Woman in first legal challenge against UK's 10-year limit on egg-freezing

[MsTiggywinkletoyou]

This is one of those cases which seems so obvious, until you think through the consequences ... and then I'm not so sure.

"The time limit has already been widely criticised by campaigners who argue that it is discriminatory. Fertility doctors have raised concerns that the current limit discourages women from freezing their eggs at a younger age when they are most fertile. At the time the law was introduced, eggs could not be stored effectively for long periods of time, meaning the time limit mostly served to allow clinics to destroy samples that had no prospect of being used."

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/15/legal-challenge-uk-10-year-limit-egg-freezing

I am struggling to raise the slightest shred of sympathy for this particular woman. It's all just me, me, me and I want.

In general I see no compelling reason for storing eggs for more than 10 years and definitely not at public NHS cost.

Yes, I can see that this woman is not the most sympathetic case. But a legal precedent may be set. What then? What about very young women about to undergo treatment that may render them infertile (e.g. chemotherapy)? Should the NHS store their gametes indefinitely? Or what if a woman freezes her eggs at 35; at 45 the NHS says "time's up"; and she wants to pay to transfer them to a private freezer.

As someone who had medical issues leading to fertility problems at a fairly young age and ultimately concieved through IVF, I'm watching this case with interest as the same law that applies to eggs applies to embryos.

I understand that this woman's particular circumstances might not seem very sympathetic to some but this law also affects those of us who have had gametes/embryos frozen due to fertility-impacting medical conditions. When the law decides my embryos should be destroyed, I will still be at what most people would consider a "socially acceptable" childbearing age.

So more power to her. I hope she's successful.

Should the NHS store their gametes indefinitely?

No the NHS can't be expected to pay for everything everyone wants.

Or what if a woman freezes her eggs at 35; at 45 the NHS says "time's up"; and she wants to pay to transfer them to a private freezer

I'm pretty opposed to most forms of assisted conception but if she is paying for it herself then I suppose ok.

I would not be persuaded at all by arguments women couldn't afford it. Raising a child is hardly cheap.

Maybe I'm missing something here but why is she not considered a sympathetic character? Isn't she also paying privately?

Lass, you sound quite ignorant. This isn't a "what will the NHS fund" issue, it's actually the law to destroy embryos/gametes at ten years, regardless of circumstances and regardless of who is paying for the storage.

I don't particularly have a problem with eggs being destroyed after 10 years tbh. And if it is changed there will no doubt be demands that the NHS should foot the bill.

Is there a point at which stored eggs/foetuses start deteriorating? No matter how carefully stored, and who pays for them, and how much it costs?

I ask in a spirit of enquiry.

@OccasionalKite

"At the time the law was introduced, eggs could not be stored effectively for long periods of time, meaning the time limit mostly served to allow clinics to destroy samples that had no prospect of being used.
About a decade ago, clinics began to adopt a new freezing technique, called vitrification, that allowed eggs to be stored almost indefinitely without deteriorating. This prompted a steep increase in “social” egg freezing and means an increasing number of women are running up against the limit."

MhairiV

Thank you for your explanation.

The idea makes me weep, though.

"“When I did it there were hundreds of women having this done each year; there are now thousands."

"The number of women in the UK opting to freeze their eggs has increased from fewer than 300 in 2010 to 1,300 in 2016, according to official figures."

Apart from anything else the numerical illiteracy really annoys me. 🤯😱

DD's flat mate at uni had cancer and had egg storage before treatment. She is 20 now, 3 or 4 years on from that initial treatment already. I do feel a ten year ticking clock to get her life in a place where she is ready to try for ivf is very unfair. The viability of eggs is one thing. The social issue is another. I definitely feel less sympathetic towards a woman defreezing the eggs in her 60's and using a surrogate...

So it's not a lot of women opting to do this, then?

Wrote my post before reading your second post, about "DD's flat mate at uni had cancer and had egg storage before treatment. She is 20 now, 3 or 4 years on from that initial treatment already.."

