CornishChris 5 #1 March 7, 2006 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/07/uembryo.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/03/07/ixportaltop.html Interesting story. Basically 5 years ago she used in-vitro fertilisation to make 6 embryos with her then fiance as she was having cancer treatment that would render her infertile. Now they have split up and she wants access to the embryos but the bloke says no. Under UK law consent is required at all stages of fertility treatment which is a little contrary to the consent required to make a baby the usual way (a shag). There was an interesting debate on the issue on Radio 4 earlier (showing my age!) but I thought I would open this up to the collective intellect of the SC. I am not sure where I stand as both arguments are solid. Fight amongst yourselves... CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #2 March 7, 2006 It's sad that this would be her only chance to have children but I agree with the ruling, both parties should consent if the embryos were to be used to create a child. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #3 March 7, 2006 QuoteIt's sad that this would be her only chance to have children but I agree with the ruling, both parties should consent if the embryos were to be used to create a child. He consented when the embryos were fertilized with his sperm. The ideal solution under the circumstances would be to treat him the same way a sperm donor is treated--as a non-father. She can have the children she wants; he has no responsibility for them. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #4 March 7, 2006 The only problem is he consented to fertilization knowing that if he removed his consent at any time implantation could not go ahead. This fact effectively distinguishes it from comparison with natural fertilization. It's a sad story with no completely right answer. It's a pity there was not a way for both parties to "win" because as it is there only seems to be losers under the circumstances. I actually worked with this case about 4 or 5 years ago when I was with the Legal Services Commission. Not an easy one to deal with I tell you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #5 March 7, 2006 I agree that would be the ideal solution but like he said, he would have an emotional tie to the child if she did go ahead with it. Unlike a sperm donor he would know about the child even if there was no pasrental/financial responsiblity. I believe he should still have the right to withdraw his consent, who knows what grounds the relationship ended on, she might have been one of them nutters. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 March 7, 2006 In general, I agree with you. Unfortunately, the UK courts don't seem to agree in this instance. Does the UK have paternity laws, where he could be charged for child support being the biological father? I could conceivably (no pun intended) see that playing a part in the decision.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #7 March 7, 2006 Yes we do have these laws and that is one reason the decision went the way it did. Even if the mother says she doesn't want money the right to it belongs to the child not her. It is a shame and if anyone finds themselves in the same position they should leave unfertilised eggs or sperm to avoid this happening. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #8 March 7, 2006 It did. The Child Support Agency would go after the father for money irrespective of any agreement reached between the parents as to the non-payment of maintenance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #9 March 7, 2006 QuoteIt is a shame and if anyone finds themselves in the same position they should leave unfertilised eggs or sperm to avoid this happening. Can that have been done in this case or would she have had to fertilise the eggs for them to be able to have the chance of them working in the future? I don't know too much about IVF and the rest. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #10 March 7, 2006 Yup, it could have been done, as well as a couple of other options that were open to the couple; they just weren't done. My guess was the NHS simply didn't offer the couple the other options as no one thought this would be an issue, though I never did find out for sure. Shame really. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #11 March 7, 2006 Good call. Tho, I'd want a DNA test . I married a couple sluts. Who's yo daddy?I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #12 March 7, 2006 QuoteTho, I'd want a DNA test . I married a couple sluts. Who's yo daddy? Me thinks you don't quite grasp the concept of IV fertilization... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 March 7, 2006 For in vitro fertilization, they take her eggs (surgically) and your sperm (think "Road Trip")...would be sorta hard to "slip a Mickey" in there, don't you think?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #14 March 7, 2006 What would we want to do if the situation were reversed? He finds a willing womb, and he wants the embryos to implant? rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 March 7, 2006 Couldn't that be handled the same way as infertile couples hire women to provide eggs or be surrogate mothers?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #16 March 7, 2006 A better analagy would be - she's pregnant; he wants to keep it, she doesn't. He has no say. This is a tragic case with no winners in it but unfortunately I think the court had to find the way they did. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,150 #17 March 7, 2006 QuoteThis is a tragic case with no winners in it but unfortunately I think the court had to find the way they didCompletely agree. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #18 March 7, 2006 QuoteHe finds a willing womb, and he wants the embryos to implant? Same thing. If she withdraws consent he can't do anything with the embryos. Not only does the law provide perfect clarity, it does so with complete gender impartiality. Those were the rules they both knowingly signed up to when they started down the sorry road. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #19 March 7, 2006 QuoteA better analagy would be - she's pregnant; he wants to keep it, she doesn't. He has no say. No. It's not analogous. In one case, he has the use of her womb, and in the other, he doesn't. A woman's womb belongs to her, but genes belong to the race. Also, in reply to another post, I don't expect that either of them anticipated ending the engagement, or she might have made other arrangements. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #20 March 7, 2006 >He consented when the embryos were fertilized with his sperm. And she consented when she donated some microscopic eggs. I agree with the UK in this case. Decisions on what happens to those embryos should be made by both parents. The embryo is genetically half of each donor's DNA. Heck, if you want to go by total amount of stuff, the guy contributed a lot more than the woman did. If there is a good outcome from this, it might be that women and men will know to be more careful about what they agree to _before_ they agree to such fertility procedures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #21 March 7, 2006 QuoteIf there is a good outcome from this, it might be that women and men will know to be more careful about what they agree to _before_ they agree to such fertility procedures. And I'm of the opinion that once agreed, the agreement should be irrevocable if even one wants the embryo nurtured and brought to term--as long as it's not required that an unwilling woman be required to supply the womb. On the other hand, I don't think in such a case that the non-consenting party should be required to contribute to the child's upkeep. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #22 March 7, 2006 Quote It is a shame and if anyone finds themselves in the same position they should leave unfertilised eggs or sperm to avoid this happening. I do not like them, Sam-I-Am! mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #23 March 7, 2006 >And I'm of the opinion that once agreed, the agreement should be irrevocable . . . That's fine. Sounds like here, the agreement was "they will be stored until we both agree how to use them." If they had negotiated a different agreement (i.e. "either one can use them") then that would be fine too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #24 March 7, 2006 Quote>And I'm of the opinion that once agreed, the agreement should be irrevocable . . . That's fine. Sounds like here, the agreement was "they will be stored until we both agree how to use them." If they had negotiated a different agreement (i.e. "either one can use them") then that would be fine too. I know. But you know me--I talk not about how it is but how I think it should be. You know...just like everyone else. But I also think there's a flaw in my argument, and I haven't quite sorted it out yet. It has become clear to me that my stance on abortion has a lot to do with the use of a woman's uterus. I think that if we're ever able to come up with a uterine replicator, my position--except as to a damaged fetus (not counting easily correctible birth defects)--will do a 180. Interesting (to me, anyway) what a little thinking outside the womb can do. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #25 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt's sad that this would be her only chance to have children but I agree with the ruling, both parties should consent if the embryos were to be used to create a child. He consented when the embryos were fertilized with his sperm. l They both consented to keep the option available, as the window of opportunity was about to close on her side. If instead, they'd meant to actually have a child, they could have implanted earlier (before breaking up) or used a surrogate. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
