Woman Loses Fight to Use Her Frozen Embryos

[expatinscotland]

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}

I think that legally they had no other choice -like expat said.
What a sad situation.
I do sympathise with her.

I posted on a thread the other day, about, 'what if you ex, was another mumsnetters partner.
Lots of people despise their old parners.
Can you imagine, now, having a child with that said partner ?
The mind boggles, doesn't it ? - how awful would that be ?
There is always a reason why people split up.
I don't know why this couple split up.
But you can't really blame him for not wanting to have a child with an ex.
Would you ?

but if that partner never had to see that child or be responsible for that child and you had no chance of ever having another child?

It's terribly sad. Poor woman said: "I didn't read the small print, I'd just been diagnosed with cancer."

I agree RachD- whatever my own feelings, the courts had no other choice.

I asked DP about this - he said absolutely no way would he allow frozen embryos of his to be used. He said that its akin to raping the man (enforced conception etc)

I feel sorry for the woman but i agree with the ruling. Its such a sad situation though.

Is it not obscene that we are at a stage in society where embryos are a commodity, a bargaining tool, something to be split in a divorce settlement... It was for precisely reasons such as this that the HFEA on drawing up the regulations stipulated that embryos should NOT be used without both parties consenting (and I'm sure that in the event of divorce they were to be destroyed but I could have that wrong OR they weren't married at the time - don't know). Really throws the spotlight on the morality of artificially creating embryos...I really hate the thought of wanton destruction of life and if we had never gone down this road then we wouldn't be having these debates. Hmmm. Don't really know what the global answer is but thank goodness laws are made in the cold light of day and not in the heat of a personal situation.

someone said shouldn't there be rules laided down - there were she is challenging them. They are quite specific, at all stages both parties must consent, i assume these were drawn up with this sort of case in mind.

The one thing that has been puzzling me and is totally removed from the facts of the case is how does one afford to take such action, probably a whole seperate thread, but i'm just curious

Very sad case,however I am on the mans side.

Does this woman REALLY want to have a baby with her ex dh?

She's begging the ex partner (they were never married) to reconsider. But I somehow don't think he will. Pruni does raise an interesting point, we don't really know what kind of person either of them is.

The court came to the only possible decision. Yes. terribly sad for the woman but as many have said you can't force anyone to be a parent unwillingly. First thoughts were that he was being callous and vindictive but perhaps he isn't....maybe he's being responsible and taking the concept of fatherhood seriously. He's not prepared to say 'what the heck....yeah go ahead, have my baby but leave me out of it.' The decision not to have a child is just as important as the decision to have one, if the circumstances are not right, and he clearly beleives that is the case.

She was on the news saying that if she can't have a child that is genetically hers, she would rather remain childless forever.

I strongly suspect that when these embryos are destroyed in October, and months or years down the line when she meets a life-time partner, she will find herself considering other options. In a few years she will pop up as the last feature on the news with her new baby created from a donor egg, or an adopted child.

Absolutely the right decision was made. Both parties took a chance at the time the embryos were created. Nobody ever said, we are creating these embryos therefore you WILL one day have a child that is genetically yours. There were no promises, only ever ifs and maybes, mainly because of the stats on successful future implantation.

Can you imagine if one of your awful exes from years ago had your fertilized eggs that you let him have when you were madly and misguidedly in love with him,and if he was now allowed by English law to somehow create a child that was yours and his together? The thought is repellent. And can you imagine not having the right to say no? No you probably can't imagine such a situation because the law is there to MAKE it unimaginable.

I feel great sympathy for everything the woman has gone through, her illness first and then all this, but TBH I think the sooner this case is settled and she is forced to move on with her life and explore other options is probably the best thing for her.

Poor woman. I hope she considers aboption though one day.

I haven't read the whole thread but I agree, she shouldn't have the right to use them imo, it should be a joint decision.

i do feel its different for a woman tho. If she had got pregnant and then he had left he couldn't demand an abortion. The only difference is that these embryos are outside her body and she wants them back.

I have had frozen embryos, and I am ashamed to realise that I have no idea what happens to them in the event of divorce.
I consider myself very well-up on what I've signed, too. Just goes to show how people get into these problems...

Can I just say, to all those who've used the word 'commodity', I don't think you've got it right at all - a commodity is a resource that you buy and sell. Nobody's suggesting that here. There isn't any trading going on. I think 'commodity' is a very emotive, misplaced word - quite Daily Mail in fact. Everyone I know who has had to have embryos frozen has extremely responsible, mature and appropriate feelings towards them. They are emphatically not just objects.

Feel for both of them and strongly think there should be a law to ensure clear instructions as to what happens in the event of separation/death etc. are put it writing and signed for when the embryos are originally frozen.

No man should be forced into being a father but it depends if you take the time of creating the embryos as his agreement or the time of future implantation?
I can imagine the points that are bugging her too are; 1 - if these embryos were inside her, he could not go back on his word. 2 - the fact a fertile woman could go out & have a one night stand or 'accidentally forget contraception' with a partner (which I think is far worse & more dishonest) & could force someone to be a father against their will very easily....
At least she is being open about wanting to take the last chance she has to have her own biological child and saying she does not expect the ex to take any parental responsibility.

It must eat her up inside to know that she has potential children but can't have access to them.
(Success rates notwithstanding)

pruni, she doesn't have potential children, they do, that's the point

but can she choose that her ex doesn't have parental responsibilities? I thought it was the child's right to see the father and not up to the mother. I also thought it was the child's right to receive child maintanance?

Bundle - I know that but I wonder if that's how she thinks about it? They're all she's got and he doesn't want them.