Posted by
Dr Moreton
19 yrs ago
An interesting case in the UK. A young woman was found to have early cancer of the ovaries, before they were removed they were stimulated, eggs obtained and these were fertilized with her partners sperm. They took and were frozen for future use. The couple broke up and he withdrew his permission for them to be used. In the UK both parties must consent to their use. It went through the courts and finally to the European court, thats as high as you can go; that court has just ruled against her.
The laws differ from country to country, some, the USA is one, have very little legislation as it is a state matter and few have acted.
Some say that permission must be obtained for fertilization only, but then as the frozen embryos are potential humans they cannot be destroyed.
Comments/ and if you feel that they could be used what is the father/sperm donors responsibilities, if he does not consent?
Please support our advertisers:
bw
19 yrs ago
My thoughts
What happens in a normal situation when a couple seperate and the woman is pregnant ? Can the man say "nothing doing, I don't want the responsibility have an abortion" ? I don't think so. So in this case were they together when the "baby" was conceived ? yes. So now it's too late for him to withdraw permission.
Please support our advertisers:
bw
19 yrs ago
Yes Kanda 1 , There never is an easy way out when a baby is involved. I feel he's already done it.
Please support our advertisers:
I feel so sorry for this woman.
But in europe the law is clear, you can only get your frozen embryo back when both partners agree. You have to sign a contract agreeing to this. Even when your husband is dead, you can't get your embryos back. Unless he stated in the contract that the embryos can be used after his death.
In this case the woman wants to use the embryos and make her ex a father against his will. What if it's the other way around? Can the father go to court and force his ex to have the embryos implanted and make her a mother against her will?
Please support our advertisers:
bw
19 yrs ago
There are such tight laws governing frozen embryos. Isn't there a way to just freeze the eggs and/or sperms individually ? So only one individual's permission is required to get them back instead of a couple's ?
Please support our advertisers:
I think some women freeze their eggs for future use. (I don't know anyone who's done that personally but I think I read about it.)
Anyway, in this case, the important thing is when is the time the conception considred happened legally. Like someone said, you cannot make a woman get abortion once the conception happens, but probably the court's understanding was that conception never happened as long as the embryo hasn't implanted in her womb. End of story. Personally, I won't be thrilled if my ex insists that he'd use my egg to have his child with some sarrogate mother, and I would defeinitly say no to him. At the end of the day, it is your ex and that is a person who you kind of wrote off from your life. How can you trust the guy with your own child????
Please support our advertisers:
Freezing the eggs has ben dissapointing, they do not respond well on defrosting, the fertilzed embryos do much better.
There was an interesting case where BOTH parents died and they were enormously wealthy, the heir to the fortune was in a freezer in Melbourne!
Please support our advertisers:
Although it doesn't help the woman in this case, advances are being made in implanting ovarian tissue, removed and frozen before chemotherapy.
And of course there's human cloning. If this is ever found to work safely, and the law permits it, the consent of the sperm donor will be irrelevant, a bit like the sperm donor himself...
;-)
Please support our advertisers:
But the ovaries are still full of untreated cancer.
Please support our advertisers:
That's why I mentioned "the woman in this case", or of course other women with ovarian cancer who are still planning to have children, although I believe OC tends to hit older women more, i.e. menopausal women.
The freezeing of ovarian tissue offers many women hope for future fertility because use of frozen embryos is subject to the whims of another.
Please support our advertisers:
Quite interesting, the real life issues that end out being decided by courts. Assuming her cancer is treatable and she survives, it is a real shame she's being denied the opportunity to have a child that's biologically at least, half hers.
We thought about the opposite scenario (so to speak)--finding a donor egg--and giving us the opportunity for a second who's biologically related to my husband anyway. The end of the day, how important is it to be biologically related? For us, we decided we'd prefer to adopt, but these decisions are very personal and what's good and right and acceptable for one family may not be the hearts desire of another.
Well, I haven't furthered the legal discussion at all...but the poor woman, she must be despairing. Made worse as what she wants is THERE, just out of reach. It's a sign of the times, isn't it...I mean, the moral dilemna (the one courts are deciding) didn't exist before technology made the impossible, possible.
Legally...I supposed my opinion is that they should each have a right to half the embryos, with no ability for either to sue for support or custody or any other parental, or divorced parental, responsiblities.
Please support our advertisers:
Yes the technology is ahead of the moral, ethical and legal considerations.
It is possible for a couple to obtain an egg from a donor, get sperm from another donor, have the embryo implanted in the uterus of a surroagate mother, so the child has 5 'parents"
Please support our advertisers:
The moral/ethical dilemna isn't straightforward, is it? How have the rights of egg and sperm donors and of surrogate mother's been defined, in countries that allow them?
