frozen embryo case

[English assassin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4779876.stm

Morally, a difficult case, although legally, it's alarming it has got anywhere near as far as it did.

The facts are simply that a woman who was going to undergo treatment for ovarian cancer, which would leave her infertile, has some oocytes removed and fertilised externally with her then partners sperm. They were then frozen while she had her treatment. (I'm not sure of the exact dates, but its possible that at the time no one in the UK was licensed to freeze and then use human oocytes, which may be why the embryos were created. Alternatively it may simpkly be that embryos are more robust).

She and her partner then split up. She wants to use the embryos to have a child that is genetically hers. He doesn't want them to be used. After a long legal battle (not between him and her, betwen her and the regulators,) the European Coutrt of Human rights has ruled against her, which should be an end of the legal case at least.

Call me Mr Legalistic, but to my mind the issue in the case was straightforward. The forms they signed made it express that the consent of BOTH partners was required to do anything with the embryos up and until they were implanted in a womb. Dress it up how you like, its wrong to say to someone that they are embarking on a process where their consent will be sought for future steps, and then turn round and try to deny them the right to refuse consent. Understandably the woman feels her partner "consented" to the whole shhoting match once and for all when he donated the sperm, but the trouble is that's just plain not what the forms she signed said.

More interesting is that the case got anywhere at all. There's an undercurrent that her partner has done something morally wrong here. I find it interesting that there is much agonising over her desire to be a mother, but his desire NOT to be a father with a woman he no longer loves is seen as reprehensible. A lot of people who should know better seem to be unable to consider that this might be a perfectly proper view for him to take, and not just him seeking "revenge" (for what?)

So, any views?

[Fragony]

Very very hard..... what is good for the child. She will not be able to raise it, cancer always comes back. And he doesn't want it to happen, would you want to be made that way.

[English assassin]

Interesting perspective Frag.

I forgot to mention that part of the case was argued on the basis of the right to life of the embryos, you either have to be very clever or very stupid to run that line. "The good news is, you can use the embryos, the bad news is, we just made abortion and many forms of IVF illegal..."

But leaving aside the embryos, which obviously don't have any interests to speak of, how do you assess today what interest a child as yet unborn has in being born? Tricky stuff. I'd prefer to continue to exist than not exist, even in a less than perfect family, but if the choice is between never having existed or exisiting in a less than perfect family... well, how would you choose?

(And the child would have had at least one parent who really wanted it, which is more than some can say)

[Haudegen]

I don´t understand why the oocytes were fertilised before freezing. Is there any technical reason?

[BDC]

Seems a bit cruel on the mother.

"Hey you can't have genetic offspring, even though they are sitting here just in front of us..."

[English assassin]

I don´t understand why the oocytes were fertilised before freezing. Is there any technical reason?

I did a case on this once. Freezing oocytes can be done, but its tricky, as any disruption of the cytoskeleton messes up the oocytes ability to manouver the male DNA to where it needs to be, divide the chromosomes into pairs, one from each parent, and then put a full compliment into the daughter cells at the first division.

Freezing sperm's a piece of cake since you don't need to worry about much miore than keeping the DNA intact.

[Kanamori]

Legally, the question looks very simple. The law allowed him to withdraw his consent, and he did. It seems quite unfortunate, but the child would be just as much his as it was hers. Until the point of implantion, it is proper that both must consent to it. Having embryos (sp?) fertilized does not necessarily lead to a child, or even implantion, so I cannot see why consent to fertilize then should count as consent to implant the embryo now.

[Fragony]

But leaving aside the embryos, which obviously don't have any interests to speak of, how do you assess today what interest a child as yet unborn has in being born? Tricky stuff. I'd prefer to continue to exist than not exist, even in a less than perfect family, but if the choice is between never having existed or exisiting in a less than perfect family... well, how would you choose?

I guess it depends on the value we give it, as a set of cells or a work of love/lust, I think that once you made it you should take care of it, even if it are just a few frozen cells. Every frozen embryo is a could have been, maybe we should just leave reproduction to love and lust and accept when reproduction is just impossible. I personally feel that these people have broken a fundamental rule, just not sure which one....Completily torn with this one really.

[BigTex]

Every frozen embryo is a could have been
Not completely true, you still have all the risks involved in pregnancy. They've also been doing some interesting research though with women who are pregnant while under alot of stress (if she were to somehow be impregnated by one of those embyro's i'm sure it would qualify as a high stress period.). Apparently alot of times women will naturally abort them, mainly if they are a male baby.

As for why this is even a legal argument I have no idea. He said "No" nuff said. If she wants a baby adopt. By the way, if she were to have this child what would the legal obligations be for the father? I have no idea how british law would handle that.

[English assassin]

if she were to have this child what would the legal obligations be for the father? I have no idea how british law would handle that.

He would have to pay. Even if the mother agrees to waive any right to support, that agreement is not enforceable as it's contrary to public policy. (That may sound unreasonable but I'm not sure it is as a general rule; it may prevent some neanderthals beating up their women to get them to agree to waive maintenance.)

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

You have a right to a family life? I didn't know that.

