the European Court of Human Rights has decided that a woman whose eggs were fertilized by her fiance’s sperm before she had an operation that made her sterile, may not now be implanted without the donor’s consent (they have since separated).
The airwaves on a talk show have been full this morning with reasoned debate and also vituperative blaming (of the woman for being so aggressive in pushing this through the courts, and of the fiance for being obstructive.)
My take on it is that the majority judgements sit OK with my beliefs about Reproductive politics and rights.
In my view, she has the right to attempt to have children, but she doesn’t have the right to have children using the genetic material of someone who does not consent.
On the other hand, what if she had become pregnant normally, and then the relationship had broken down; the “father” wouldn’t have the right to force an abortion, so it could be argued that if he gave consent at the time of fertilisation (by whatever method) then he can’t back out later.
I honestly can’t decide which of the two arguments has more merit, morally speaking.
Bottom line: She should have had (at least some of) her eggs frozen unfertilised. He is an ass for denying her her only chance to bear her own child.
She still, BTW has a right to treatment with donor eggs and semen or a donor embryo (“spare” embryos from other IVF procedures can be offered to other couples).
There was a recent case like this in the UK, with the same verdict, and the woman concerned said that that was her plan. OK, so she wouldn’t have her own genetic child, but she could still be pregnant within weeks.
The woman just had the chance to have her own genetic child removed, not the option to every become pregnant, nor the option to adopt, nor the option to use a surrogate.
Yeah, but the right to abortion is about the woman exercising control over her body. It doesn’t have anything to do with one’s claim to someone else’s genetic material, which is what the OP presents.
[/QUOTE]
Men usually only don’t get a say because it is the woman’s body, and when opinions differ, the one who would suffer an assault on bodily integrity if the other’s wishes were imposed against their will gets to decide. Since the embryos AREN’T in her uterus, but are in storage, the goalposts change and both parties need to consent as no assault on bodily integrity is involved.
I don’t have a problem with the rules for IVF being different for the “rules” for natural conception, it’s not an identical situation and we shouldn’t pretend that it is. It is NOt the same as a “natrual” pregnancy, and so different rules apply- it’s not rocket science.
This seems like the right call. As long as the embryos remain in vitro, as it were, they should be jointly controlled. What if the man wanted to have them implanted in a surrogate w/o the woman’s consent?
I think it’s the right decision, too. The father should have as much say as the mother in this situation, and if he’s against it, regardless of how heartbreaking it may be for the mother, that’s his choice. Thinking of what the child would have to live with, too - “Your father fought to stop you being born” isn’t the best thing to be able to tell a kid.
I disagree with this (and agree that the man should have to give permission before implantation). It’s possible he’s just being a stubborn ass, but, if child support laws in Britain are anything like they are in the States, he has a huge stake in the decision of whether to bring those embryos to term.
Unfertilized eggs don’t freeze well. I suppose that she might have chosen to have some fertilized with anonymous donor sperm in case of this eventuality, but that would be dependant on the number of eggs retrieved. A woman may get 0-many eggs from one cycle.
Sits fine with me as legally he’d be responsible if it went ahead. Given that this is the case and his opinions known the woman had no right going on with the case. IMHO their is no ‘right’ to have a child and fertility treatment should be a matter of private treatment, not NHS.
Exactly - it’s made clear at every stage of the process that both parties must give consent.
If the man had been told that his veto could be withdrawn once the embryos were frozen, he might have made a different decision.
The law perhaps needs to be altered, which would have implications for any future decisions to create frozen embryos, but in this case the law was clear and it’s been upheld.
(Personally I think this is a no-win situation, but that the man’s right not to have a child he does not want trumps a woman’s right to have a genetic baby)
Isn’t this one of those situations where ‘equity is a shield not a sword’ comes into play? I believe she is now planning on taking this to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that her rights have been infringed, but I personally can’t see how a court would rule that her rights can best be protected by infringing the ‘fathers’ rights - they’ll just say the two cancel out and call it a wash.
This was a judgement from the ECHR. Five judges to two found against her. But because the dissenters raised important pounts of law that the disagreed on, it is open to her to proceed to the Grand Chamber- a hearing before 17 judges. IIRC they rarely overturn on appeal, but sometimes fine-tune the result.
The fact that she has cancer should not even be an issue in disussions of this issue. Her having cancer does not trump his right (as set by precedence) to NOT have the child(ren).
I agree with the decision; over here the rights of the male are too often subordinated to the rights of the female. My initial thought was that I could live with a decision saying that she could use the embryos as long as the father were no longer liable. Except (never mind the cancer) suppose she dies? Who takes care of the children?
The analogy that has formed in my mind is that of the man wanting to use a condom and the woman refusing.