Please support our advertisers:
Every country is different in the laws that they have passed and then there is the question of who is going to enforce them.
Please support our advertisers:
There is a bit of a debate in UK now about the woman who travelled to Russia to get fertility treatment from that Italian doctor who can't seem to practice anywhere else. The woman is 62 (so she had to use a donor egg) and her (second) husband is 60.
There will never be a global consensus on this as there will always be people who believe their "right" to have a child supercedes any responsibility to that child. Those people will believe the law and society must not deny them this "right" and that the medical profession must provide the ability to procreate.
I realise many people also believe that if a woman wants a child beyond the time limits set by natural that there is nothing wrong with this. But my thought is, how old is too old? If some people believe 62 isn't too old, is 65? Or 70? Or 75?
If the medical profession (or at least a few of them) are not prepared to put limits on these matters, the law must. So while in the case of the original example, the law may appear harsh, that other choice do we have?
BTW, although I am against the concept of the right to children, I feel the woman in this case had a double blow to deal with and, if the "sperm donor" in question had an ounce of decency" he should agree to allow her to use the embryoes - so long as he gives up all parental rights as he really is too much of a selfish b@stard to be a parent.
Please support our advertisers:
That is the problem about LAWS. The borderline doctors can always go to places in the world where there are no laws or none enforced.
I am fascinated about the fact that although women are menstruating for longer than they used to, the age at which unassisted conception, followed by birth has remained at about the same level
Please support our advertisers:
"I am fascinated about the fact that although women are menstruating for longer than they used to, the age at which unassisted conception, followed by birth has remained at about the same level "
And I am amazed that many women do not realise this.
Please support our advertisers:
This UK case raises some interesting questions. If the woman in this case cannot use the frozen embryos (because her partner will not consent), then who can use them? Obviously, these embryos cannot be frozen ad infinitum (although theoretically it is probably possible, in reality it would be prohibitively expensive). In cases such as these, what happens to the frozen embryos? Are they simply disposed of? Upon whose instruction? Is there an expiry date for the freezing of these embryos?
This UK case opens up a minefield. Technically, the frozen embryo is the property of the couple in question, so the consent of both would be required for using the frozen embryo. The problem, of course, arises where one of the partners withdraws consent. In these circs, each case needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. The outcome for the woman in this case is seems unjust. The just outcome would appear to be to let the woman use the frozen embryo, but only on the basis that her non-consenting partner would have no responsibility (financial or otherwise) for any offspring resulting. However, this approach would be against public policy. Fathers should have responsibility for their offspring (otherwise the burden of the resulting offspring might likely fall on the social welfare support net).
Please support our advertisers:
Disposal is another nightmare, there was a select parliamentary committee looking into this.
I am not sure that I agree on case by case justice, how you could use the embryos would depend on which judge gets the case.
My own feeling--- when the eggs are harvested and fertilised and frozen, then both partners would asked to sign one of two consents. 1. they can be frozen and both partners must agree before implantation or 2 in the event of the break up of the partners the female can have them.
Now next case-- a couple produce eggs and sperm>> fertilised eggs>> frozen. Now she dies. Can he have them placed into a volunteer surrogates uterus??
Please support our advertisers:
In the UK, there is a five-year statutory storage time for embryos after one partner withdraws consent, after which they must be destroyed. Embryoes can be stored for up to ten years in the UK at 250 pounds a year, if both partners consent.
Please support our advertisers:
I guarantee this type of case will not come up again because just as Dr Moreton says, in the future consents will be more extensive. What has happened is one of those situations where lack of foresight has really hurt someone and now we have all learned our lessons so if you go to freeze your ovaries and you heard of this case what do you think your second concern is going to be? That's right, you are going to insist on terms that circumvent this outcome. What is really sad is that this poor woman has to be the example the rest of us need to ensure it won't happen to them.
Please support our advertisers:
These questions are interesting to talk/think about; it's also good to remember that real people with real hopes and dreams, and some with no other choice, are affected by the legal outcomes.
My opinion on the second is that the father SHOULD have the ability to chose a surrogate for the embryos in the event the mother dies. One has to think that he'd only want to if that is his best option for fathering a biological child, or maybe simply that he would dearly love to raise a child of the woman he loved.
In any event, I think the right to use the embryos should pass to him, and the consent form should provide for that.
Please support our advertisers:
You must be logged in to be able to reply.
Login now
Copy Link
Facebook
Gmail
Mail