WOMEN LOSE EMBRYO CASE - Can't have test-tube babies without consent of children's "fathers"

SkyNews ^ | 10/01/03 | Staff Writer

[bedolido]

Two women have been told they can't have test-tube babies because they did not have the consent of the children's would-be fathers.

In a landmark High Court ruling, a judge has ordered that their frozen embryos must be destroyed - pending an appeal.

Natallie Evans, 31, from Trowbridge, Wiltshire, and Lorraine Hadley, 38, from Sandwell, West Midlands, both underwent IVF treatment with their respective partners and have a number of embryos in storage.

However, the couples have now separated and the partners have withdrawn consent for the use of the embryos.

The judge rejected their challenge to a law stating that embryos must be destroyed unless both parties consent to storage and use.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act says that, unless both parties consent to storage and use, the embryos must be destroyed.

The hearing, which took place in June and July this year, heard that it was Ms Evans's last chance to have natural children of her own because her ovaries were removed after they were found to contain pre-cancerous cells.

She met her former partner, Howard Johnston, in 1999 and they lived together until last year when he ended the relationship.

Ms Evans claims that Mr Johnston led her to believe that he would never stop her using the embryos as he knew how important having a child was to her.

Mrs Hadley was married to husband Wayne until he left her for another woman in 2000.

When they separated, Mr Hadley agreed the embryos should remain in storage but later changed his mind.

Mr Justice Wall expressed his "considerable sympathy for all four of the adults in the dilemma which they faced in these two cases".

He said it would be easy to criticise Mr Johnston and Mr Hadley.

"But such criticisms would, in my judgment, be unfair," he said.

The judge refused the women permission to appeal against the ruling, although they can apply directly to the Court of Appeal.

In the meantime, he granted a 28-day stay on his order preventing the two clinics where the embryos are held from destroying them before the outcome of any appeal.

"This litigation has gone on for a long time and has caused the parties a great deal of distress and expense," said Mr Justice Wall.

"In my judgment, it is time that it came to an end."

The British Medical Association agreed with the decision and said the principle of valid consent must be upheld.

"While empathising with the situation of both women, the BMA feels it would be a very dangerous step to change the rules on consent retrospectively," said BMA ethics committee chairman Dr Michael Wilks.

Last Updated: 12:54 UK, Wednesday October 01, 2003

[Roughneck]

"Two women have been told they can't have test-tube babies because they did not have the consent of the children's would-be fathers"

I agree with this decision. Too many times women get pregnant "on purpose", then scream bloody murder until they get un-deserved child support from an un-knowing father.

Now, when are the women who murder their children thru abortion WITHOUT the consent of the father going to called on that atrocity?

[thoughtomator]

Hopefully next is that they can't get an abortion without the consent of the father.

[sauropod]

Awwww.... Can't look at males anymore as purely "sperm and support," eh ladies?

That having been said, the embryos should be donated to infertile couples, not destroyed.

They are life.

[maica]

Adoption would be the ideal answer, and I agree with the judges' decision.

[sauropod]

I went through IVF. Anytime I hear about embryos being "destroyed" my gut twists.

I agree with the judge's decision except for the part about destroying the embryos.

[kitkat]

***That having been said, the embryos should be donated to infertile couples, not destroyed.

They are life.***

I agree.

[4mycountry]

Ditto that.

[paulklenk]

Agreed.

[Consort]

Embryo case? Isn't it the embryo sac?

[SpinyNorman]

Given that the fathers would eventually be sued for child support, their permission is absolutely necessary.

[TomB]

Embryo case? Isn't it the embryo sac?

No, it's an embryo box.

"I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!"

[bedolido]

thanks for the yuks... it's been a bad morning so far. I needed a good laugh. Thanks for delivering it

[GovernmentShrinker]

It would be a difficult legal argument to make, that the natural mother shouldn't have a right to have these embryos implanted, but that complete strangers should -- unless both of the biological parents agreed to that, which it doesn't sound like the mother would.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Fortunately, scenarios like this will soon be thing of the past. Freezing of ovarian tissue and fully developed eggs is already in clinical trials, and the latter is already commercially available in a few clinics. Research is well underway to develop eggs from ovarian tissue outside the body, so that women who can't have the ovarian tissue replaced into the body due to cancer, can still produce eggs. Already, a few women have had ovaries temporarily removed for the duration of medical treatments which would destroy them, and then had them fully or partially replaced, followed by the resumption of normal menstrual cycles.

[LN2Campy]

Not in the USA, where the rule is: "spurt in the cup, you gotta pay up"

[GovernmentShrinker]

We need some new laws re child support liability. Anonymous sperm donors are not liable for child support, and biological fathers who explicitly opt out of parental rights and responsibilities before the mother is pregnant, should also not face any liability. The sad thing is, that may be the main or only reason that the fathers in these cases refuse to allow the embryos to be used by the mothers.

[talleyman]

Agreed. Otherwise, "Mr Jones, I'm calling you to let you know that you now owe $8 billion per month in child support... Will that be cash, check or credit card?..."

[maica]

When I think of children being born who have lost their father - consider the results of 9/11 for example - I feel great sadness for their loss.

For a woman to knowingly conceive or implant an embryo without the prospect of givng her progeny a father is cruel and selfish.

Adoption should definitely be considered for these embryos who no longer have a 'viable' father.

[TomB]

thanks for the yuks... it's been a bad morning so far. I needed a good laugh. Thanks for delivering it

Don't mention it.

It was my pleasure.

Think nothing of it.