Frozen embryos case - women lost. What do you think?

[Tinker]

Does anyone disagree with this judgement today? Seems painful but right to me. Anyone else think anything else?

lucy - I agree - couldn't the fathers be given something to sign, along with the mothers, that made them more like 'sperm donors' rather than it having been a partnership.

A decision made (even with doubts) whilst in a relationship is unlikely to be the same decision when that relationship has ended - could anyone expect it to remain the same?
I support the court's ruling. Apart from the emotional considerations of not wanting to father children to ex-partners (who they may hate by now) these men face paying maintenance for the next twenty years for the kids and the ex-ps. Current wives/partners and their children are going to pay that price.

Message withdrawn

then you're creating a child, one of whom's parents doesn't even want it to be alive in the first place, never mind who signs a bit of paper saying he doesn't want anything to do with it/pay for it etc etc. So that child may well have life-long feelings of rejection/hatred towards the 'father' etc. it's just not that simple. The whole embryo issue is a nightmare.

And I don't think there's much milage in complaining about these embryos being killed. Isn't this what happens in basically every IVF etc treatment? Just becasue some live, doesn't take away from the fact that nevertheless some are killed then too.

I actually agree the court had no choice, and that legally, and, I suppose, morally, there could be no other decision made. I still think it is very sad and those dealing with women about to lose their fertility via cancer treatment (esp childless ones) should think very hard about offering egg freezing instead of/as well as embryo freezing. What makes me feel so sick is that if that had been offered at the time these women would not be in this awful predicament.

Re: abortion, that's clearly a totally different matter and nothing whatsoever to do with being able to prove paternity. Abortion is a medical procedure performed on a woman. It would clearly be illegal, immoral and utterly ethically wrong to perform medical procedures upon anyone in their right mind without consent. Therefore a man could never demand a partner had an abortion. And of course, he could never prevent one either, as it has to be a woman's choice what happens to her body, or else we might as well live in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

A friend of mine is going through a similar situation. Her DP was married and her DP and his ex-DW had IVF treatment which resulted in a baby. They also have frozen embryos. My friends DP wanted them destroyed as he is now with my friend and has a family with her. However his DW wants to keep the embryos as she would like another. Both my mate and her DP are against this for the reasons StuartC gives below. Her DP couldn't just ignore any future children from his DW either. It's a tricky situation for all of them.

Of course, nobody would be supporting a man if he had frozen embryos with an ex partner, then remarried a woman who was infertile (or he had become infertile via chemotherapy) and wanted the embryos to implant in his new wife, saying it was the only chance of a baby of HIS own. But of course, men store sperm not embryos, so this wouldn't happen.

having read this through, I agree that offering women the chance to freeze their eggs as well as embryos seems the best way forward.

But in cases like these two, with no frozen eggs, where the mother desperately wants the child, I can't see what's so wrong about treating the man as a sperm donar and letting him abdicate all responsibility.

I do have sympathy with the argument that you are bringing a child into the world against one parent's wishes, but so many children are born this way already. What about all those fathers who leave their pregnant partners for one reason or another? or perhaps more painfully for the child, leave when the child is older? or all those men who become unwillling fathers after a one night stand and never form a relationship with the mother or their child? And children who are born via sperm donation know their biological father did not want to be a father to any child at all. So I can't see that a child would be any more traumatised knowing their father chose to revert to sperm donar status when they were at the embryo stage.

I suppose then that I do disagree with this judgement, however I would agree with the judge if mothers had had their eggs frozen too.

I think it would be great, if it was possible. But the men say they could not in conscience ignore children who had been born. They would feel morally and financially responsible. I couldn't bear to donate eggs, for example, and know there wa a child of mine alive in the world that I didn't see, so I can see their point. Out of interest, would anyone let a strange woman married to your ex partner use your eggs/frozen embryos to have a child to be brought up solely by them, even if they said you didn't have to have anything to do with it? Or allow your frozen embryos be donated to a stranger? I personally wouldn't.

Not had time to read all the responses so excuse me if I'm repeating what others have said.

IMO conception occurs at the point at which the egg is fertilised. AT THAT POINT both parties were consenting to an embryo being created. That is the point at which a life starts.

If these women had conceived naturally and then split up with their partners the next day, they would not have been forced to have terminations by their partners.

I think it is a question of taking responsibility for your actions. If you decide to have a child with someone you can't suddenly change your mind and kill the child.

If both parties agree that the embryos should be disposed of that is a different matter. I am no rabid pro lifer but I do feel that the decision has already been made and the child created, it should not be destroyed just because the man suddenly doesn't get on with the woman any more and doesn't want to pay the maintenance.

