Any threads on the embryo case?

[Quootiepie]

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

Fio - thats true and though I feel terribly sorry for her, many many women have to come to terms with the fact that they are unable to have biological children, it is always hard. IVF is a damned sight easier than adoption though, don't blame her one bit for the fight.

Well I think the right decision was made, I don't believe anyone has a "right" to have a child. They are a blessing not a right. Although this case specifically is very sad, it was her illness which prevented her from having children - why did they not have children when they were together and before she became ill?

I feel very sad for the woman, I can imagine how she must feel. She must feel so desperate knowing that those embryos will be destroyed. I also think it is unfair of him not to let her have this chance of having her own children. I know you can be a mother in many other ways, but I'm sure no one would deny that having children that are genetically your own is usually people's first choice of becoming a parent.

Do you think that when six embryos were created, he agreed to have six children? The law doesn't regard embryos, foetuses and children in a similar fashion. As far as I'm aware, the only group of people who would accord frozen embryos the same rights as children as regards not being destroyed are devout Catholics who agree entirely with the Vatican line.

He agreed to have his sperm fertilise her eggs. Defrosting and implantanation required another layer of consent which he doesn't want to give as he's not with her any more.

This isn't a case of a child conceived in a relationship and the man disappearing.

It's about consent to medical techniques that may result in a child so long as certain proceedures are followed and the couple involved both consent.

Of course there are Catholics here and I would imagine they regard fertilised embryos being destroyed as the same as abortion. But somehow I don't think that is what is happening in this case. I doubt that Natalie Evans and Howard (what's his surname) thought they were creating six children.

You couldn't really say that 100s of sperm released means a man expects to have 100s of children. A man would have to have a really weird idea of biology to think that.

no I'm sorry but you can absolutely not compare this with forcing someone to have an abortion. she was not pregnant. even if the embrios had been transferred there is absolutely no guarantee that they would have implanted and that a pregnancy would have occurred.

yes he donated his sperm and said that he wanted children with her, but he did that because she was having chemotherapy, so she would no longer be fertile after the treatment. although embrios were created, they were not transferred into her uterus. they had committed to have children together, but not ye, it was purely circumstance that meant he had to give his sperm in order to create a possible future family.

how many people enter into relationships and talk of having children together. how many people even try to have children together and the relationship breaks down?. should those people be forced to continue to have children with each other because they had committed to doing so in the past?

they were going to have a child together.

the relationship broke down.

so it automatically follows that they would no longer have children together.

If Natallie evans hadn't been infertile she would most likely not have wanted howard Johnston's children - she would have gone on to have them with someone else.

IMO Natallie Evans has been very selfish in all this and has only considered herself and has given no consideration to those possible future children.

she could still carry a child, or adopt, or find a surrogate.

if she wants a baby she can still have one, but howard Johnston does not want a baby with her so that is his right.

I do wonder if she was given advice at the time. Even if freezing eggs was not that effective I would still have done that and freeze fertilized eggs. DOn't they do a procedre where you fertilize using your own egg and a doner egg and you don't know which egg is the one (unless you do a dna test later on)

littlelapin it's true that Natallie Evans can no longer have her own children. but that's due to her illness, not down to Howard Johnston. It's only because of medical science that she would have had the possibility of having her own children following her chemotherapy, before the advent of such treatments chemo would have meant infertility, end of. And it's only through medical science that she's here to tell the tale. perhaps she might due well to remember that.

Very sad for her but the right decision I.M.O.

Sobernow - I'm sure you don't need to duck. And I'm sure she feels murderous towards her ex. But I'm not convinced that her pain is the only issue that matters here. It's clear from the statement that the law judges understood how much it upset her but they were right in my opinion. The only possible outcome.The law may change but at the moment, any other decision would have been saying that the contract the two of them freely entered into was being rewritten because she wanted it to be.

they had someone on 5 live this morning talking about this. apparently at the time she was given three choices. frozen embrios with johnstons sperm, frozen eggs, but that that option had a limited success rate, or frozen embrios with doner sperm. she opted to have howard Johnston's sperm.

Would anyone here honestly say that if they got as far as the embryo stage then split with your then partner (maybe he was violent or unfaithful?) they would be happy to be forced to give up those embryos to your ex's new partner, knowing they would bring up your child, but you would hardly see them, would be bound to someone you were no longer with forever, and could never be a proper parent to them? I find the idea absolutely obscene tbh.
The decision to have the embryos frozen was clearly not just about deciding they wanted to have children, but was done because she had cancer and who knows, maybe he wanted to support her and do this for her when she was ill, but the relationship was always rocky. They were not actively trying for children at the time - this was about a possible child in the future. She and he both knew that it was their RIGHT to not go ahead to the next stage. I would do exactly what he is doing in the same situation. God, we go on and on about awful men not taking responsibility for fatherhood, and here is a man who actively wants to do that, and he is treated as if he is a monster.

shame she didn't use donated sperm from an anon donor - why couldn't her ex-partner accept to be just a donor rather than a parent - just so she could have the chance of children?

Sometimes I think that the possibility presented by the frozen embryos has been a negative for her. If she'd had chemo and become infertile, she would have had to take a different route to motherhood. The fact of the frozen embryos and his refusal and then the case has taken years to resolve. Years that she could have spent pursuing other options.

maisym - probably for the same reasons you wouldn't accept to be an egg donor rather than a parent. Men are not on this earth JUST as sperm donors!

Haven't read all the other posts but was thinking - what if H.Johnson died - would she still be able to have the embryos implanted then (presuming they hadn't been destroyed though)? I don't understand why the embryos can't be kept frozen indefinitely - he could change his mind in a few years time.
I feel so sorry for Natalie Evans - watching her in the press conference made me cry. Taking somebody's chance to have a baby away is cruel and if he really ever loved her, I think he should agree for her to have the embryos implanted.
I think laws should be reformed and it should be made much more clear before you go ahead with the treatment to start with, what would happen in different scenarios and what you'd want the outcome to be.