IVF Ruling

[Whickerman]

In light of the European Court of Human Rights' decision to not allow the implantation of embryos without the father's consent, can i be the first on today to say 'Well done - a common sense decision'

[Oneeyedvic]

I am (occasionally) compasionate, However, I feel that all the reporting that is going on (and pretty much every report I have seen / heard has made reference to her lack of being able to have a child) very, very, very insulting to adoptive parents. (possibly as my wife adopted her children - she was able to have children naturally but chose to adopt since her ex-husband couldn't father them).

Whilst I reaise that she has no control over way this has been reported, I do feel that she should perhaps get things into proportion - yes she has suffered - but no more so than any other cancer victim.

Without trying to sound to callous, maybe she should have considered the fact that she would not be in a relationship with the same person, and had her eggs frozen rather than embryos frozen.

It is a shame, but sorry, no sympathy from me. (and if anyone feels it relevant, I should also point out that I am very anti IVF etc)

[lady_p_gold]

As far as I understand it the law in this country says that the embryos can only be implanted if both parties agree. However in Europe it may go to a further higher level now and still could be allowed.

[Hgrove]

I agree with Drisgirl. I just do not see why the man's "right" not be be liable for maintenance should trump the woman's right to be implanted with the embryos which are after all, half her own genetic material. The embryos are half the man's and half the woman's but they have been treated as if they were the man's property entirely. What we have here is a value judgment. The man's convenience was put ahead the woman's life. Yes it is her life.

[ludwig]

How can it possibly be right to force someone to become a parent against their will, with somebody that they don't have a relationship with.
That's what it boils down to. I can't believe some of you are saying it would be ok to do that.

[jno]

The man did not make her infertile. Cancer treatment did. She is in the same position as other women who have had the same treatment: unable to have children. I do not believe anyone can demand to have children. And I sort of wonder if all those people who are suggesting he be freed of his legal obligations wouldn't be abusing him as a 'deadbeat dad' if he decided to dodge them of his own accord. Isn't a man who wants to be involved in his child's birth and upbringing a good thing?

[livk]

in answer to one point, she would ultimately become a single mother, claiming child tax credit. even if she went to work, as she would be claiming child tax credit etc, my understanding is that the CSA would be involved.

[Hgrove]

I read the man said "the key thing is for me to decide when, and if, to start a family". The woman also wished to be able to decide when, and if, to start a family. This decision means that only men have the right to do this. Women do not. Who are we trying to be fair to? Why does it always have to be the man the law is being fair to? With what right is the woman's property (half of the embryo) being destroyed? There is something in England called "estoppel" which means that once you have given your word, you can't go back (oversimplified). In this case it was unconscionable for the man, having given his word that she could get pregnant, to go back on his word.

[gessoo]

My first reaction was to agree with Whickerman until I read through this thread. I am now left in great doubt and will be pondering all day.

I suppose the view I most agree with is Oneeyedvik's, but the whole issue is just so complicated.

[Hgrove]

I can see the merit in Oneeydvic's argument, but what if the man promised her that they would be together forever and would implant the embryos as soon as she was in remission? And in reliance on that, she chose to freeze the embryos as opposed to the eggs? Yes she could have frozen the eggs but he talked her into freezing the embryos? I have come across similar cases and that was the scenario. This decision says that men have the right to decide when and if to start a family, women do not. I do not agree that this woman has suffered no more than other cancer sufferers though. Cancer is more likely to happen when you are older, and more likely to have had children already, and obviously there must be some men who do not do the dirt like this. So she has suffered more than most other cancer sufferers.

[metagirl]

I feel sorry for the woman - what a callous man her ex fiance is! I agree with Drisgirl - spiteful! It should never have got to the courts - it could have been settled amicably. But the courts, being blind to sentimentality, made the right decision.

[Haggisdj]

This is what happens when we start 'messing' with nature.

I remember something about a case a while back where a couple split up. She was pregnant and went for a termination. He wanted the child and took her to court. He lost. It's swings and roundabouts... I know it's no consolation for those involved though.

[ludwig]

Reverse the situation hypothetically - it's the man who underwent cancer treatment and is now infertile. He is asking for the embryos as they are now his only chance to father a child naturally. He wants to implant them in his new wife or grow them in a test tube - or whatever.
Would you expect the woman to agree to that? Would you be villifying her in the same way for not doing so?

