British woman loses battle for embryos

A British woman left infertile by cancer treatment cannot use frozen embryos to have a baby without permission from her former fiancÚ who provided the sperm, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Tuesday.

The panel of 17 European judges, known as the Grand Chamber, confirmed an earlier ruling by a lower chamber upholding British law. The decision was released in Strasbourg, France.

..... Tuesday's verdict is final and cannot be appealed, meaning the frozen embryos will have to be destroyed.

Interesting case but can't say I'm surprised by the decision.
Oh boy, that's a tough one. I feel very sorry for the woman, who has her own genetic material
frozen, and when they are destroyed her ability to reproduce her own child will be gone forever.

I don't know whatelse to say, the potential father definitely has rights over his frozen genetic material. They musn't be on good terms, or the possibility would be there for him to give his
permission, just to help her be a mom, to her own child, and his too of course, even though he
might not be involved.

So, I guess, that's that, life isn't always fair.
Libra Girl
It doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't on good terms though... there could be many reasons why he hasn't given permission; perhaps, if they are no longer a couple, he may feel that that is a good enough reason not to become a parent, especially if there is the possibility that the prospective mother's health might deteriorate, and that he could become a single parent... There may have been changes in his life, or he may have discovered family genetics that would possibly affect any children that he may produce. The list is endless.
She can still always use an egg donor to conceive. It wouldn't be her biological material, but that isn't what makes a parent anyways.
Even if he agreed to let her implant them there's no guarantee she would get pregnant. The odds are less than 50% success, possibly closer to 30%, depending on the number of embryos they have which isn't stated. His decision isn't taking away any guaranteed instant family. To me the big picture in this case is the precedent it sets in the neverending debate on choice and right to life.
What struck me about it was that he is probably stuck in that legal 'no man's land' of never being sure if she can come after him for child support if he allows her to use the embryos they created together. It's not quite the same as anonymous sperm donation. Poor woman, she's probably kicking herself for putting all her eggs in one basket. She should have frozen some without his contribution.

Similar Threads

no new posts