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'

[flip-flop]

Can I be second then please?

[flip-flop]

I do feel sorry for the woman concerned, but this is the right decision - this chap does not want his sperm contributing to the production of a child, and therefore it is right and proper that his wishes were followed.

[Loosehead]

yes the ECHR getting it right for a change, credit where it's due.

[Drisgirl]

And what about her wishes.Smacks of spite on his behalf if you ask me because he can still sow his wild oats.

The ultimate' revenge is a dish best served cold' from him

He provided his sperm at one time - now he comes out with a lame 'I dont know how the child would be brought up' as his defence.He consented and then when things went pear-shaped he withdrew it.

I despise people like him who is manipulating this women because he has the upper hand.

[jno]

Nonetheless Drisgirl I think the decision is correct, however much of a creep he may be. It's tough on her, but I don't think she has any right to make a former boyfriend a retrospective father without his consent.

[andy-hughes]

I can see your stance on this Drisgirl, but I don't think this man is being 'manipulative'.

Consider - we know nothing of the reasons why the couple split, but legally, as well as morally, he will have responsibilities for this child under law, which cannot be recinded, even if the woman signs legal papers absolving him of any responsibility. His consent was given during a time when they were a couple, but only they know the truth about why they are no longer a couple.

Morally, and legally, this man has a right to withdraw his consent.

Don't misunderstand, I feel desperately sorry for this woman, and yes, he is able to go on and have children with someone else, she cannot, but that doesn't alter the basic moral and legal circumstances which is what have to be considered. It's pointless saying what else he can do, and she can't do, it is what happens to him as an individual if he is made a parent against his will in order to satisfy her wishes, that has to be decided.

Children are a gift, not a right. If circumstances don't permit a woman to have a child, that is desperately sad, but it does not give her moral or legal rights to conceive, without taking the legal and moral concepts of her partner in parenthood into account.

[Drisgirl]

Part of those embryos are hers - she doesnt seem to have any rights.They are not eggs - they have been impregnated by sperm

He gave his consent and due to the legalities concerned I am sure he would have had to sign some form of legal paper allowing his sperm to be used.He has now chosen ro rescind this.Those embryos are virtual babies now - as I said not eggs waiting fertilisation.

He has renaged - what would his stance have been if she had had the babies as they planned?

He is attention seeking and IMO loving every moment of this womans distress.

[Loosehead]

I take your point DG, the problem is there is no mechanism for the state to not chase him for up keep of what would be his children, she cannot absolve him of this it's not her choice. This must have been one of the reasons he would not give consent and also why the ECHR upheld the decision. Overall I pretty much agree with what Andy said.

[Whickerman]

Hi All - Drisgirl, i usually find myself agreeing with you 100%. I can't on this occasion though. Yes, the embryos are partly hers. Unfortunately for the poor lady (and I do sympathise, honestly) the part that's hers can't at this stage be separated from the part that's his. The legal implications for him would have been huge. That's why it was important that the court ruled as it did.

[undercovers]

i understand the decision and the majority of the the arguments here - BUT i'd like to play devils advocate here a bit as suggest that as her eggs were fertilised thus produced embryos which had the potential to become children he had already provided his consent to the production of new life - a consent that cannot be removed e.g. no man can have a one night stand get the girl pregnant and then order her to have an abortion - one the potential for life has been created isn't it too late to try and chage your mind?

[Loosehead]

Undercovers, you would be correct where this part of an IVF process, at the time they both wanted a child and had conception taken place the normal way your reasoning is correct. The fact is that they went this route as part of a long medical process, the man cooperated until the relationship was over and then presumably thougth better of it.

[jno]

there are different stages here, something the law hasn't had to deal with in the past. What the couple created was not a child - which is what she now wants to have - but an embryo. There has not in the past been the possibility of putting the reproductive process on pause at this stage; now there is, and the court had to deal with it. The man's reasons aren't relevant - after all, if the court were to decide he was a creep, it might be all the more reason for stopping him becoming a father.

[Englishbird]

This is a very difficult one, I can see his point of view, imagine if something happened to the woman in 5 years time, there would be a lone child who he has some responsibility for whether he likes it or not. And logically and legally I can see that this is the right decision.

However, I can only imagine her torment, this is categorically her only chance to have a child of her own. There is no other option. I don't think she's being unreasonable. So emotionally I have to say it's not a decision I would have wanted to make.