Would someone cuckolding you be breaching your rights, in that case?

[Banquo's Ghost]

He would have to pay. Even if the mother agrees to waive any right to support, that agreement is not enforceable as it's contrary to public policy. (That may sound unreasonable but I'm not sure it is as a general rule; it may prevent some neanderthals beating up their women to get them to agree to waive maintenance.)

You are right, he would be liable for maintenance. The law in Britain is that the child has the rights to maintenance, not the woman. Thus, she could not sign away the child's rights.

[Goofball]

My views on this:

I believe he is absolutely within his legal rights to deny his permission for his exwife to try to grow these little whatever-they-ares into a child.

and

I believe that he is absolutely a spiteful prick for denying his permission.

There are many things that are my unquestionable legal right to do. But just being allowed to do a thing is very rarely by itself a solid moral justification for doing it.

[English assassin]

You have a right to a family life? I didn't know that.

Would someone cuckolding you be breaching your rights, in that case?

You have the right to respect for your family life, which is art 8, but I think the BBC made a mistake in referring to that. The right in question must be art 12, the right to found a family. Though come to think of it she may have been arguing that the "family" was founded at the moment of inseminatiion, and that it was a breach of art 8 not to allow it to come to fruition.

And you will be delighted to know that there used to be an actionable tort of adultery, known as criminal conversion, whereby the innocent party could claim compensatiion from the lover. Alas, its been abolished, shame really, the witness statements must have been fun.



I believe that he is absolutely a spiteful prick for denying his permission.

There are many things that are my unquestionable legal right to do. But just being allowed to do a thing is very rarely by itself a solid moral justification for doing it.

You see, this is my problem. As a dad myself I can readily see why I might not want to become a dad again, to a child i would probably rarely see by a woman I no longer felt anything for. Why should HE be a spiteful prick because he won't get HIS emotions all tangled up to save HERS?

[A.Saturnus]

There are many things that are my unquestionable legal right to do. But just being allowed to do a thing is very rarely by itself a solid moral justification for doing it.

The moral justification is that by giving permission, he would create an obligation to the child he might not be able to fulfill. What the woman wants is secundary, he has to decide on the basis of his responsibility towards the child.

[Kraxis]

You see, this is my problem. As a dad myself I can readily see why I might not want to become a dad again, to a child i would probably rarely see by a woman I no longer felt anything for. Why should HE be a spiteful prick because he won't get HIS emotions all tangled up to save HERS?
And pay for it... Remember that.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think that there was a case to answer as as has been stated there is the requirement for both to agree. What the hell is the point of a contract if one can keep contesting what both partners signed?

Spiteful prick? I'd not want random kids of mine on the planet. Do they get to be my heirs? Do I have to pay childcare?

He signed the forms probably expecting to help raise the child. I can see why he refused to agree to a child that is his but who he does not want.

She will have to adopt if she wants a child.

~:smoking:

[Goofball]

You see, this is my problem. As a dad myself I can readily see why I might not want to become a dad again, to a child i would probably rarely see by a woman I no longer felt anything for. Why should HE be a spiteful prick because he won't get HIS emotions all tangled up to save HERS?

Because there is much less at stake for him. He presumably has a ready supply of sperm at his disposal and can go around having all the babies of his own that he wants to.

But the option he is denying to his ex-wife is her only possible chance of having her own child.

Certainly there would be some emotional fallout for him to deal with if he said yes to her request.

But in my mind it is a much smaller emotional impact than the one his actions are having on her.

As I said, he is perfectly within his rights to say no. However, he should expect that some people might think him a prick for having done so. I don't think he should be shot or anything, but if I ever noticed him standing at the urinal next to me in the mens' room, I would probably "accidentally" piss on his shoe.

~D

[Papewaio]

How would you guys feel if your wife insisted that you get a vasectomy.

Then divorces you afterwards.

Later on in your new marriage you cannot have kids, but your ex-wife is having children in her new marriage.

Would you feel like she was being a nice person, even if what she did was legal?

====


Why should HE be a spiteful prick because he won't get HIS emotions all tangled up to save HERS?

As for her gene line they have essentially exterminated her. Her immortality through children has now been extinguished. Her selfish genes will be no more.

Essentially her genetic line to the future has been stopped... this is a bit more then an emotional entanglement. It is stopping her ability to have a genetic line... just as effective as having killed her now as far as her genes are concerned.

[English assassin]

How would you guys feel if your wife insisted that you get a vasectomy.

Then divorces you afterwards.

Later on in your new marriage you cannot have kids, but your ex-wife is having children in her new marriage.

Would you feel like she was being a nice person, even if what she did was legal?

Lets turn this round, is your ex wife supposed to NOT have kids that she wants, just because you of your own free will agreed to have a vasectomy, knowing that it was probably irreversible? Why? Why shouldn't you take responsibility for what you signed up for, just as this lady has to accept that what she signed up for involved the need for her partners consent at later stages in the process. Changing the rules half way down the line is wrong. Just as wrong as it would have been if, in fact, the law was that he did NOT have to consent after fertilisation, and then he went to court to try to get that changed.

