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?

I mean, I interviewed a mum, not a baby!

tigermoth - since my child was conceived in a 'non-loving relationship' shall we say, I think that is why I think it is not a good idea to deliberately bring a child into the world with the knowledge that they were actively not wanted. Not even a 'mistake', their fathers actually went to court, or were taken to court, because they didn't want to be the father of these children. I really think that that is a big burden to place on a child.

Many children of anonymous sperm donors find the anonymity of the father difficult to deal with. To add into the equation these particular fathers seems a recipe for disaster.

It is very, very harsh for these women but, really, they were doing this for themselves and what they believe to be their 'right' to have a child. I don't think a decision the other way would have been in the interest of the future child

Whilst I have every sympathy for the women involved, they and their partners cannot have forseen everything that would unfold. Whilst they would have had counselling, this may have been quite cursory - after 4 IVF attemtps I am not sure that I could tell you which conversation with the doctor was the formal "counselling", and at no point were there discussions about what to do with freezing. It is clear from the papers that you have to sign that both partners have to consent to the use of stored embryos otherwise the embryos must be destroyed at the end of the relevant time period (usually 5 years). Therefore couples can look at embryo freezing (in those relatively few cases where it is feasible!) as an ultimate back-up but knowing that they have time in which to decide what to do. I'm afraid that I agree with the judgement, even though I feel desparately for the women involved.

As for egg freezing, the process of thawing and fertilisation is still relatively uncommon in the UK (not least because the thawing of eggs for fertilisation was illegal until 1.1.2000!). Whilst there have been some successes, the success rates are still not that high (bear in mind that the average succes rate for a frozen embryo transfer is between 10 and 20% at most clinics). I understand that the first live birth using a woman's own frozen eggs only happened a year ago. It's 25 years since we had the first IVF birth, and 20 years since the first FET birth, and the success rates are increasing, but the odds are still against you...

Now that puts a different angle on things. You say, oldiemum, that the HFEA rules that either partner can withdraw consent at any time up to embryo transer. Miriamw, you say both partners have to give consent to use the embryo, and they are fully aware of this at the time of freezing.

If this is so, and consent to use the embryo is dependent on both parties, and they are fully aware of this, and it is in black and white, then I tend to agree that these two women do not have the right to go ahead and give birth against their partner's wishes, sad as it is for them.

tinker, I see what you mean about the burden a child faces knowing they were actively not wanted by one parent, but what about children who are adopted? In their case possibly both parents didn't want them. And what about children who grow up to find one parent rejects them - having known and lived with them for years? Personally I think I'd find that much more painful - at least a sperm doner father (for instance) hasn't ever known you. They are rejecting an abstract idea, rejecting you as an embryo, not you as a person.

Terribly sad to feel a child is not wanted by a parent, but I personally don't think you can use this as the main base of legislation for or against one parent's decision-making over an embryo.

Interestingly, as a recipient of a donor egg (resulting in dd aged 15 months) the donor of my egg had no say in what happened to any resulting embryo once her donation was complete, so couldn't say if embryo was frozen etc. So if the donor of my egg which is, in effect the "mother" is not allowed any say with regard to the future of the embryo she has half created, how does that impact the rights of the father? The whole IVF field seems to be a minefield of different rules and regs to me.

I watched the documantary on this last night. Don't know how I feel now. Only that I hope she does go on to sucessfully become a Mummy by egg doantion. Made me realise that how ever many material things I want in life. I have the one precious thing that lots of women would give their right arm for - my ds.

Beetroot - regarding her ex-dp being a "a selfish thoughtless ba**ard" - perhaps if you offered to pay his maintenance costs for the next twenty years he may reconsider.

StuartC - he really should have thought about that before agreeing to fertilise the eggs with his sperm, should he not?

I think they should regard them in the same way as if the man had frozen sperm. If he had been the one to get cancer, there would be no problem with him fathering children using his sperm, so, just because egg freezing is in its early stages of development, the mothers shouldn't be discriminated against because they have had to go with embryo freezing.(Aloha, I'm sure egg freezing is the way to go in the future!) In nature, once the embryo is created, the father has nothing to do with the progress of the baby - the mother has control (in so far as anyone does in nature).

And I'm sure that the mothers wouldn't mind forgoing the maintenance costs - a small price for a baby!

Musica - tell that to the CSA

I also saw this documentary last night. I felt so sorry for the woman but I still think that the decision made was the right one.

When they signed the papers at the beginning of the IVF process they both knew that it was contract that stated that if either 'parent' wished to have the embryos destroyed then it would be done, they both signed it. I think it is right that the law states that dual consent must be sought at every step of the process from 'fertilization' to implantation.

