Any threads on the embryo case?

[Quootiepie]

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

donnie, why do you think it is the right decision? Does anyone know what the legal thinking behind the decision was?

If it was made clear to them at the time, and I suspect it was, that the implantation could only take place with joint consent, then he does have the right to make the decision he has. Morally as well as legally. Of course I agree with Twiglett, that the time that the embryos are created is the time when consent should be given. But it wasn't.

And yes, he must really hate her...

link

because I think to impose parenthood on someone against their will is far worse than to withold it from this woman, however much sympathy one feels for her.

Gosh yes. The reverse situation that Shona suggests is an interesting one.

But, if you take my point that the test tube is merely a temporary extension of the women's womb, it puts them in the same position of creating an embryo through straightforward sex, so the reverse would never occur. In my view, the embryos, once created, should be treated as though growing within the woman with the same rights that that brings.

I think that, morally, to deny someone the chance to do something which you can still do is abhorrent.

But it's not is it? It is an artificially created (not sure if that's the term I want) situation that actually puts the man and woman in an equal position regarding the embryos, unlike natural conception where the woman's autonomy over her own body is relevant.

Otherwise you are saying that for some reason the egg is somehow more important than the sperm. Obviously only the woman has the biological wherewithall to let the embryos grow into a baby, but hypothetically the man could find another womb to carry his child...

Awful though - and I absolutely agree with you that it's deadful that he has decided to deprive her of the chance of motherhood and destry these, presumably, once much wanted (potential) children.

yes freckle I agree with your point - i understand what donnie says about forced parenthood, but would argue that the decision to create embryos WAS a joint one and that if this man had decided to go ahead and have a baby with the woman without the aid of IVF, these embryos would already be children and he would have had to live with his original choice - noone could argue that he had been forced into parenthood, even if they then split up. He is protected because his choice was made with a test tube and not a womb and so he has been able to reverse it.

Essentially I agree with you Freckle.

But I do think this is different. They would have been told that they would both need to give permission for the embryos to be used. He was told he had the right to withold his consent. He is now doing that. He hasn't moved the goalposts. Or gone back on his word (as far as we know).

And embyos created through IVF aren't, can't be treated the same as naturally conceived embryos can they? Aren't more often made than are required. So they are destroyed. With none of the 'rights' you refer to.

I do feel desperately sorry for her though.

But they are not on equal footing because her (yes, fertilized by his sperm) egg is going to be destroyed and she has no recourse to stop this. He is the only one with a choice according to this ruling.

She still has a few radical possibilities... I might hire some ex SAS men, steal back the embryos and escape with them to Northern Cyprus or she could start a fund for people to contribute to pay to the father and see at what price he could be bought/bribed to change his mind.

They are equal in that they both have the right to withdraw their consent. In the normal way of things only the woman would have that right - ie to have an abortion.

I really think that this was an unwinnable case really, though, in the sense that there was no decision that could acheive a happy compromise for all parties. Hopefully, science can step in, in future cases, so that women who become infertile through illnesses like cancer can first have their eggs removed and frozen in their unfertilized state for the future.

If a father decides after the baby is born that he no longer watns him/her then he can sign away all parental rights if the baby is adopted by someone else, it seems wrong that he isn't doing this now.

I imagine he doesn't want to do this precisely because he DOES want to be involved in his children's lives. That he does NOT want to be an absent parent and that he does not want to bring a child into the world that he cannot be a proper father to. I don't think that is unreasonable, even though I do feel very sorry for the woman involved. He started this process as half of a couple, planning to raise his own children. He clearly does not fancy having a child with a woman he is no longer with, and who can blame him for that. I don't think you have to hate someone not to want to have children with them.

oh, how sad I think it was wrong personally, in fertilizing (sp?) the embryos I think that should have been equal to having sex. Then all "right" is lost really. He gave his consent by having them frozen, so sad he can just withdraw it and have an embryo destroyed. Different if she had his sperm and her eggs frozen, but, the process had started. I mean, what next, men asking for babies to be aborted they decide they have changed their minds about? It's sad, really sad.

Having read thru the whole thread I think that it is, estentially, very sad, for both parties to be in this situation.
The 'father' is thinking of himself, and it could be argued, the child, in that he doesn't want to be an absentee in the child's life. The 'mother' is also thinking of herself and the fact that she can now never have her own children. There is another issue here, dare I add it? In an interview the 'father' said that when they froze the embryos they discussed other options and the 'mother' said that she would love any child even if they used an egg donor or she adopted. So he is agruing that she could still do one of those. Is she saying that she would be less of a mother if she did? I know it is not ideal but she still does have options. Just a thought...

They both knew at the start of the process that permission could be withdrawn at any point before implantation. That was always the deal. Suppose she changed her mind? Should he be able to force her to carry the babies, or to allow him to use them with a surrogate mother? I don't think anyone would think that was a good idea.

I agree with Aloha. He is not withdrawing his consent. He never gave consent for the enbryos to be used. You may see an implied consent in his actions, but I'm pretty sure it was spelt out to both of them that there was another hurdle to jump over.

Much as I feel sorry for her, it was absolutely the right decision. You cannot compare embrios that have been created through IVF to embrios that are conceived naturally. During the course of IVF, most embrios are destroyed and only the healthiest ones are put back, so of course those embrios do not have the same right to life as a baby that is developing in utero. If you agree that all embrios have a right to life, the it could be argued that none should be allowed to be destroyed and that all must be put back as the couple have created life and therefore should honour that and give all their babies a chance of survival. And that?s just madness.

With reference to howard Johnson, why should he be forced to father a child he doesn?t want? Yes maybe he could sign away his parental responsibilities, but why should he? And that still wouldn?t stop a child coming to look for him in 18 years? What do you tell that child then? What if the situation had been reversed, would people be arguing that he should be allowed to use his ex partner?s eggs to be carried by a surrogate so he could have his own genetic children?

I don?t think you necessarily have to hate someone to not want their children. How many of you would want children with your ex?s?

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

As far as I can gather, given he clearly loathes all the publicity about this, he simply doesn't want to be forced to have children with his ex (would you?) and would like to father children in a loving relationship and actually live with his own kids. I really don't think that is too much to ask. He never signed up to be a sperm donor.

Message withdrawn

And I DO feel very sorry for her all the same. To have cancer is awful, to lose your chance of having children though it must be the final straw. Feel similarly about Kylie too.