Right to embryos?

[ms.peachy]

So here is the story that's been burning up the other board I hang out at a bit:

Woman loses frozen embryos fight

A woman left infertile after cancer treatment cannot use her frozen embryos to have a baby, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
Natallie Evans started IVF treatment with her then partner Howard Johnston in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up.

Ms Evans went to the Strasbourg court after exhausting the UK legal process.

She now hopes to appeal to the Grand Jury of the European Court, but still wants her ex-fiancé to change his mind.


Ms Evans said: "I'm still as determined to do whatever it takes to have a child of my own."

She added: "Howard may feel it's too late for him to change his mind, but it's not."

But Mr Johnston said: "It seems that common sense has prevailed.

"The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family."


But he added: "I'm not thinking about this in terms of a victory."

Ms Evans' legal team had asked the judges to consider whether the UK law, under which the six stored embryos would be destroyed in October this year, was in breach of her human rights.


In the court's judgement, decided by a panel of seven judges, said: "The Court, like the national courts, had great sympathy for the plight of the applicant who, if implantation did not take place, would be deprived of the ability to give birth to her own child."


But it was ruled, in a majority verdict that, even in such exceptional circumstances as Ms Evans', the right to a family life - enshrined in article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights - could not override Mr Johnston's withdrawal of consent.

It also ruled unanimously that the embryos did not have an independent right to life.


The UK's Court of Appeal and High Court had both ruled that Ms Evans, who is in her early 30s, could not use the embryos and she failed in her bid to take the case to the House of Lords.



Ms Evans, from Wiltshire, underwent IVF treatment following a diagnosis of ovarian cancer in which the embryos were created and placed in storage.

She has argued that Mr Johnston, from Gloucester, 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 allow either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted.

A Department of Health spokeswoman welcomed the European Court judgment.

She said the department recognised the distress caused to Ms Evans during the legal process, and added a review of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which included the issue of the storage of embryos, was currently underway.

Josephine Quintavalle of the pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said of the court's ruling: "It's an inevitable judgement, but a very sad one."

She said Mr Johnston had "become a father" when the embryos were created, and should have compassion for Ms Evans.

But Michael Wilks, of the BMA ethics committee: "It's the right verdict, but a terrible situation."

However Dr Wilks called for a change to the five year limit for embryos to be stored after one partner withdraws consent should be extended so there was less of a "ticking clock".

Now, this other board is for preggos and women with young children, so I am wondering how/if that affects the balance of opinion over there. So indulge my curiousity - what say ye?

[cosmo105]

oh man, that's rough. if he's not consenting to it...hrm. that's a difficult choice. she's the one that would be going through all the work, but i wouldn't want an embryo i made years ago with someone i'm not in love with anymore to become a child. she really ought to just adopt and save herself a lot of trouble :\

[roosta]

it is rough, but i'd have to side with the decision....

[abcdefz]

Current UK laws require both the man and woman to give consent, and allow either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted.



...whatever personal opinion is, that's the only ruling you could hand down if this is the law.

That's kind of a cool law, actually, because father's rights are basically fucked.

[cosmo105]

yeah. it's unfortunate, but it's fair.

[King PSYZ]

oh man, that's rough. if he's not consenting to it...hrm. that's a difficult choice. she's the one that would be going through all the work, but i wouldn't want an embryo i made years ago with someone i'm not in love with anymore to become a child. she really ought to just adopt and save herself a lot of trouble :\
exactly!
with so many children that need homes it sickens me that people don't adopt if they want to be a parent so badly.

i also find it funny that a right to life group, which are usually fundamentalist christians, would support someone who went and tried to play god by freezing embryos...

[Junker]

Embrywhat??? :confused:

[ChrisLove]

I dont think you can force parenthood on someone who does not consent to it - especially with all the financial implications that go along with this. Does anyone following this if the father would be financially liable for the child - ie child support?

It is sad but definately the correct decision IMO.

[abcdefz]

...this is not the same situation at all, but reminds me of that Chicago doctor who had oral sex with a guy, froze the sperm, impregnanted herself, then sued the guy for child support.

And won.

[cosmo105]

...this is not the same situation at all, but reminds me of that Chicago doctor who had oral sex with a guy, froze the sperm, impregnanted herself, then sued the guy for child support.

And won.
WHOA! that's just nut.

[Freebasser]

...s

[cosmo105]

i mean what i say and i say what i mean.

