ChatterBank4 mins ago
Embryo Appeal
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Supernick. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ged - its stupid, because its not about dividing the eggs up and everyone getting a fair share - its about what those embryos turn into - how would you like it if some woman had 3 of your kids against your wishes and expected you to fund them?
I understand what you were getting at, and it would be nice if that was the answer - but it is irrelevant for him to receive 3 embryos because it only takes one - and it is one he doesn't want.
even if it was agreed that he is allowed to have nothing to do with her or the baby, could you go through life knowing there is a child out there that is yours, and genuinely never want to see it?
i agree he is selfish, but i can see why, and i can see that she is too, asking him to fund the child.
I understand what you were getting at, and it would be nice if that was the answer - but it is irrelevant for him to receive 3 embryos because it only takes one - and it is one he doesn't want.
even if it was agreed that he is allowed to have nothing to do with her or the baby, could you go through life knowing there is a child out there that is yours, and genuinely never want to see it?
i agree he is selfish, but i can see why, and i can see that she is too, asking him to fund the child.
I'm getting sick of people referring to Mr Johnston as selfish and yet not a word is being said about her selfishness in trying to force fatherhood on somebody who does not want, yet or with her, to be a father.
Not only was she doing extremely selfish it was also utterly immoral.
All he has said is that he does not yet (or if at all) want his sperm to father a child.
This is completely his choice and the courts were absolutely right to back his decision.
Would you, gedk, refer to Miss Evans as 'selfish' if the boot were on the other foot? OK, I know that would be difficult, but suppose Miss Evans got pregnant when they were in a loving relationship which subequently broke down and she decided to abort. What would be your reaction if Mr Johnston went to court to try to stop the abortion as he wanted to be a father?
The court would and has (rightly in my opinion) side with the mother. This is the same thing in my book. Forcing somebody into parenthood is immoral.
Not only was she doing extremely selfish it was also utterly immoral.
All he has said is that he does not yet (or if at all) want his sperm to father a child.
This is completely his choice and the courts were absolutely right to back his decision.
Would you, gedk, refer to Miss Evans as 'selfish' if the boot were on the other foot? OK, I know that would be difficult, but suppose Miss Evans got pregnant when they were in a loving relationship which subequently broke down and she decided to abort. What would be your reaction if Mr Johnston went to court to try to stop the abortion as he wanted to be a father?
The court would and has (rightly in my opinion) side with the mother. This is the same thing in my book. Forcing somebody into parenthood is immoral.
I think Mr Johnston is selfish because I believe that he agreed to father a child with Ms Evans when they went down the IVF / frozen embryo route and I don't think he should be able to withdraw consent just because it doesn't suit him now. In response to flip-flops question, no I don't think anybody should be forced into an abortion for any reason. To turn your question round slightly lets say the eggs had already been implanted and a pregnancy achieved and the couple had then spilt up, he wouldn't be able to say "sorry I've changed my mind, I don't want to have a child with you" and make her have an abortion. Seems it's ok to destroy fertilised eggs outside a womb but not inside.
I respect everybodys opinion and I guess my judgement is probably clouded by my own experiences of infertility and IVF and the knowledge of the utter desperation Natalie must be feeling. I only hope that she can move on and find some happiness.
I respect everybodys opinion and I guess my judgement is probably clouded by my own experiences of infertility and IVF and the knowledge of the utter desperation Natalie must be feeling. I only hope that she can move on and find some happiness.
To me it feels a bit like forcing a woman to have an abortion. They made those embryos together and the only difference being is that they arent inside her. Should men be able to say that women must have an abortion if they don't want that baby?
I dont know about selfishness but I dont think fatherhood would be forced upon him if she had his baby. They should be able to make provisions that he would never have to pay etc in these unusual circumstances,
I dont know about selfishness but I dont think fatherhood would be forced upon him if she had his baby. They should be able to make provisions that he would never have to pay etc in these unusual circumstances,
"I don't think he should be able to withdraw consent just because it doesn't suit him now. "
He never gave consent
He very simply agreed to have some fertilised eggs deep frozen just in case he and his partner wanted to have children later. When this happened they both understood that they would both have to agree to have them implanted.
He has never given his consent to have a child.
He never gave consent
He very simply agreed to have some fertilised eggs deep frozen just in case he and his partner wanted to have children later. When this happened they both understood that they would both have to agree to have them implanted.