I have great sympathy for the woman but I don't see how the man can be seen as a 'heartless bastard'. The man has exercised his legal rights, he would not choose to have a child with the woman now that the relationship has broken down. Somebody said, 'why doesn't he just sign his parental rights away and let her have it?', that to me insinuates that the father is purely concerned with the financial and contact constraints that having this child will bring about. That to me is unfair, this man feels an emotional need too, he feels that he would not want HIS child (it is his too) to be brought up without him in a relationship which is no more.

I think the fact that the man said nothing on the programme and the womans solicitor / press people seemed to be putting quite a lot of 'spin' on it (look this way the judge, say this to the press/cameras etc, spoke volumes.

I also can't believe that the woman given the option to freeze her eggs unfertilized (albeit at a different clinic) didn't take it up because her boyfriend said 'of course we are not going to split darling'. She said that she put the 'what if we split?' dilemma to him and he poo-pooed it, which to me suggests that she was having personal doubts about just freezing embryos. If you knew that it was YOUR last chance to conceive would you (having felt and voiced your doubts) go ahead and just freeze embryos ? I certainly wouldn't, I would expect my partner to respect the fact that I had to protect my rights to parenthood as an individual as well as part of a couple. My DH agrees.

That said (I realise that it may be an unpopular view), I do hope that the woman can go on and give birth to a child whether genetically hers or not. I think that if she carries the child from implantaion to birth then it will feel very much 'hers'.

But he was opertaing under the law as it stands, which tells him he has the right to refuse up until the moment of implantation. If that was the basis on which he agreed to fertilise the eggs, you cannot change the rules on him.
I also completely sympathise with him not wanting to father a child for whom he would feel a moral and emotional responsibility. I feel that every child should have the right to know about their genetic heritage so simply providing sperm does give the father a future responsibility.
I felt very sorry for Natalie last night, but also felt she was thinking quite selfishly about her right to be a mother, rather than about what was best for the child she wanted so badly.

Agreed Prufrock.

Whilst I felt desperately sorry for her I can imagine exactly why and how he would not want a baby with an ex. Presumably he finished with her because he no longer loved her. The thought of having the child of some of my exes after we have split up fills me with a mild revulsion. It?s not just about having a child, it?s about having that child, which I can understand he doesn?t want. I can well imagine that as she was undergoing her cancer treatment he would have been in a very difficult position to have done anything other than go along with the freezing of embryos. I?m sure many babies are conceived when one partner wants one more than the other. At the time of the freezing, presumably this was then the case for him. Maybe?

I also felt very sad for Natalie, but felt it was the right decision. I was concerned that Natalie had a number of problems (emotional and psychological), indicated by the attempted overdose after the split & not being able to work for a long time, and I hope she was getting some support and counselling. It also made me think - I would much rather have a child with my current partner using a donated egg, than a child using my own egg conceived by an ex.

Having read all the stuff about the rules and what you agree to when you sign, I now think the father is right to not let the mother have the embryos implanted, as she obviously agreed to this possibility at the time.

The thing this makes me think of is who actually should have control over the embryo? If it was in the mother (as in natural conception) then it would be her (ie she can have it aborted or kept without the fathers consent). But is this only because it's in her body and so she should have a say over what happens to her body or is it because the law wants mothers to have the final say?

It's sort of related, but what about surrogacy? I haven't heard of this happening but what if a couple have a baby with a surrogate and then die soon after? Then what if the surrogate wants to terminate the pregnancy? Surely that would be her right because it's in her body. My point is that the mother only seems to have veto on decisions because it's usually happening in her body, but if fertilisation happens outside the body, mothers should take into account that this will probably remove any control they would otherwise have and put in the hands of the law.

i felt sorry for her, but in a way i felt she was wrong in trying to change the law. Her ex obviously made it clear he didnt want a child with her after they split. He might feel that if he knows he has a child somewhere then he would wabt to be part of its life. i dont feel he is a heartless bastard at all, he doesnt wish to be forced to be a father. even if he had nothing to do with the child he would still be its father regardless. and for a child to grow up with a father who doesnt want him/her is devesting for the child and mother.

Beetroot I totally agree with you. All the legal stuff and red tape aside, this woman has had one hell of a struggle and I too have deepest sympathy for her.

But I guess that sympathy is not always the best grounds for making an ethical and legal decision.

Unfortunatley us women feel that having a child is our right. When it is actually a wonderful gift that doesn't happen to us all.

hear hear northener

I heard on the radio that one of the women was now hoping her ex would agree to the embryos being donated, so that at least they wouldn't be destroyed. That doesn't seem like a selfish desire to be a mother - more desperation that her embryos get a chance to live.