I think he's silly letting it get this far and the publicity around the case makes it nearly impossible for him to back down now, even if he wanted to.

[noxlumos]

I'm going to go against the grain of what everyone else thinks pretty much apart from Drisgirl here. I think it is an appalling decision. I believe that it is morally reprehensible to allow this man to have control over his former partner's quest for a child. I appreciate the legal inmplications for child maintenance etc but non the less her eggs will now be destroyed, taking away her rights over her embryos and causing her immense suffering on every level. I really feel terribly sorry for her, she must feel utterly raped by the judicial system and her former partner. This man is a real lowlife and she should be glad she's rid of him on a personal level, it's just such a shame that he's had judicial backing to continue to exert power over her. I'm a man by the way for those of you that don't know and were that me, then I would honour my agreement to this woman.He's a pathetic emotional leech that should have been made to face up to being a real man for a change.He made the decision to become a father when he fertilised the eggs, he should stand by that, and since he's the fertile one who knows how many children he may have and be unaware of? Fatherhood against your wishes is nothing new. Many girls "trap" men into parenthood, there will be compulsary abortions next for men who are traumatised by the idea of becoming a Dad against their will.I can't personally see the difference.

[jake-the-peg]

Reading this with interest because I haven't been able to decide myself.

It'd no doubt be possible for the court to set aside any financial responsibility, there's no reason for that to impinge on the case.

In a normal case a man can't force a woman to have an abortion after conception. But that doesn't necessarily apply because an abortion would be an action to stop what would otherwise happen. In this case it's reversed and an action is required to continue the process.

I do think it's a complex and subtle problem and not one of "common sense" as suggested by the question.

[livk]

Dris, I'm sorry but I don't think the guy is manipulating anything. Whilst they were together they went down the IVF route. If she had been lucky to fall pregnant during that time, he would have accepted his responsibilities. However they split up childless. No possible reconcilliation, and from what I can read today, neither party wants one in future. He wants children but wants to be involved in their upbringing. Because she is now infertile does not mean he should now be forced into parenthood with a women he no longer is with. I feel very sorry for her, but I wonder if when they went for IVF in the first place, due consideration to the strength of their relationship was considered as well as her infertitlity. Maybe then other avenues could have been explored as well. I doubt he is even celebrating the ruling as I dont get impression he wants to hurt his ex lover, just protect his own rights. And dont forget, as soon as the child was born if she had won the ruling, the CSA would have been on at him for the next 16 / 18 years for child maintenance.

[sandbach99]

This woman would have had tests to see why she was infertile. She would have had to have, I believe, daily hormone injections and take hormone sprays which cause alsorts of problems like mood swings, then after all this she was lucky to have produced some eggs which would have beeen harvested in an operation requiring an anesthetic. Then came his contribution.

She then went on to develop cancer, the treatment now prevents her producing eggs, I wonder if she had not had these stored eggs, she would have been given a chance to harvest eggs for later use.

Even if she can get a donated egg she will only get one chance of free treatment in future, then she would have to pay.

Her contribution months, his 1 hour at the most yet he has the final decision . Chemically castrate him then he is put in the same state as he has forced upon her foreever infertile.

[Drisgirl]

livk - I appreciate everyone has an opinion - hence the reason I only give mine.

I have to pick you up though - the CSA are only involved if there is a claim made against the parent who does not have custody of the child/children concerned by either the DSS (or whatever they call themselves now) if the parent who has custody is claiming benefits or by the parent directly.There is no legal obligation to pay maintenance for your child if the other party does not want it.

[Oneeyedvic]

Personally, I am getting very sick of this topic. Yes it is a victory for common sense.

I would also like to point out that this woman can have children any time she wants. It is called adoption and thousands of children every year are adopted.

To say ' but that is different' is very insulting to all parents who have adopted.

An embryo (not a foetus or child) will be detroyed. If she cares about having children then I suggest she adopt. If she is just whinging about her rights, then I hope she doesn't.

[Drisgirl]

Vic - thats not like you.You are right about adoption but its not the issue at the moment.The poor woman had her eggs taken from her before she started her chemo for cancer.She sees those embryos as partially hers and her potential children.She is only 36 and has endured a lot.Even if, as your right you are fed up with it,you are normally compassionate:)