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:

katzg · 07/03/2006 15:48

i guess even if he did give his consent she could very well still not end up with a baby, there are only 6 frozen embryos.

I think the law has made the right descision. No baby has yet been created.

If the Judge had found in her favour what effect might this have on the whole IVF system, if simply by creating embryos you've handed over your consent for them to be used then this opens up a whole new minefield.

threelittlebabies · 07/03/2006 15:57

Agree with harpsi, cod et al that he has been harsh, but whether he is right or wrong, how will people view him now? Imagine it will seriously affect his life. Would you want to have a relationship with someone who, as people have said, showed such a lack of compassion? I can understand the lengths she has gone to to have her own biological child. I know of several people with fertility issues who, after unsuccessful IVF, have decided against donor egg and adoption routes, as for them it is not the same, and they want to carry and give birth to their own child. Whilst I may not fully understand their reasons, I have to respect them.
And FWIW I would feel the same about this issue if it was the other way round (him being infertile and wanting to use the embryos) that it would be terribly sad for him.

turniphead · 07/03/2006 16:13

I'm with bundle and tinker

Portree · 07/03/2006 16:18

I have terribly mixed views on this especially as I've had IVF myself. When this first came to prominence I remember thinking that he should just give his consent as the the most likely outcome, statistically, is that the frozen embryo transfer would not work anyway. Only 60 - 70% of embryos survive the thaw process and then she has only about a one in five chance of a take home baby if 2 embryos are transferred.

I do though understand her desire to have a child that is genetically linked to her. However I think that his right NOT to consent trumps any right she has over this shared genetic material. The consent process in IVF is absolutely clear - there is no grey so they both knew what they were doing at the time. Their clinic should have advised them of what would happen if their relationship broke up in the future or if one of them died.

As to the egg freezing issue, there have only been a handful of births as a result of frozen eggs. Eggs are very fragile and do not survive the freeze/thaw process well due to their high water content. Embryos, otoh, are much more robust and even if several cells are lost on thawing then that embryo can go on to become a baby. Consequently she would have needed many, many eggs to be in with a chance of producing a sufficient number of embryos.

She perhaps would have been better advised to have had half her eggs fertilised with her partner's sperm and half with donor as an 'insurance' policy.

It's all terribly sad though.

bundle · 07/03/2006 16:24

as one poster has already pointed out, 6 embryos doesn't give her a guarantee of a live birth, so perhaps this is (subconsciously) more about the fact that he has any say over their shared genetic material.

katzg · 07/03/2006 16:48

i think that the ramification for going ahead without his consent have far reaching consiquences, there was no way a judge was going to allow her to use them unless he said yes.

Original poster

expatinscotland · 07/03/2006 16:55

It is indeed a very unfortunate circumstance for Ms. Evans, but I think the Baronness Deech put it best. Both parties of the couple are British subjects, and English law is very clear regarding the embryos.

Legally, I can't see how any other conclusion would have been viable, BUT I didn't see the whole case.

OP posts:

madmarchhare · 07/03/2006 17:18

threelittlebabies, I wouldnt have any issues with having a relationship with this man. I dont see that he lacks compassion, for me he is making a decision as to wether or not he wants a child. Just because he doesnt, that does not make him the worst possible man to have a baby with in the future.

What is this?, the woman (as sad as it is) wants one so she gets one? It really is not that straight forward.

Tinker · 07/03/2006 18:49

Think he's shown great maturity and responsibilty. He's had no say about this matter being publicised and he's been demonised, by some, about it.

bundle · 07/03/2006 19:00

agree with tinker, parenthood is a massive responsibility and he has decided for his own personal reasons he just doesn't want to go ahead with this woman. it's really regrettable that some kind of plan a, b and c weren't drawn up when the embryos were frozen.

threelittlebabies · 07/03/2006 19:05

It know it's not as straight forward as that. I was just trying to see it from her perspective- what has made her take it this far. Some have said that even with his permission there is no guarantee that she would have a baby. I imagine she is just making sure that she has done everything in her power to try and make that happen, so she knows she did her best. I don't think I would personally not want a relationship with someone in that position, but I do think it would put some people off. I guess we don't know what happened to end the relationship and make him not want to help her.

