Any threads on the embryo case?

[Quootiepie]

Just wondering, as I think the decision is today...

not sure if this has been said as i've got half way through and want to put my opinion in.

This case is nothing like a one night stand.

He was not agreeing to have a baby NOW with her, he and she were taking out an insurance policy in case her cancer treatment left her infertile. They had embryos frozen to use at a later date, not NOW. I doubt very much they would have chosen to conceive a child at the time that the embryos were created.

Message withdrawn

I heard Howard Johnston interviewed on radio 4 last night and he sounded very reasonable. At the time freezing eggs wasn't an option. They agreed to freeze embryos not because they had planned a family or had ideas about when they would have a family but as a safeguard/keep ioptions open for the future. At the time it was clearly spelled out that IVF is not always successful and that they should be prepared to consider the other options available if/when they decided they wanted to have children; she said at the time that she would be equally happy with donor eggs or fostering/adoption and that he would encourage her to explore those other options now. He was measured and engaged and doesn't want to have a family yet and doesn't want a family with her - she knew the situation about consent etc just as much as he did. Think of all the other women out there who can't have their 'own' children who go on to have children by other means.

AT the risk of repeating myself - to those who say she should have frozen her eggs - egg freezing was not available in 2001 (had been succesfully attempted but was not actually available to the public) and is very unsuccessful even now. There are only a handful of children born with frozen eggs in total compared to thousands of childrne born of frozen embryos.

And technically they are not embryos they are blastocytes (I think) ie small clump of cells (usually about cells)

I'm still with the posters who think that Ms Evans has every opportunity to adopt a child or use donor eggs - after all, she has a new partner now. Surely he'd prefer to father her children than her ex-partner??

I'm amazed he's stuck by her tbh - most of the men I know would have run a mile from this kind of neediness and clinging onto the past by her bringing this case, as much as I don't doubt she's hurting inside. I think this is more about her supposed needs - encouraged by lawyers seeing an interesting case to take 'all the way' - than the needs of any potential children or even the adults involved all round. I would hesitate to say that she might find it harder to adopt or apply to foster now as all this would have to be taken into account as background info - she might be considered a bit of a loose cannon now .

I hope she finds happiness.

Have only skimmed the thread, so apologies if someone has already made this point...
But a man would never be in the same position - if he had cancer and was facing a loss of fertility, he could have his sperm frozen and thereby retain all his own rights over the future use of the sperm.

From what I understand, the only real possibility of the woman in this case to retain the possibility of having her opwn biological child in the future was to freeze fertilized eggs.

Whislt I accept that the legal decision in this case is correct, I think that, morally and ethically it is a bad decision.

The point is Sobernow, Howard Johnson feels as I do. That it would be horrific for him to have a child now with a former partner he now does not lov, with whom he does not want a relationship and for him not to be able to be a father to his own child. He is not cavalieror careless about parenthood. I hardly think it is arrogant to want to be a lovingm, involved parent to your OWN child! It is absolutely 100% normal and admirable. Would you honestly be happy now if someone else raised your children against your will?
I am not remotely surprised by Xenia's feelings on the matter, however.

I once fancied having children with an ex boyfriend. DOesn't mean I would be happy to give him my daughter now!

I am torn as to who is right or wrong in this tragic case. Part of me feels for each of them, however I think it would be very difficult now for the woman to adopt a child.

For a start she is a "recognisable" face now and her previous health problems could quite possibly go against her.

But he's not saying that. He's never said that he is the only person who could raise his children. He is just saying that when he has children he wants to actively make a choice about it and to raise his own children. It's hardly unreasonable or arrogant.
I would never choose to have a baby to give it away to anyone - anyone at all. I don't see why it is seen as such an awful thing to say.

People who give up their children for adoption in the past were often tormented their whole lives by that.
I absolutely am grateful that I was able to have two children when I chose to have them. But I know plenty of people who have not been able to have children. It's not freakishly rare. And though very painful, I am not at all sure it is more painful than knowing you have a child out there that you cannot see or hold.

I agree Aloha. The guy has changed his mind. About her, about the relationship, about the potential children they once discussed. And his new decision seems to be based on sound principles.

I hadn't reallised that she had a new partner. What can he be thinking?

"I hadn't reallised that she had a new partner. What can he be thinking?"

... That his girlfriend has expressed the perfectly normal desire to have children that are genetically hers? Is that so strange?

Lucyju - more than expressed though. The expression bit is easy to understand. It's the six years going through courts that I find puzzling. Cases like this take time and energy and commitment.

KFlisjfohg8888 - not so dissimilar to going through years of IVF. Why do some people keep on with IVF for years and years when they could instead adopt? The urge to produce genetic offspring is very strong and unless you haven't had that urge satified (ie you don't already have genetic children) its slightly unfair to question her actions.

Well, I didn't say it was shocking (which implies moral disapproval) - I said I was a bit shocked (which means I was extremely surprised and amazed). I suppose what I find so astounding and, to me, incomprehensible, is that someone who clearly loves and adores their children would be OK about choosing to create another child - their child's sibling - who they couldn't be a parent to, and to have that child with someone they don't love or even like.

But that's why I'd never be an egg donor, which I know other people feel OK about.
All I'm saying really is that I think it is awful that this poor bloke who has had this case hanging over his head for six long years, is absolutely vilified for wanting to be a proper father to any child he has.

But wasn't part of the outcry about revealing details about sperm donors to 'their' children that these men did not feel that they were parents? So many, many people feel that way. I don't know whether I could donate eggs. But my dh has said that he would be perfectly happy to donate sperm. Although not under the current rules.

Of course, it is all about consent...

I agree that some people feel differently about creating children. YOu see on Mumsnet horrible men who don't want to see their beautiful children, which I can also never understand. And of course the man in this case never agreed to be an anonymous sperm donor.

I bet he rues the day he agreed to the fertilisation and freezing.

I realise that the father has rights too but when I heard this I thought selfish b*rd.

but how do you say "no" to a fiance who is about to unergo treamtent for cancer! I know from other firedns that you often get very little time to make your mind up. I feel for them both but mostly for her becuase I know what its like to have to face up to an inability to have a genetic child. At the time it feels like the end of the world.