[Anne Lauren]

Hmmm...well, my instinct is to agree with the verdict. I, honestly, don't know why...but, I feel that the embryo is not considered "life", yet...until it is implanted. Morals aside, scientific evidence aside...I just deep down in my gut, feel that way. My definition of "life" is much more abstract than that...that stage, in the process of creating life, is just the "science-part" to me, almost. Now, to which point does something become "life"...I can't give a precise answer. However, definately by the time it has reached basic "human form". Sometime, in between there, I guess.

And, I do feel that her ex-fiance should have the right to deny her the right to implant the embryo...that future child, would be his son/daughter. Just like, in any other circumstance, a man is not legally forced to have sex with a woman and procreate with her...even though, he would be impregnating her in a labratory, so's to speak, it's the same basic principles. Now, once that man has made the choice to procreate (either through sex or in a lab)...then, for the most part, legally, I feel that ultimately it's the woman's choice because it's her body. Morally, I don't know...that's a lot more complicated.

So, I guess, I agree...mainly, from a legal standpoint.

[Anne Lauren]

...this is not the same situation at all, but reminds me of that Chicago doctor who had oral sex with a guy, froze the sperm, impregnanted herself, then sued the guy for child support.

And won.

What?? What case was that? There definately had to be more to it than that!

[cosmo105]

if he had just given his sperm randomly in to a sperm bank without any knowledge of who the child would become or anything, it'd be different, but because there were emotional ties there that he maybe doesn't want to have to deal with anymore, i agree with the verdict. it's really unfortunate that she doesn't have the chance to have a child biologically otherwise...but she should adopt anyway so she and her future child don't have to deal with the fact that the biological father fought it! honestly, as psyz said. there are so many deserving children in the world.

[Freebasser]

i mean what i say and i say what i mean.

No need to sound mean when you say it.

[cosmo105]

i didn't mean to.

[Freebasser]

LOL!

[ChrisLove]

What if it was the other way round - it would be totally crazy for a man to be able to force his female ex-partner to incubate their kids.

My point being that the 'right to life' or 'right to have family' argument are not gender dependant but the case would look silly if you reversed the genders.

[cosmo105]

not necessarily if he used the embryos they created and had another woman be a surrogate. i mean, she wouldn't even physically have to be involved anymore. the decision would be the same. it's the fact that she can't have biological children any other way that makes it difficult, not her gender.

[CJM]

i agree with the vedict. they agreed at the time, but now it's years later, and he's not with her anymore, so the contract is void. the embryo is half his, so he has half the say.

[Anne Lauren]

not necessarily if he used the embryos they created and had another woman be a surrogate. i mean, she wouldn't even physically have to be involved anymore. the decision would be the same. it's the fact that she can't have biological children any other way that makes it difficult, not her gender.

Exactly, there's lots couples that use "surrogant mothers" to essentially "grow" their children in...like, Kelsey Grammer and his wife, or Joan London and her husband.

However, that situation is completely different, though...they have "legally" committed to following through with their duties, and it will not become their child.

So...nevermind, then. (y)

[abcdefz]

What?? What case was that? There definately had to be more to it than that!


Recently, however, the Illinois Appellate Court took a step towards fairness by ruling that an Illinois man can sue his former lover for emotional distress over her pregnancy. Dr. Richard O. Phillips alleges that six years ago Dr. Sharon Irons secretly kept his semen after the two had oral sex, and then impregnated herself with it. Phillips claims he didn’t learn of the child’s existence until two years later, when Irons went to court to get child support. Irons now receives $800 a month in tax-free child support from Phillips.

In last week's ruling the court stated that, if Phillips’ story is true, Irons “deceitfully engaged in sexual acts, which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy." The court reinstated Phillips’ lawsuit against Irons, which had been thrown out by the Cook County Circuit Court in 2003.

Unfortunately, the court couldn’t bring itself to properly uphold Phillips’ reproductive rights, instead ruling that he must continue to pay child support because “when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift…There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.” Of course, in Phillips’ version of events, there was also no agreement that Irons would use his sperm to make a baby.

Research shows that men are often deceived into paternity. A recent poll of 5,000 women conducted for That’s Life! magazine in the United Kingdom found that 42% of women say they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners. According to research conducted by Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University, over a million American births each year are the result of pregnancies which men did not intend. Jo Checkley, the editor of That’s Life!, notes:

“To deliberately get pregnant when your partner doesn’t want a baby is playing Russian roulette with other people’s lives."

