though I'm pretty shocked at his attitude to be honest. Claiming for private school, lavish wedding, bedroom decorations etc. None of that is essential at all. No one needs to pay for that.
The actual need for love and care for the child from an embryo he did create doesn't seem to be anywhere on his radar.

Condoms don't play a part in the conceiving or non-conceiving of an IVF child. This IVF business is fraught with problems IMHO. But I realise it's the last resort for many people desperate for a child. But the consent was given when he agreed to his sperm being used. I don't think it would be right that he should be allowed to demand the destruction of an embryo. It is that woman's potential baby.

at the time you created those embryos and agreed to their freezing you basically agreed to this.

Nope. Consent was not given for implantation. This is why the woman forged the signature. Consent was needed and then not given so was forged. When you freeze an embryo you are consenting to keeping your options open. Thats it. Nothing about having a child that you did not want.

at the time you created those embryos and agreed to their freezing you basically agreed to this.

That's clearly not true given she had to forge his signature to give consent.

It is that woman's potential baby

And his. So he has no rights in your view?

@Lindy2 - you think all the eggs from IVF treatment should be frozen, then thawed, fertilised and transferred one at a time? Have you ever had IVF treatment? Have you ever paid the eye watering costs of ivf treatment? Most cycles are unsuccessful and you would like to reduce the success rates even further to avoid such a rare case as this?

"It is that woman's potential baby" it is his potential baby as well though not just her's. And unfortunately if you haven't had another child with someone at the point you divorce that's just life, desperate or not. Perhaps in future all embrio's should be destroyed after implantation to avoid these battles from happening.

I really think eggs should be frozen as eggs not embryos as there have been several of these heartbreaking stories over the years.

No way... you'd reduce the efficacy of IVF maybe ten fold purely to avoid a handful of court cases?! There are advances all the time but embryos freeze and are thawed way, way better than eggs.
It reads to me like he would have had to have taken her to court to get the embryos destroyed if he had wanted that, if she was that desperate to get pregnant again.
We have to both sign a consent every year to keep our embryos frozen. I wonder if she forged that too, if they had such a system. Or maybe it was all within a year of him freely signing the previous year's form.

Just as an FYI the BBC story does not say they were ever married.

The clinic was negligent and the case going to court will hopefully prevent such instances happening in the future. I think that was the point of the action.

The silver lining is that the couple's son has a sibling.

‘Perhaps in future all embrio's should be destroyed after implantation to avoid these battles from happening.’

Are you serious?

You think all spare embryos belonging to couples who may want more children or the option of more children should be destroyed to avoid the chance that one of them decides to forge a signature?

Again, as I asked above - do you have any personal experience of ivf? If you did maybe you wouldn’t talk so glibly about limiting the possibility of someone having children to avoid such a rare circumstance as this.

It does say that they had to sign annually from 2008, then they broke up in 2010. In October 2010, a form with 'his' signature was given to the clinic, authorising thawing and implantation.

I can understand the father's anger but it is a terrible shame for the child in the middle of this. A really horrible situation for her to be brought up in.

Moggle CycleHire - I didn't realise that frozen eggs is that much more difficult than embryos. I was only aware eggs alone is an option which would seem to be a way around these cases where circumstances change so much between creating embryos and then their use. Perhaps not though.

Having experience of IVF or not makes no difference. They were no longer together, therefore having future babies together should no longer have presented as an option. If either party had wanted the embrio's destroyed they should have been destroyed but if either wanted them implanted both parties should have to go to the clinic in future to assure that is done properly with no chance for fraud.

"I can understand the father's anger but it is a terrible shame for the child in the middle of this. A really horrible situation for her to be brought up in." and all of it brought about by the mother. I have absolutely no sympathy for her what so ever. Having had fertility issues doesn't give her any more right to a baby than someone who hasn't been there. Relationship ends equals no more babies. It's very simple.

In fact, just reading the court judgement now.

www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/arb-v-ivf-hammersmith-judgment.pdf

We had IVF. We let the clinics keep the rest of the fertilized eggs to do research on, as we didn't want any more children and we support science and hope the research would help the clinic help more childless couples. I had a nightmare about opening the door and finding ten children outside, who were all our biological children. I seriously doubt, that if the clinic had been unethical (or has been, I really wouldn't know) and had sold our fertilized eggs to other childless couples, that they (the couples) could then come and claim maintenance from us to raise the children.

moggle Fri 06-Oct-17 13:28:32
Just as an FYI the BBC story does not say they were ever married.

You are quite right. I just presumed, but the Telegraph reports her as his ex-girlfriend.

I don't think he has the right to destroy the embryo. I find the creation of embryos kept in limbo a bit difficult to comprehend morally speaking.

So presumably people would be happy for the man to have forged the woman's signature and used a surrogate then? Then the woman would have to pay maintenance?

Whatever the means of conception the father still has a responsibility for his child

Don't agree with that at all, especially in the case you mention where a woman effectively stole his sperm and used it without his knowledge.

Has he said why he didn't ask for the embryos to be destroyed?

@loverofcake - you didn’t embryos should be destroyed after a couple spilt up, you said after implantation.

@lindy2 - success of egg freezing has improved a lot but embryo freezing still more reliable. And there are costs with fertilising the eggs and managing the embryos development for the first few days before implantation or freezing so those costs would be magnified. But if it didn’t affect success rates and didn’t cost too much more I’d agree with you.

I agree the main lessson to learn from this is tightening up checks on consent when embryos are used. It probably should require attendance at the clinic in person - after all when you buy a house the solicitor has to meet you so it’s not too much to expect. I’d be horrified if our frozen embryos were ever used without my permission (I’m a woman so less likely I know).