He has never given his consent to have a child.
Actually - The mountain of paperwork involved with creating embryos through IVF does require that the male partner or husband declare that he gives his consent for any resultant embryos to be implanted in the womb of the female partner or wife before treatment commences. This is of particular importance to note when the couple are not married.
This situation is so complex for so many reasons that it's no wonder such debate has been sparked. As the mother of a beautiful long-awaited 5mnth old son conceived using IVF my particular slant on this issue comes from the emotional and physical experience of undergoing fertility treatment. It is with absolute desperation that people turn to this procedure, and it is a physically demanding undertaking to get to the stage where embryos are achieved.
The crux of the debate seems to revolve around the idea that no-one should be forced into fatherhood. There are men all over the world who find themselves forced into fatherhood with much less preparation than this man who signed consent forms and attended appointments and had his sperm clinically collected for the specific purpose of fertilising his partners eggs. He didn't wake up next to a drunken one night stand with fatherhood looming in the distance as the outcome of poor judgement.
Like so many before me I'd also like to mention the fact that if the embryos had already been implanted and a pregnancy achieved, then this would have been very different, as rightly or wrongly, the law in this country supports the woman's sole right to choose to terminate or carry a pregnancy. Fortunately for this man, the embryos have not yet passed the "You can't change your mind now" threshold. Unfortunately for this lady, the man she chose to be the potential father of her potential children turned out to be a potential human being.
This situation is so complex for so many reasons that it's no wonder such debate has been sparked. As the mother of a beautiful long-awaited 5mnth old son conceived using IVF my particular slant on this issue comes from the emotional and physical experience of undergoing fertility treatment. It is with absolute desperation that people turn to this procedure, and it is a physically demanding undertaking to get to the stage where embryos are achieved.
The crux of the debate seems to revolve around the idea that no-one should be forced into fatherhood. There are men all over the world who find themselves forced into fatherhood with much less preparation than this man who signed consent forms and attended appointments and had his sperm clinically collected for the specific purpose of fertilising his partners eggs. He didn't wake up next to a drunken one night stand with fatherhood looming in the distance as the outcome of poor judgement.
Like so many before me I'd also like to mention the fact that if the embryos had already been implanted and a pregnancy achieved, then this would have been very different, as rightly or wrongly, the law in this country supports the woman's sole right to choose to terminate or carry a pregnancy. Fortunately for this man, the embryos have not yet passed the "You can't change your mind now" threshold. Unfortunately for this lady, the man she chose to be the potential father of her potential children turned out to be a potential human being.
"Seems it's ok to destroy fertilised eggs outside a womb but not inside."
This argument is based on a false premise. The embryos have no legal rights . Rights are conferred at the point of birth in the UK. The reason why Mr Johnston couldn't force his ex to have an abortion is nothing to do with the rights of the embryos to life, but the woman's rights over her own body.
I saw a pertinent point raised; what do those who are so keen on the embryos' right to life suggest should happen if the very first embryo was implanted successfully? Presumably they'd soon be forgetting about the other five embryos' rights then.
Ms Evans was perfectly aware that the consent of both partners was required before implantation could be attempted and that consent can be removed at any time prior to implantation. At the time they went through the freezing process, this would have been explained to them. This item of law *explictly* anticipates that partners may change their minds and makes it entirely clear that without the consent of both, the embryos may not be implanted. Ms Evans (and Mr Johnston) was happy enough to accept that legal position when she went ahead and had the embryos frozen.
Why should she be allowed to later claim it was unfair? If it was unfair (not that it is) it was unfair when she agreed to it.
A woman at a bar agrees to go home and have sex with a man. If, on getting back home, she changed her mind, does the man have the right to insist she goes through with it against her will? But surely rape is okay if it were the man's last chance to have sex? She's just being selfish. Why can't the man force her into a situation that will cause her distress against her will, in a way that will radically alter her life forever?
Or does the logic fall apart when it's used in this way? So why attempt to argue it the other way around? Obviously, being raped is not the same as being
This argument is based on a false premise. The embryos have no legal rights . Rights are conferred at the point of birth in the UK. The reason why Mr Johnston couldn't force his ex to have an abortion is nothing to do with the rights of the embryos to life, but the woman's rights over her own body.