I fundamentally disagree that the man has less at stake here. He's being asked to allow a child of his to be created, but not be a father to it. Now maybe some of you guys would find that no big deal but I have to say I wouldn't. If I had a child I wouldn't be ready to think to myself, oh well, it was just sperm. This is even leaving aside the fact that he would have to pay to support the child, thereby, who knows, making him less able to support other children he might weant to have with a future partner.

Against that we have the fact that this is her last chance to have a child which is genetically hers, which, sure, is a tough break, but I don't think many people really see the continuation of a genetic line as the number one reason for having a child, as opposed to wanting the pleasures and challenges of raising a child to adulthood.

I find the implied devaluation of fatherhood in all this interesting.

[KukriKhan]

by EA "...it's alarming it has got anywhere near as far as it did."

Doesn't surprise me at all (although I'm not a lawyer with a professional interest in enforcing contracts). Western culture is on the verge of re-defining 'life', 'death', 'rights', 'property' and 'ownership', mostly due to advances in technology and science, so these tests are gonna happen more often, I think.

Q: Did anybody argue that the frozen, fertilized eggs were 'alive', and therefore due some rights on their own? Or was it all about the disposition of (presumed) property?

And on your last point,
I find the implied devaluation of fatherhood in all this interesting

I quite agree. Technologically speaking, I expect a day to come in my lifetime, where male input is no longer required. Maybe desired, but not required.

[BigTex]

Q: Did anybody argue that the frozen, fertilized eggs were 'alive', and therefore due some rights on their own? Or was it all about the disposition of (presumed) property?
The group of cells that form the embyro are neither alive nor dead. Their frozen to the point of suspended animation. Much like the bacteria in waterdroplets found in rock salt.

Also why in the world is it cruel of him to say "NO!" to an ex-wife trying to have his baby? He will have to pay for it, she doesnt have to have a child there are plenty of orphans. Having a genetic line discontinued is nothing new. It's been happening for millions of years to many different species. I think the question should be why that women is so exceptionally cruel as to not want to adopt a poor orphan instead of spending years arguing to irrelavence her previous contract.:oops:

[Marcellus]

As for her gene line they have essentially exterminated her. Her immortality through children has now been extinguished. Her selfish genes will be no more.

The woman's ability to have children in the future wasn't taken away by her husband or by the courts, it was taken away by cancer. And personally I think that a parent becomes 'immortal' through their children by the way they raise them, not through their genes.

[English assassin]

Q: Did anybody argue that the frozen, fertilized eggs were 'alive', and therefore due some rights on their own?

Yes, she argued that the embryos had a right to life under art 2 ECHR. Its settled case law that embryos do not fall within Art 2 so that part of the case was dismissed unanimously.

[Kralizec]

Interesting...

The woman knew fully what she signed for. That is, they created some embryos so they could have a child at a time when both agreed on it.
Forcing this man to father a child with a woman he doesn't love is like denying a rape victim an abortion...with two obvious differences, admittedly.

Also Pape, vasectomies can be made undone without trouble can't they?

[A.Saturnus]

Because there is much less at stake for him. He presumably has a ready supply of sperm at his disposal and can go around having all the babies of his own that he wants to.

:inquisitive: This isn't about his disposal of sperm! It's about that that what be his child. You got to have a choice whether you want a child with someone.

[Devastatin Dave]

Frozen embryo? Hmmm, what to do, what to do... Oh!!! i got it!!! Put sprinkles on it and call it a "Choice Sickel". They can hand them out free at abortion clinics and at pro choice rallies. There, now we have some middle ground.:idea2:

[Major Robert Dump]

The guy should try to get a refund then move out of country.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

alright them goofball, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, find a single woman who desperately wants a child and donate sperm to her, be sure that she knows your adress for child maintenance payments. then go and have a seperate life having to support this child for the rest of your life as well as having your own family (if you want one) im sure you would understand this guys hesitence. Think about it 20 years down the line when you have a son or daughter that knows you didn't want to raise them, maybee he wants a clean brake from a relationship that obviously didn't work.

This woman has plenty of option to have children, we spend millions on donar egg and sperm treatments when there are abandoned children all over the world, we are over populated as it is!

[KukriKhan]

Frozen embryo? Hmmm, what to do, what to do... Oh!!! i got it!!! Put sprinkles on it and call it a "Choice Sickel". They can hand them out free at abortion clinics and at pro choice rallies. There, now we have some middle ground.:idea2:

Well, that's disgusting (thanks Dave! I was gonna make sushi tonight, but now...), but it does bring up another question(s):

what will be the fate of those little frozen guys/blobs of tissue?

Does the the woman have to get her ex's approval before ordering their destruction?

Who's paying for the maintenance of them?

If a payment is missed, do they ship them via the post office, with equal numbers to each partner (ala Solomon)?

We're just talking about property here, like a car, or piece of turf, or a computer game, right?

[mystic brew]

there's a time limit that they can't be stored for more than 5 years. That runs out in October. At which point they are destroyed.

and while this is a tricky case, up until now every single judge has sympathised with her case and dashed her hopes in their judgements. there seems little grey area for her at all.