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'

[Drisgirl]

He gave his sperm.No question!

To be blunt - the only difference was it didnt impregate her eggs in the normal fashion.

He even went into a room and provided it himself.

She is not being selfish - all she wants is her impregnated embyros - which he was aparty to.

No difference to other couple who have children then split up - or indeed the females who dont even know who the father is.

This case is different to other infertile people because she has -what I have referred to before - her potential children.I would feel exactly the same as her and would fight tooth and nail for my rights.

Okay - the IVF might not work but at least she wouldnt spend the rest of her life wondering about the destruction of their embryos due to the spite and shallowness of this despicable little man.He is not only depriving her - remember!!!

[stoo_pid]

Sorry Drisgirl, I know how strongly you feel about this but it's very important to recognise they are not her embryos - they are their embryos.

[Drisgirl]

stoo_pid - I appreciate that you appreciate my opinion.

I did at one point say their embryos but I did slip up somewhere else.I feel strongly because she didnt co-erce him into it.Its like having a baby and you split up and someone comes along and says - I have to take this baby from you beacuse the father no longer wants to be a father and he doesnt know how you are going to bring this child up.I know I am in the realms of fantasy here but thats how I would feel.

[livk]

this post is proving very emotive, but I still think that the court has made the correct decision.

because his wishes are against hers, does not make him spiteful, shallow or despicable. He has merely defended his rights not to be forced into parenthood with someone he no longer loves. He has merely asserted his rights whilst recognising the viewpoint of his ex-lover.

[Hgrove]

Legally, this was an open and shut case, but morally and ethically, this is an abhorrent decision. (1) There is more than a whiff of something dishonourable about changing one's mind in the way this man has, out of selfish convenience. (2) This decision suggests that, somehow, the man's interest trumps all other considerations. (3) The man's genetic material cannot be destroyed without destroying the woman's, but it seems the man has all the rights over his own genetic material, the woman has none over hers. (4) The decision should have gone the way likely to cause the least suffering. This is the "utilitarian" view. The man's suffering is the slight possibility that he may have to fork out for the child's support. The woman's suffering is the certainty that she will never have a child who is genetically her own. Without meaning any disrespect to those who adopt, I put it to you that the worst suffering here is the woman's. A moral decision should prevent the worst suffering if it means causing the least suffering. It should not prevent a person's minor suffering by causing major suffering to someone else.

[Oneeyedvic]

"There is more than a whiff of something dishonourable about changing one's mind in the way this man has, out of selfish convenience."

He hasn't changed his mind - he agreed that in the future, he MAY want to have children. I would assume that since he is no longer with the woman, he no longer wants to have children with her. If you are in a relationship and agree to have children in the future but subsequantly split up, should the woman be able to have the right to ddemand the man's sperm? What about if she can't settle in a nother relationship. Is it just 'selfish conveninence' not to share sperm or eggs, especially if you are not using them?

I would remind people that she can still have children of her own if she so wishes - she is (as are mothers who want IVF treatment) being far more selfish by not considering adoption.

[Hgrove]

I do not think he agreed he might want to have children with her. I think he agreed he would have children with her. The woman is not asking for the man's sperm. She is demanding her own eggs, fertilised by the man, but still her own eggs. The effect of her getting pregnant would be minor on him, but the effect of this decision is disproportionately large on her. People say, she does not have the right to have children, but he has the right to decide to have them (or not). So - men have rights - women do not. This is what this decision does. As I see it, the man is getting preferential treatment here. Sorry, I do not mean disrespect to people to adopt, but I cannot accept that the man's convenience (wishes if you like) must trump all other considerations.

[flip-flop]

So if the decision were otherwise presumably that would mean that women have rights and men don't? Or that women are getting preferential treatment? Well?

Emotions aside, it is immoral to force somebody into fatherhood when he does not want children: this is the crux of the matter and therefore the decision is just.

[Hgrove]

If the decision had gone the other way, this man could still have walked away - men have been known to not stand by a woman they have made pregnant, for centuries, it is the way it is. Men have an advantage by nature, and this decision reinforces this. If the decision had gone the other way, it would not have had the result of forcing men into fatherhood. It would simply have meant that this man would not have got away with his deceipt. It is immoral for a man to deceive a vulnerable woman, undergoing cancer treatment, into believing that it is ok to have her eggs fertilised with his sperm, because he will stand by her, only to do a volte face safe in the knowledge that he can have children with someone else. This was not a bargain struck from an equal position. He had all the cards, she had none. She really had no choice but to go along with his promises, she did not have a fallback position, whereas he knew he did. The law should (and in some situations it does) take into account the disparity in bargaining power between the parties, unfortunately in this case the law is made by men for men, they hold all the cards, they have a stronger position.

[Oneeyedvic]

Unless you are privy to infomration not in the public domain, I think you may be making some assumptions here.

"I do not think he agreed he might want to have children with her. I think he agreed he would have children with her." - I guess we will never know.

We do not know what happens in the confines of a relationship - but look at what we do know:

1) She did not have her eggs frozen which is not an uncommon occurance.
2) The contract was made that BOTH parties must agree to have the embryos implanted - which she was aware of.
3) The relationship ended and one party did not want to continue.

Yes it is sad that the woman cannot have a 'natural' birth BUT:

1) This is partially her own fault for not having her eggs frozen
2) She can still have a baby if she wishes - sorry to harp on about this, but your argument seems to be that she can't have a child when she can if she wants to.

This is not one rule for one, one rule for the other, but plain and simple common sense.

[livk]

I thought they had went down the IVF route before she contracted cancer, or am I mistaken?

[livk]

They had already started going down the IVF route when it was discovered that she had ovarian cancer.

I fail to see where his deceit as some have classified it to be, has occurred. They split up, as a lot of people in relationships / marriages do, childless with no further bonds between them. And she can still be a mother, there are other options open to her other than using the frozen embryo's fertilised by his sperm. And yes, he can still be a father, in the future, as he has described in a manner that he wants to be a father - ie hands on.

I feel very sad for her, in that she was undergoing IVF treatment when it was discovered she had ovarian cancer, and treatment would result in her becoming completely infertile afterwards, however, her rights have not been breached here -- she underwent the fertilisation of her eggs in the knowledge that up to implantation of the embryo's both parties had to be in agreement at all stages of the process. They both agreed and signed to this. To allow the implantation would be not only a breach of his rights as he is no longer in agreement but also a breach of contract originally made.

Someone has implied that denying her the implantation causes more suffering to her than it would to him by allowing it to happen. I think to know that you have a genetic child but are unable to participate in that childs upbringing would cause many emotional distress and suffering. I hope that couples who are now undergoing IVF are now considering what should happen to the embryo's should they split up before implantation, as suggested by the law lord when the case was originally heard.

http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/POOLED/ARTICLES/BF_NEW SART/VIEW.ASP?Q=BF_NEWSART_109643

[Hgrove]

This msg is for Oneeyedvic and my apologies for Whickerman for using his thread for this. Oneeyedvic, I have arguments to reply to your last msg, but I'd rather let it lie if you don't mind, because it's all getting a bit too emotional for me. I hope you understand. I am aware that you write what you honestly believe, as I do.

[Whickerman]

A very similar case has just come up here in Ireland. Two main differences - the couple were married, and here there's a written constitution which rightly or wrongly recognises life as beginning at conception, and the right to life is enshrined in the constitution. I fear it will have the opposite result in teh Irish courts.