Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

News

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Original poster

Woman Loses Fight to Use Her Frozen Embryos

170 replies

expatinscotland · 07/03/2006 11:01

This woman had her ovaries removed due to ovarian cancer. She had eggs fertilised w/her former partner's sperm. They were together when she had them fertilised, of course, w/his permission. Then he w/drew that permission.

Whaddya think?

\link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4779876.stm\woman loses fight}

OP posts:

bundle · 07/03/2006 11:03

i think you have to make provision - before you freeze embryos - about the legal status of each partner in the future. it's such a pity that this poor woman has been caught up in this loophole, but i suppose she'll just have to get on with the rest of her life now (assuming there are no other legal avenues open to her)

Piffle · 07/03/2006 11:03

Rock and hard place this one.
Feel desperately bad for this woman, but not sure that its right to force a man into fatherhood, however noble and just the need is.
The embryo is as much his as it is hers. That said had the judgement been the other way I'd have thought that was fair too perhaps.
one minute I think yes the other no...

MerlinsBeard · 07/03/2006 11:04

looking at it from his point of view, if i had split up with someone i wouldn't want their babies either.

(waits to be shot down)

Carmenere · 07/03/2006 11:05

This is a really tough one because I totally sympathise whith her desire to have children and her expectation that she was going to, but I instinctively feel that the court was right. Very sad for her though.

Carameli · 07/03/2006 11:05

I heard this on the radio this morning. I think its such an awful situation and feel so so sorry for her but a part of me also has to be sympathetic to the guy who did not want it.
I don't understand why she didn't have some eggs frozen as well.

flashingnosethefrond · 07/03/2006 11:05

Does anyone know why they had embryos frozen rather than her eggs?

harpsichordcarrier · 07/03/2006 11:09

as I said on the other thread, I think his actions are inhumane. if he was my brother I would say - let her have the baby fgs.
I also find discussions of the "ownership" of embryos distasteful and unpleasant. an unseemly tussle over who "owns" a baby is degrading to all parties and doesn't reflect too well on our civilisation imho.

beetroot · 07/03/2006 11:12

isn't there a bigger risk of failure when freezing eggfs?

newkid · 07/03/2006 11:12

Good point about eggs versus embryos.

I know so many people who have had to have IVF, thought I might have to before dd arrived so I am really sorry for her. To her, these are 'her kids' and they are being taken away from her. However, it is her partner's right to say that he does not want to father these children so on balance I think the court has to decide in his favour. Having said that, he's being very very vindictive and I wish they could come to some sort of amicable agreement.

Original poster

expatinscotland · 07/03/2006 11:15

he's a twonk, i agree. the other lady gave up after the highest court in the UK rejected her claim, but she also already had a 17-year-old daughter from a previous relationship.

OP posts:

milward · 07/03/2006 11:17

just posted on the other thread on this - how awful for her. Wonder what her ex-partners new partner thinks about this?

SoupDragon · 07/03/2006 11:17

Surely he could have agreed to let her use them but had something in place that absolved him of any paternal resposibilities??

DelGirl · 07/03/2006 11:19

well you'd think so, wouldn't you soupdragon but of course that's too easy

katzg · 07/03/2006 11:19

why shouldn't he be able to change his mind, he would be responsible for the child/ren for the rest of his life too, and would you really want to have a baby knowing that the father was prepared to go to these lengths to stop you. but then i'm lucky enough to have not been in her position and this is her last chance to have a child that is biologically hers

DelGirl · 07/03/2006 11:22

If the HFEA were involved and I suspect they must have been then they always look at it from the child pov and that is probably why she was refused. You could argue that the child would grow up possibly knowing that his/her father didn't really want him/her. It's a really really tough one. I could have been in the same situation, though I wasn't the one who had cancer. My dd has no father around but she'll know she was wanted by both of us.

NomDePlume · 07/03/2006 11:23

But soupy, what if the thought of 'resolving himself of parental responsibilities' left him feeling like shite ? I think his reasons run deeper than 'I don't want a kid', resolving him of his parental rights would not resolve his issues/argument in that case.

Flossam · 07/03/2006 11:26

I think it is really sad. I feel like the man still has the decision to make himself as to whether he becomes a father or not. She has lost that decision and I think it is very sad for her. Agree that legal stuff should have been agreed before the embroyos where ever created.

ChicPea · 07/03/2006 11:27

I think in future women should have fertilised eggs and unfertilised eggs frozen so that if relationship ends the woman can try with somebody else. Can understand it is her last chance to have a baby and can understand that after the relationship has ended why would he want her to go ahead with his sperm which would then mean his responsiblity and a very strong tie when all a divorced couple want to do is run to the opposite ends of the earth.

SoupDragon · 07/03/2006 11:28

I assume he loved her enough to create these embryos (and they were engaged) so I guess I'm surprised he doesn't care enough now to let her use them. Also, it seems worse that the enbryos apparently now have to be destroyed. Why? He could just as easily change his mind again.

SoupDragon · 07/03/2006 11:30

"The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family."

But in agreeing to "create" the embryos in the first place, hasn't he already made that decision? He has, in effect, already started a family. Is this a hugely different scenario than requiring an ex partner to have an abortion should you split up in early pregnancy? I know it's not the same, but how different is it?

Original poster

expatinscotland · 07/03/2006 11:31

at the end of the day, you can't force parenthood on someone. i think he's an arse, but legally, he w/drew his consent.

OP posts:

puddle · 07/03/2006 11:34

Well, legally he needs to give his consent for the embryos to be implanted. So it was the right decision, legally speaking, the court couldn't really rule otherwise.

It does leave a very nasty taste though - he must really hate her to do this to her.

harpsichordcarrier · 07/03/2006 11:34

yes I agree with Soupdragon
once you have completed the act of fertilisation (whether it's having sex or creating embryos) then you shouldn't be able to change your mind.
Imagine if this woman had these embryos in her womb? and the guy said - no I change my mind?

wannaBe1974 · 07/03/2006 11:43

I think the court made the right decision. At the end of the day, if a couple splits and there are as yet no children involved, then generally that couple would not want to have children together. Yes there were plans to have children in the future, but don't most couples plan to have children at some point in a serious long-term relationship?

Whilst I sympathise with this woman's desire to have a baby, I also think that the ex-partner should have the right to say that he does not want to father this woman's children, and I think that it would be wrong for any court to force him to become a parent to children he does not want. And even if there was agreement that he would have no responsibility for these children, that he wouldn't have to play a part in their lives etc, what happens when 20 years down the line these children want to know their biological father and come knocking at his door. Should he really be forced into a situation where he is forced to answer questions as to why he didn't want them to be conceived? It's a different senario to where a father walks out on already existing children, he has been responsible imo.

katzg · 07/03/2006 11:43

The reason they have to be destroyed has little to do with his choice, they are about to reach there 5 year shelf life, when ALL embryos are destroyed.

He can't withdraw with consent once the embroy has been implanted, in the same way a man can't stopor force a women aborting a baby, once the baby is in utero is becomes the mums responsiblity

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7