But Countess, surely both parties have to have the right of veto. Suppose the woman split with the man, decided she didn't want to have children with him after all, does he have the right to force her to have the embryo implanted? Does he have the right to take the embryos and have them implanted in another woman?

it looks so different from this point of view Aloha and Metrobaby, good point. I don't know how to express it but i think court has to think about future cases as well- not to create the path it wouldn't like to follow again if you know what i mean. so in this case it's reslly miserable partners could sort it out themselves. i feel upset and can't imagine what those women go through but after reading this thread i painfully agree with court

I think that maybe there'd be a case for the fathers not having to pay maintenance for the child, if it's clear they didn't want it while the mother still had a chance to back out without actively harming the embryo (as opposed to abortion where you have to terminate the embryo). But as for the woman being able to have the baby, I think she's perfectly within her rights. Both parents agreed to make the embryo and then it was made, so no-one should be able to back out afterwards.

I agree that the embryo should be both parents property but it doesn't follow that the father should be able to use the embryo to implant another woman without the mothers consent. The baby belongs to both parents, not to one parent to give to someone completely unrelated to the baby. If they find a way for dads to carry the baby I would agree that the father has the right to have the embryo implanted in him without the mothers consent. Hope that sort of shows my feelings on it IYSWIM!!!

meant partners couldn't sort it out

i think it's not right- in partnership woman carries the baby and man's new partner should be alowed to carry the baby for him if he's right to keep the embryo

I'm no rabid pro-lifer too, but I have to agree with countessdracular that the decision was made at embryo stage and in this case you can't backtrack on it. Presumably the couples had some counselling and lots of time to think things through before they went ahead with freezing the embryos, so if the men harboured doubts, they had the opportunity to explore their feelings at the time.

Having said that, I agree, aloha, I would find it extremely diffucult to think of one of 'my' embryos being inplanted in my ex's new partner. I don't think this should happen ever, unless my ex partner had no chance of having a child of his own. But I suppose that even if the birth went ahead against my wishes, I would still have the power to decide if I wanted to take responsiblity and have contact with my child. Just because another woman gave birth to this child would not alter the fact that I was the biological mother and had rights if I wanted them. Very difficult decision to make, though.

But if the mother has the baby it's only what would have happened naturally, and it's still keeping the baby between the two parents. I don't think you should be able to introduce someone else into it without both parents consent.

Ps - I'm assuming here that new legislation would allow me the female equivalent status of' sperm donar'

aloha, I don't think the man should have the right to force his ex partner to have the embryo inplanted in her body against her wishes, just because it's an invasion of her body. But I do think that in extreme circumstances if the man has little chance of fathering another child, then he has the right to implant the embryo (which is half his) in another woman's body. But still find it a diffucult one to swallow, so I might be argued out of this

I feel sympathy for everyone involved in this case and, since my DH and I have frozen embryos of our own, I understand how painful their predicament must be. However, one could argue that, in deciding to separate, these couples decided not to have children together, just as other people do when they split up. One decision is implicit in the other, surely? Also, the HFEA's rules are that either person can withdraw consent at any time up to embryo transer. How could one justify altering those rules to make it impossible to withdraw consent?

If the man can't take the embryos and implant them in his new partner, then you can't say that 'neitehr party should be allowed to back out'. What that would mean is that only the woman has the right to back out, not the man, which doesn't seem fair. Also agree with precedent. Suppose the woman split with the man because she'd found out he was shagging his sister, or the 14-year-old babysitter, or was a heroin addict...does he still have the right to own the embryos? I don't think that children being born to parents who hate each other when this can be avoided is a good thing. I just think egg freezing and sperm freezing is the way ahead.

If the man can't take the embryos and implant them in his new partner, then you can't say that 'neitehr party should be allowed to back out'. What that would mean is that only the woman has the right to back out, not the man, which doesn't seem fair. Also agree with precedent. Suppose the woman split with the man because she'd found out he was shagging his sister, or the 14-year-old babysitter, or was a heroin addict...does he still have the right to own the embryos? I don't think that children being born to parents who hate each other when this can be avoided is a good thing. I just think egg freezing and sperm freezing is the way ahead.

Also they may not have had much time to discuss this or get counselling at all, as with cancer treatment things can progress very, very fast.

I think the reason it was embryo not egg freezing is that egg freezing is experimental with no live births from the technique in humans yet

Oh yes there are! I've done a feature on it and interviewed one! There are others. The survival rate of eggs during defrosting used to be low. Now it is very good, due to changes in the procedures used.