Embryo Appeal

[Supernick]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6530295.stm This may have been debated before, but I couldn't find it, and it's back in the news anyway. This is a story about a Miss Evans, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and had some embryos frozen with her then partner, Mr. Johnston. She is now infertile, and the only chance of being a biological mother is through these embryos. She has since split up with Mr. Johnston, and he wishes the embryo's to be destroyed. In the past, courts have ruled against Miss Evans, and this is her final appeal. What do you believe the verdict should be? Does she have a case?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Although it is very sad that Ms Evans finds herself in this situation, I do not see how it can possibly be just to force Mr Johnston to become a father with a woman against his will, especially given that he would be obliged by the law to take some responsibility for his unwanted child.

There is no inalienable right to have children. Some of us a lucky to want them and be able to have them. Some of us are not.

Mr Johnston's rights should be upheld once more, and I fully expect they will be.

[Supernick]

I fully agree with your sentiments Waldo.

It seems fairly straight forward to me, but as it's such big news, I felt that perhaps more people than I was previously imagining are favour of Miss Evans.

[4getmenot]

I agree that the embryos should be destroyed. It is not fair to make this man a father when he doesnt want to be. Waldo is right it is very sad but thats something that happens in life. She could give a child a home that doesnt have parents rather than bring one up who's dad doesnt want to know.

[redcrx]

In my mind Mr Johnston agreed to become a father when his sperm was used to fertilise the egg.
Is Miss Evans asking for a financial contribution towards any childs upbringing?
This is her only chance to be a mother and Mr Johnston knew that when he first gave permission, I hope that he is not doing this out of spite following the breakdown of the relationship.

[kita1]

Agree with redcrx. He agreed to become a father when he agreed to fertilise the eggs.

It is the same in my book as if she had become pregnant then.

What he is doing is saying that he has now changed his mind and does not want the child from that union.

Would we allow a man to have the choice if the egg had been fertilised inside the woman instead of in a test tube? Would the man be allowed to force the woman to have an abortion because he changed his mind? I don't think so!

[Supernick]

redcrx - Half the battle does appear to be about whether giving consent to have the embryo's frozen is consent for life, or whether you have the right to take that consent back.

I personally think you do have the right to take it back. They may well have been very much in love once upon a time, but situations change, and I see no reason why a man should be forced into being a father against his will. I don't think it matters if she is asking for financial support. I would feel a moral obligation to help raise a child of mine, regardless if I wanted it or not. I don't think that it would be right to force him into this choice.

[redcrx]

i can see the reasoning on both sides supernick and am not saying your opinion is incorrect at all.
In my mind though that emryo has been created (just outside of the womb) and it has the chance of life. She may win her case and yet the embryos may fail, but i think she should at least be given the chance.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Imagine if Mr Johnston and Ms Evans had split up. He had become infertile but found a surrogate mother prepared to 'incubate' the embryos on his behalf.

Do you think Ms Evans would feel the same way?

Maybe she would, of course, but I suspect Ms Evans would object to the embryos being implanted.

[Supernick]

I guess we begin to fall back on the much older argument about when life is created, and what constitutes a life.

Personally, I'm not prepared to accept that these embryos constitute a life. The fact they are frozen in a lab and have no chance of developing without scientific help makes it very different to the analogy provided by kita1 about a man getting a woman pregnant and then wanting an abortion, before we even mention the physical and mental scars that an abortion creates.

I don't believe that Mr Johnston actually agreed to be a father either when the embryos were frozen. What he has done is said that he would like the potential be a father one day, and realises the only biological way he could have it with his partner at the time was to proceed with the freezing and storing.

[Oneeyedvic]

"This is her only chance to be a mother " - excuse my language but BoIIocks

have you not heard of adoption?

To me, this is a very selfish woman who could have adopted and loved her own baby - but she is selfishly looking for a'natural' birth.

The father also only agreed to the fertilisation in the knowledge that he would be able to veto later on if needs be.

[flip-flop]

So using your logic Kita if she succeeds (and I sincerely hope she does not) presumably you think the law should be changed so that a man could stop a woman from aborting his unborn child?

It is dreadfully sad for this woman, but forcing a person into fatherhood against his wishes it utterly immoral - his basic argument is that he wants to choose when and if to become a father and with whom. In my opinion this overrides anything Miss Evans wants.

It does not matter one jot that he consented at some point in the past - that is utterly irrelevent.

I know it sounds harsh but it is absolutly correct that Mr Johnston is not forced into becoming a father.

[redcrx]

I used the term mother in the natural giving birth sense (just as a man can father a child and yet never be a dad). Of course she can be a 'mum' by adopting or fostering a child, but this was a choice made by both years ago and she is just trying to complete the choice they made.
And i shall excuse your language this time oneyedvic, but perhaps not in future :)

[Oneeyedvic]

thank you redcrx - but this topic does make my blood boil. I have two step children who were adopten by my wife (previous marriage) and there are lots of people who state "well she can't be a mother" - and it makes evreybody who adopted (or who is adopted) sound like they are second class citiziens.

[redcrx]

i certainly do not think that, oneyedvic. I know mums with adopted children and think that they are just as much mums as any other woman who cares for a child. On the other hand, i have seen a mother of children who Id hate to call a mum purely because of the way she treated her children before they were removed from her. Thank god for those loving people who will foster her children and give them the mum and dad they deserve. But I am now diverting from the original topic. I still do think that this woman should be able to fight for a chance.

[littleone85]

Whether right or wrong, people generally would prefer to have a biological child than adopting and I completely understand Natalie Evans desire to try to win the right to use the embryo's first before going for adoption. I can see both sides of the story but ultimately i'm on Miss Evans side, her ex partner can have a biological child if he wants to she doesn't have that luxury. I hope she wins but I suspect with the rulings given in the past this will be no different, regardless of the results I hope that the laws regarding this will be altered to make it more fair for both parties.

[flip-flop]

The correct decision has been made.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6530295.stm

[Oneeyedvic]

"people generally would prefer to have a biological child than adopting"

prefer - this is nothing but a lifestyle choice - she is still able to be a mother if she so chooses but she prefers not to explore that possibility.

I would prefer to live in a great big mansion and have sevreal million in the bank - but I can't - my human rights are not being impinged and neither are hers.

[gedk]

I think it's a dreadfully sad situation and having been through the IVF process myself I can understand Ms Evans overwhelming desperation to have a child as that is how I felt. I feel that she should have been allowed to go ahead with the procedure and that Mr Johnston should have been less selfish and gone along with it. It's all very well to consider Mr Johnston's rights but what about Natalies? After all those embryo's are 50% hers as well and to brand her as "selfish" because she wants to carry a child of her own is ludicrous.

[ummmm]

I think that he is a selfish so and so.....she has said that she doesn't expect him to pay for the child. He could look at it as just being a sperm donor....they don't change their minds do they? He is robbing a woman of her last chance to have a baby. What are his reasons? I would say it has more to do with the fact that he couldn't live with himself knowing he has a child running around than anything else. For that one reason he is denying her her one wish for life.

[Pippa68]

I agree with Supernick et al.

Their views have summed mine up, so I shall not labour the point. Very sad situation, but IMO the correct decision was made.