That's still not 10 years on, though I can see the time pressure. But it is not a lot different from women generally who want to be mothers, under pressure to have their children in, say early 30s, just when their careers are starting to take off.

Also, from what I've read so far, the egg-harvesting process is in itself, a burden on the woman's health and wellbeing.

I think its a bad law that doesn't have a basis in fact. If the NHS doesn't want to fund storage beyond ten years then that should be an NHS policy decision - not a law. It does unfairly discriminate against women whose fertility declines much more rapidly than mens as they get older.

Having said that I think that if someone has become "prematurely infertile" they can obtain an extension to the usual 10 year storage period so those who have medical treatment that impacts fertility when they're young should be covered by that.

I definitely agree egg harvesting is not a pleasant procedure and I think the demands it places on a woman's body re messing with hormones to produce multiple eggs as well as the actual harvesting process should not be underplayed whether for personal use or for egg donation / sale.

As an older mother (40/42) I was lucky to have no fertility issues at that age - my problem had been a lack of a viable father, (a problem which I think is massively mis-understood in an age of man babies who don't want to commit etc.) so I have to be careful when considering age limits. But I do wish I had had my dc at a younger age. I look enviously at peers and colleagues who are enjoying retirement and grandchildren while I am slaving away working full time to fund uni etc and feeling exhausted and too old for it all. And what of the children of mothers older than me, many of whom will be destined to being either orphans or teenage carers? Age limits may seem harsh but I do feel the needs/welfare of any children are completely ignored in our "baby as a consumer product" society.

But going back to the ten year limit - that does seem somewhat arbitrary and obviously the law hasn't kept pace with science. Teenagers having fertility preservation ahead of treatment for leukaemia/Hodgkins or other cancers shouldn't then be under pressure to use those eggs at a time when their friends and peers haven't even started hearing the ticking of their biological alarm clock.

It is certainly a very tricky area to legislate with so many ifs and buts and lots of grey areas.

I would like the law to prioritise the needs and welfare of any children over the desires of adults to have a child at all costs, treating babies as just another consumer product.

Here's the thing though, iusedtobeanoptimist, when you start policing the age at which some women can have children and introducing cut offs then you're handing the state control over a woman's reproductive autonomy. There are plenty of people who would say that women shouldn't be "allowed" to have a kid at the age you had yours. Where is the cut off? Why unfairly punish women who have infertility? You were able to choose to have a child in your forties, I will have that choice taken away from me by the state.

We already have a situation where it's acceptable for the state to decide when a woman's stored gameted are destroyed without her consent, in a law that has no regard for modern medicine. Introducing age cut offs just hands over an extra layer of control.

This law shouldn't exist at all.

@OccasionalKite are you really saying that requiring a woman to have finished bearing her biological children at 26 is similar to the social pressure for women to have first babies in their early 30s? That's 10 or more years difference...

mondaysaturday. That is why I wrote "so I have to be careful when considering age limits."
I am very aware I would not have qualified for ivf on the nhs at my age. I certainly don't want to "punish" women who have infertility.

I was however agreeing that the time limit on egg storage (which is different to an age limit on using them) is unfair unless the science supports it due to egg degradation or viability.

The simple solution would be to transfer responsibility for paying for storage to the individual.

''The woman paid to freeze her eggs in 2009 because she was not in a relationship, but hoped to have a baby in the future.''

People don't usually get egg storage free on the NHS, they have to pay; there is still a 10 year limit.

@Asdf12345 they already do though.

There isn’t a cut off for when we men can be fathers, why should there be for women who want to be mothers?

My only reservation is I don’t want to wake up to a world where poor women end up as rent-a-wombs for the very rich.

If also like a discussion around the NHS so we can get away from the triage of certain treatments. We need to pass legislation setting aside 10-15% of gdp for socialised healthcare that any government going forward HAS to find through corporation tax, sales tax etc.

If it's safe now to keep them longer and they are privately paid for, then I don't see a problem but it should be free for young women who had to freeze them for medical reasons.

What are the limits for men freezing sperm? If the limits for men are longer, then surely this becomes a sex discrimination case?