Natallie Evans has lost her fight to use embryos fertilised by an ex-partner (UK)

Novice · April 10th, 2007, 04:14 PM

Woman loses final embryo appeal

A woman left infertile after cancer therapy has lost her fight to use embryos fertilised by an ex-partner.
Natallie Evans, from Trowbridge, Wilts, and Howard Johnston began IVF treatment in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up.
She turned to the European courts after exhausting the UK legal process.
Ms Evans, 35, said she was "distraught" after the Grand Chamber of the European Court ruling, but Mr Johnston said "common sense had prevailed."
Ms Evans was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2001, but six of the couple's fertilised embryos were frozen and stored prior to her treatment.

But she and Mr Johnston, who lives in Gloucester, split up in 2002 and he wrote to the clinic asking for the embryos to be destroyed.
Ms Evans took the case to the High Court in 2003 asking to be allowed to use them without Mr Johnston's permission.
She has argued he had already consented to their creation, storage and use, and should not be allowed to change his mind.
Current UK laws require both the man and woman to give consent, and allows either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted.
Ms Evans lost both the case and the appeal and was told she could not take the case to the House of Lords.

She then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which again ruled against her a year ago.
Her appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court under three articles of the European Convention of Human Rights represented her last chance to save the embryos.
The court ruled unanimously that there had been no breach of the right to life, but on the right to respect for private and family life and on the prohibition of discrimination the 17 judges ruled 13 to four.
After the decision, Ms Evans said: "I am distraught at the court's decision. It is very hard for me to accept the embryos will be destroyed."
But Mr Johnston said: "I feel common sense has prevailed. Of course I am sympathetic, but I wanted to choose when, if and with whom I would have a child."

Dr Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society, said: "I think it was the only sensible decision which the Grand Chamber could come to.
"UK law is clear. It is a principle of shared responsibility."
But he added: "We feel dreadfully for Natallie."
Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the British Medical Association's medical ethics committee, said the decision was welcome.
"Having a child is a life-long undertaking to which both partners should be fully committed."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6530295.stm

I'm going to stick my neck out here & say that I think the courts have done the right thing. The ex-partner spoke very eloquently that she still has the opportunity of various different ways of motherhood (donated eggs, adoption, fostering), but that he wants the right to decide when he has children. She was also very measured under the circumstances.
It must be heart breaking for her, but at least now she gets the chance to move on with her plans. This has been going on for years!

Honey · April 10th, 2007, 04:20 PM

I think it is the right decision too, am glad this case is finally over! I am sure her ex is too.

Novice · April 10th, 2007, 04:23 PM

I strongly believe that if they had gone the other way, it would have been bullying by law. They HAD to find for the current law; however there is nothing now stopping folks appealing to change the law after this case...
I'm still not sure if that would be the right result.

buttmunch · April 10th, 2007, 04:31 PM

I think if she had had a kid by her former partner, it would have opened the door to future support claims, no matter what anyone said, so in the end, although I feel for the woman, it was probably the right decision.

darksithbunny · April 10th, 2007, 04:33 PM

I wonder if she could sue her former spouse? I know you could probably do that here in the US. Sue so she can recoup her cost and pay for the "alternative" way to have children since she did have a contract with him and he broke it, technically speaking.

buttmunch · April 10th, 2007, 04:42 PM

Fuck suing. I'm bored to death with people suing for dumbass reasons. She's sterile, it sucks and bloody hell, learn to live with it. Adopt if you are that anxious to have a kid but don't drag someone into a parenting role who doesn't want it. God knows I know enough lawyers and to be honest, even they think they suck.

Novice · April 10th, 2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buttmunch

Fuck suing. I'm bored to death with people suing for dumbass reasons. She's sterile, it sucks and bloody hell, learn to live with it. Adopt if you are that anxious to have a kid but don't drag someone into a parenting role who doesn't want it. God knows I know enough lawyers and to be honest, even they think they suck.

Go for it!

She doesn't want him to parent them, she wants to do that (with or without her new partner - I wasn't listening THAT closely); she just wants his DNA!

I do think that she needs to move on. I don't know how much £££ she'll have left, this has been ongoing for a number of years.
Despite what our press says, we don't sue that much & we have a crime of "malicious & lacking in merit" suing!

buttmunch · April 10th, 2007, 04:58 PM

But still, why make someone be a parent who doesn't want to be. Why not have the new guy donate his baby batter and be done with it. Science is a beautiful thing but shouldn't be abused.

western · April 10th, 2007, 05:26 PM

In a way it's sad - it was her only chance to have a biological child. She should've frozen some unfertiziled eggs but doubt she thought they'd be splitting a year later.

I agree with the legal decision though.

buttmunch · April 10th, 2007, 05:36 PM

Sad for her, but that's life. Then again, I speak as a parent of two and probably shouldn't be so smug.

DeadDwarf · April 10th, 2007, 06:09 PM

It's sad that she doesn't have any unfertilized eggs left to use to have biological children, but the courts made the right decision. She needs to move on and find alternative ways to have a child, yes, the baby may not be biologically hers, but at least it's possible for her to carry a baby. All this time she spent fighting over this she could have already had a baby or met a man she wanted to have children with. Time to get over it and look at new options.

buttmunch · April 10th, 2007, 06:32 PM

Exactly, dead dwarf....although your name is kind of freaking me out!

A*O · April 10th, 2007, 06:40 PM

This is exactly the kind of 'IVF Abuse' that concerns me. I absolutely agree with the Court's decision. You can bet if she went ahead and had her ex's child she'd be after him for child support. Grrrrrrr.

Reminds me of a story when a UK man had a terminal illness and before he died he donated some sperm so his wife could have children later. UK law forbade her from having her dead husband's child so she fought through the European Court Of Human Rights (purleeze) and won. She went on to have the child via IVF. Sheesh.

buttmunch · April 10th, 2007, 06:50 PM

Well, that's a slightly different situation....at least he gave his permission. But of course, the lawyers turned it into a court thingy. Lawyers suck and they know they suck but can't stop because the money is sooooo good.

sputnik · April 10th, 2007, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buttmunch

Fuck suing. I'm bored to death with people suing for dumbass reasons. She's sterile, it sucks and bloody hell, learn to live with it. Adopt if you are that anxious to have a kid but don't drag someone into a parenting role who doesn't want it. God knows I know enough lawyers and to be honest, even they think they suck.

well said. it sucks for her but letting her have his sperm would have been as bad as forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she didn't want to but the biological father did.