pacinofan · 07/03/2006 19:32

I think the right decision has been made, I have a lot of sympathy with the man involved. Listening to radio 4 tonight at 6pm it would seem that the courts have had little choice but to observe the laws in place in the UK. I have some sympathy with the lady involved, but much more with the partner.

bundle · 07/03/2006 19:32

but why should he "help her"? we're not talking about a lift to the station or putting up a few shelves, it's a lifelong commitment he doesn't want to make with her. it's sad, but she will now have to look at other options.

Sparklemagic · 07/03/2006 19:40

I think it's his human right not to have a child if he doesn't want one. Imagine how you would feel if this man had the right to refuse a woman a termination if she wanted one.

It's the right decision and they have to be so careful here because this technology is relatively new and we need to ensure that human rights of all involved are served. It is not a human RIGHT to have a child, much as this woman obviously wants one.

I do feel desperately sorry for this woman, and I know that if it were me in this situation I would be devastated of course, but if parenting is what she so desperately wants, I am sure that fostering and adoption will fulfil those needs once she has accepted the inevitable emotional upheaval of not being able to have her own. That's how I would have felt in this situation anyway. And being a mum to my DS has been about more than carrying and giving birth to him.

UCM · 07/03/2006 20:17

I am sure I read somewhere that he has a new partner and a small child already?

Original poster

expatinscotland · 07/03/2006 20:21

1Imagine how you would feel if this man had the right to refuse a woman a termination if she wanted one. 1

Or if he were your son . . .

OP posts:

crunchie · 07/03/2006 20:46

Personally I think the court made the only choice they could have done. It doesn't stop him being a bit of an arse and vindictive. BUT he should have the right to say no now. Also as someone posted he said he would feel obliged to be a 'good' father to any resulting child, and he really doesn't want to be a father with her at all. Therefore When people say - how does it matter to him, he could sign away his rights etc. Well as I understand it, it matters finacially and he is also saying emotionally, if she were allowed to use these embryos.

It is such a hard situation but I agree with another poster who said you don't have to be biologically related to a child to be a mother. If Natalie Evans wants to be a parent so much, she could still be one.

Although I am not anti IVF per se, it does throw up horrible moral arguements in situations like these.

Sparklemagic · 07/03/2006 20:47

I have a son and I will be glad if he has the control over whether he becomes a father or not in this way.

madmarchhare · 07/03/2006 20:48

Exactly bundle.

Excuse me sir, could you just help me out here?

Sparklemagic · 07/03/2006 20:52

As bundle said, what this really sad example shows us is that plans ought to be drawn up as to what will happen to the embryos in the event of death / divorce or whatever - then at least this anguish would have been spared for the poor woman. It seems basic good practice that from now on clinics ought to have 'pre-conception agreements'. I'm sure it won't be a panacea but it would perhaps save this sort of thing from happening again.

Blandmum · 07/03/2006 20:54

When dh gave a sperm sample prior to having chemotherapy, he had to make out a directive as to what was to happen to his sample if he died.

It seems strange that people are not advised to do the same regarding divorce.

Sparklemagic · 07/03/2006 21:08

yes martian specially when it's nearly 1 in 2 marriages that end in divorce now, apparently!

threelittlebabies · 07/03/2006 22:40

dh just asked me if I had heard about this, and said that he can't imagine that I could do anything that would make him deny me a child in these circs.
Just thought his opinion on this was interesting

alexsmum · 07/03/2006 22:41

I agree with your dh 3lb

Pruni · 07/03/2006 22:48

We're all saying 'What a bastard' and 'Why is he denying her the opportunity to a child?' etc, but what if he split with her for very good reasons and thinks that she should not be 'allowed' to have charge of a child? We know nothing about her - she could be a maniac and we're all seeing her as a martyr. What if from his point of view this is his distasteful but necessary duty to make sure that a child's life isn't ruined by her?

Totally plating devil's advocate, btw.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Swipe left for the next trending thread