I saw a pertinent point raised; what do those who are so keen on the embryos' right to life suggest should happen if the very first embryo was implanted successfully? Presumably they'd soon be forgetting about the other five embryos' rights then.
Ms Evans was perfectly aware that the consent of both partners was required before implantation could be attempted and that consent can be removed at any time prior to implantation. At the time they went through the freezing process, this would have been explained to them. This item of law *explictly* anticipates that partners may change their minds and makes it entirely clear that without the consent of both, the embryos may not be implanted. Ms Evans (and Mr Johnston) was happy enough to accept that legal position when she went ahead and had the embryos frozen.
Why should she be allowed to later claim it was unfair? If it was unfair (not that it is) it was unfair when she agreed to it.
A woman at a bar agrees to go home and have sex with a man. If, on getting back home, she changed her mind, does the man have the right to insist she goes through with it against her will? But surely rape is okay if it were the man's last chance to have sex? She's just being selfish. Why can't the man force her into a situation that will cause her distress against her will, in a way that will radically alter her life forever?
Or does the logic fall apart when it's used in this way? So why attempt to argue it the other way around? Obviously, being raped is not the same as being
Goodsoulette - your final paragraph of your last post: that is hardly the point is it?
If Mr Johnston is anything like me or countless other men, it would eat away at me that I knew I had a child out there even if it was brought into this world against my will.
I can only speak personally, but I'd have to get involved whether this bitter woman liked it or not.
If Mr Johnston is anything like me or countless other men, it would eat away at me that I knew I had a child out there even if it was brought into this world against my will.
I can only speak personally, but I'd have to get involved whether this bitter woman liked it or not.
an interesting debate, with great points raised on both sides. My own personal take on things is that there are loads of people in the world who can't be parents owing to infertility. What makes her case any more tragic than the rest of them? In my opinion, the correct decision was made. What if If she now didn't want children, and he had the right to force her to get pregnant with these embryos? Thats a shuddering thought. The thought that the man couldn't withdraw his consent, would mean that men are relagated to being just the sperm part of parenting, not all the other parts.
As a last though, as a woman who is unable to have children herslef, i would shudder at the thought of that person being allowed to be a mum ... she seems totally unhinged to me!
As a last though, as a woman who is unable to have children herslef, i would shudder at the thought of that person being allowed to be a mum ... she seems totally unhinged to me!
I think it is natural for anyone with an ounce of compassion to feel for Ms Evans' despair at not being able to carry and bear a child - but this compassion should not cloud the issue. I have a close friend who has been having fertility treatment unsuccessfully for many years. I think her despair at times has lead her to believe she wanted a baby at any cost. This is why we have laws on the matter, precisely because infertility can lead people to take drastic actions. My heart aches for Ms Evans, and I dearly wish that Mr Johnston felt differently - but he doesn't, and so the law has had to step in and make, in my opinion, a difficult but correct decision.
Flip flop, do you really think that it would eat away at him? I know countless of men who raise a child till he/she is 2 and then disappear out of their lives forever. I would have thought that this man still under lots of pressure refuses to give a woman he once loved the opportunity, her only opportunity to have her own child might not be one of those men that would be particularly effected.
I know that if this were to happen to me now, I would not ask my partner to provide the sperm, I would probably approach a gay friend who wants children too.
Sorry Waldo, I havent checked your link, the only reason I said that is because I know if a baby dies during pregnancy it get a death certificate and the the birth has bo registered too presumably, at 26 weeks. Which isnt the point as obviously embryos are nowhere near this stage.
Its not that I hate this man for doing it, I dont even think its selfish, if he is in another relationship then the pressure from the girlfriend must be enormous. I think it is heartless.
I know that if this were to happen to me now, I would not ask my partner to provide the sperm, I would probably approach a gay friend who wants children too.
Sorry Waldo, I havent checked your link, the only reason I said that is because I know if a baby dies during pregnancy it get a death certificate and the the birth has bo registered too presumably, at 26 weeks. Which isnt the point as obviously embryos are nowhere near this stage.
Its not that I hate this man for doing it, I dont even think its selfish, if he is in another relationship then the pressure from the girlfriend must be enormous. I think it is heartless.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles80 mins ago
ChatterBank87 mins ago
ChatterBank92 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles95 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.