(He didn't bother freezing sperm because he assumed he and his wife would always be together)

[noxlumos]

Well yeah frankly I would expect her to. It's not an unreasonable thing, one person wants kids the other doesn't, then for God sakes let the poor infertile person have their child. Male or female I can't see the difference and niether can my wife for the record.

[stoo_pid]

Something to consider that has been conveniently left out of any press report I have seen - when the embryos were frozen, the couple would have signed a form that very clearly states that to defrost & implant them at a later stage requires the full consent of both parties. This would have been discussed with them as a couple, along with many other issues & they would have been asked to consider what could happen in the future.

Regardless of how any of us feel about that 'clause', they were both fully aware of it from the start.

What if he had changed his mind & wanted her to have the baby or to give him the embryos to be used by someone else. Do you think she would have said yes?

[ianess]

A very complicared issue brought about entirely by the human race's attempt at manipulating nature. However, my sympathy lies with the would-be mother, and I cannot understand the "father's" reasoning that the embryos should now be destroyed because he has changed his mind about parenthood. It's probably very much a simplification but I think it's too late to think about contraception after the eggs were fertilised. I hope she wins her appeal.

[Drisgirl]

I have a gut instinct she will win her appeal - there were two 'dissenters' out of nine.Doesnt seem a lot but people are actually giving this serious consideration.

Someone brought up the subject - why didnt she just have her eggs frozen-bet she wished she had.I had two children in good faith (IMO - the same deal) with a man I was in a committed relationship with.We split up but I will forever be thankful to their dad for the most precious people in my life.The only difference was I didnt have cancer and my children didnt have to be artificially implanted into my womb.

It pains me genuinely the thought that my children wouldnt have fulfilled our lives and are now fulfilling their own lives - had we been placed in a similar situation.

For the anti IVF's then ask the subsequent children how they feel!

[kipchik]

I think the court was wrong too when those two were together they must have been in love and that decision to start a family in the future was made out of love,now they've split HIS wishes have been granted and she's left with nothing he CAN go on to have a family but the woman he once loved,has lost her last hope it does seem to be spite on his part but granted we don't know the ins and outs of it all,but at present he strikes me as a selfish **********!

[Drisgirl]

I agree with you kip - I was in love with my ex-husband when we conceived both our children.We wouldnt have had our two had we envisaged what was to happen in the future -given the scenario we are debating.What a loss that would have been.That is the difference - search your souls all the people who think the right decision has been made.

I have to say in fairness to my ex - who is a dear friend - he would never have stood in my way.He even took me into hospital (when were exes to be sterilised and picked me up and took me home - am I missing something here:).Guess I'm one of the lucky ones who met someone who has always been responsable and has never let us down.

Thats why I feel so strongly about about this case.

[flashpig]

I find this all very strange, because it seems to me that it is quite straightforward. The courts made a correct judgement.

All off this fuss is just the sexist viewpoint that the woman is the only person who is important in childbirth. During a usual child birth the man would have no right to demand an abortion or alternately that a woman not have an abortion. This decision is entirely the woman's. The whole reason this news story is an issue is because a man is stepping on woman's territory.

I don't know whether it is spite. Maybe it is, but this woman, from today's newspaper quotes makes out that she is only seeing the genetics of it from her point of view. On top of adoption, can you not get donated eggs?

So she could HAVE a child... but she wants it to be her genes. She fails to see that he doesn't want his genetic child to be born to someone he doesn't love anymore. I'm more of a nurture over nature person, an adopted/stepchild can be as much yours as the genetic parents, I have no problem with sperm donation, but I still find it amazing the fact that some people seem to have this "he's got sperm, he can have more kids, it's no problem" attitude.

To some people, your natural children are your responsibility and a part of you, not stuff you just give to people you don't like and say "It's okay, we can have more, I've got oodles of ***** and she's chockfull of eggs".

Added to this the assumption that nobody seems to question - the fact that she would have custody of the child - and I think the judgement was a bold move for sexual equality.

[flip-flop]

Hear hear flashpig, that just about sums up my thoughts exactly - if the boot were on the other foot there would be none of the bruhaha.

Forcing somebody into parenthood against their wishes is utterly immoral - this is a judgement for common sense.