Man can use Embryo

[herecomesthespiderbrooch]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61907659

And what this article leaves out is- what is this man going to do with this embryo?

This embryo's genetic mother has died, even before it implants. If this chap 'uses' this embryo, is the mother who grows that embryo into a baby going to be allowed to parent them? Or is it going to be loss after loss for this human?

How does a widower "use" an embryo... I feel like we're in The Life of Brian "are you going to grow it in a box?!"

No different to women using their dead husbands sperm really.

It doesn't leave it out. It tells you in the first line.

@KangarooKenny

Talk me through the biology of sperm to baby, and then embryo to baby, and see if you can see why I think it's different.

I’m not here for an argument.

It's very different to a woman using her dead husband's sperm, because this man is not able to gestate a baby himself.

The 'what next' is blatantly missing from this.

I applaud him for what he has done and why.

There needs to be a much bigger conversation about surrogacy though.

It states he will be using a surrogate. Yes it's not ideal however I don't think it was right to refuse in the circumstances either. It's a difficult situation

@ApplyEvenly
Doh! I read the article, but not the photo caption!

So, yeah. If this embryo becomes a baby, it's losing two mothers before it's even sitting up independently.

Well, surely it's his embryo too. Would it make any difference to you if a mother decided to use the embryo God forbid the husband died before the transfer could take place?

We had to fill out this paperwork during our IVF journey and I don't find anything unusual about either of the ways a couple decides.

@PearsandPartridge

Yes it's different, because a mother would have a womb. This chap is being given permission based on hiring another woman's body, and risking her life to grow the child, and then deliberately deprive that child of their mother. For the second time.

It’s tragic and it’s only fair he’s allowed to use the embryo as women have asked for the same from a sadly passed husband.

I have to admit I am a bit shocked he wants to use a surrogate when his wife died of a mid pregnancy uterine rupture. I am sure his wife did want children so desperately she was willing to risk a lot - but probably not someone else’s life.

Tragic the whole thing

"Fair" to adults is not what should drive the creation of human children.

It's all about HIS "rights"
I'm not hearing much about the rights of the potential human being, or the rights of the surrogate mother, if the transplant is successful

I don't see the difference between using a husbands sperm after he has died. which I am not sure if I approve of. So many ethical minefields with this creation of embryos, freezing of embryos, disposal of embryos.

No one's going to make the suggogate do anything. If no one wants to do it, he won't be able to use the embryo. I thought we were in favour of bodily automony for women?

And the "potential human" already exists.

It's not a straightforward argument.

Whilst surrogacy is legal, he is within his right to do this. But that's another subject.

Your argument of deliberately depriving the embryo of a mother doesn't really stand up, since the other way around a mother would then deliberately be depriving the baby of a father.

But you can go so much further, single women using sperm donors would then deliberately risk making their future children orphans should they die before their time and so on...

It is this Man's embryo as much as it was his poor late wife's. Making matters even easier, she consented and gave her blessing before she passed. That is all there is to it.

I sincerely wish you never having to make a decision like that, ever.

By that argument doesn't using a sperm donor or choosing to be a single mother in any other context deliberately deprive the child of their father?

Biology means the impact of the loss of the mother who physically grew them into life has a great impact. A sperm donor doesn't create a loss in the same way.

This is an embryo. A woman can 'use' an embryo, and grow a child in her own body, risking her own life and health, and physically create that embryo into a child. A man can't.

I have adopted and birth children. I know what the loss of a birth mother does. Sometimes it happens. To chose it, to go to court to be able to chose it, when you're fully aware of how dangerous pregnancy can be for a mother? I don't think that's ethical.

I heard about this on woman's hour this week (yesterday?)
his wife died of pregnancy complications and he wants to expose another woman to those risks?

That was my reaction.

A woman is dead because she was pregnant by him.

He now wants another woman to risk death to give him a baby.

His wife wanted to be pregnant because she wanted to be a mother. The woman carrying this pregnancy for him? Very different reasons. And she may not be aware of emerging evidence that there may be greater risks with surrogate pregnancies than natural pregnancy. I can’t find the link but there was a thread about that - an interview with a man whose wife died giving birth to another couple’s baby, having previously had four easy births with their own children.

She didn’t give her consent. That’s why he had to go to court.

Just here to make a poor point and refuse to back it up! Nice work!

There is a difference between a man using an embryo and a woman sperm though .

A woman using her late husband's sperm to carry a child herself does not need to use the body of a third party to grow a baby to term. She bears all risk herself.

That's quite an obvious difference I would have thought.

It was just their opinion, no requirement to back it up with anything!

I don't really get your argument about the danger to the surrogate though?

No woman is going to be forced to carry this baby, she will make a choice to do it, much like all women choose to carry any baby.

And if she chooses to do it, then why do you think that the father shouldn't allow her? By that logic, should all men refuse to 'let' women carry babies, because it has the potential to go wrong?

Would it be wrong of him to meet another woman, and have a baby with her, thus 'exposing her to the same risks'?

And before you say it would be her choice, so would it be the choice of any potential surrogate to carry this embryo to term.