Phillips says he feels as if he’s “being trapped in a nightmare,” and has had headaches and trouble sleeping and eating.

If Phillips’ story is true, Irons has committed one of the most damaging acts a woman can do: knowingly create a child with an unwilling father. The Appellate Court acted correctly in allowing Phillips to take legal action against the person he claims deceived him in such an important, intimate, and emotional matter.

This column was first published in the Houston Chronicle (3/6/05) and the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (3/9/05).

[Anne Lauren]

Recently, however, the Illinois Appellate Court took a step towards fairness by ruling that an Illinois man can sue his former lover for emotional distress over her pregnancy. Dr. Richard O. Phillips alleges that six years ago Dr. Sharon Irons secretly kept his semen after the two had oral sex, and then impregnated herself with it. Phillips claims he didn’t learn of the child’s existence until two years later, when Irons went to court to get child support. Irons now receives $800 a month in tax-free child support from Phillips.

In last week's ruling the court stated that, if Phillips’ story is true, Irons “deceitfully engaged in sexual acts, which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy." The court reinstated Phillips’ lawsuit against Irons, which had been thrown out by the Cook County Circuit Court in 2003.

Unfortunately, the court couldn’t bring itself to properly uphold Phillips’ reproductive rights, instead ruling that he must continue to pay child support because “when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift…There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.” Of course, in Phillips’ version of events, there was also no agreement that Irons would use his sperm to make a baby.

Research shows that men are often deceived into paternity. A recent poll of 5,000 women conducted for That’s Life! magazine in the United Kingdom found that 42% of women say they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners. According to research conducted by Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University, over a million American births each year are the result of pregnancies which men did not intend. Jo Checkley, the editor of That’s Life!, notes:

“To deliberately get pregnant when your partner doesn’t want a baby is playing Russian roulette with other people’s lives."

Phillips says he feels as if he’s “being trapped in a nightmare,” and has had headaches and trouble sleeping and eating.

If Phillips’ story is true, Irons has committed one of the most damaging acts a woman can do: knowingly create a child with an unwilling father. The Appellate Court acted correctly in allowing Phillips to take legal action against the person he claims deceived him in such an important, intimate, and emotional matter.

This column was first published in the Houston Chronicle (3/6/05) and the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (3/9/05).

Well, honestly, "proof" seems to be the whole burden issue here...did the doctor and the woman plan on/aggree to have a baby together? Did he voluntarily give his sperm for the purposes of creating a child with her? I mean, quite frankly, his whole "story" does seem a little far-fetched...almost, like he's desperately trying to get out of all (and any) responsibilities involving this child. I mean, why would she go through all that trouble...and still be, for the most part? Legally, who do you believe?

Now, it sounds like maybe the appeallate courts are trying to be "as fair" as possible...just, in case, maybe he is telling the truth. Plus, she did with hold the existance of this child, for 2 years...then, all the sudden, throws this major ordeal up on him.

After reading it...it, kinda, makes sense.

[abcdefz]

The courts are letting the case go forward as "emotional distress" but not "theft," on the basis of the idea that the sperm was a gift; it lends his case a certain amount of credibility that the court accepted it.

[cosmo105]

don't most men think of their sperm as a gift?

[miss_bhaven]

take this to the political section. (n) (tzar says)

[cosmo105]

um...then...why are you posting it?

it's not really political, more of a moral question. isn't it?

[b i o n i c]

for the dr / dr / oral sex one, the judgement should be that the guy doesnt have to pay unless he wants to know the kid... he should be encouraged to help but not obligated to.

[ms.peachy]

take this to the political section. (n) (tzar says)
How is it a political issue?

[Junker]

um...then...why are you posting it?

it's not really political, more of a moral question. isn't it?

For sure (y)

Nothing to do with political shit

[enree erzweglle]

Related, about a man's rights and obligations in the case of an unwanted birth: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4789090.stm.



US men fight child support laws

Men's rights activists in the US are to argue in court that fathers do not have an obligation to pay money towards raising a child they did not want.

The National Center for Men is fighting the case on a behalf of a man who says his ex-girlfriend had his child after telling him she could not get pregnant.

Activists say men should have the same rights as women in dealing with the consequences of unintended pregnancy.

Women's and children's groups have criticised the planned legal challenge.

Leslie Sorkhe, of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, said a child "needs the emotional and financial support of both parents".

"The child is entitled to his or her equal protection under the law," the website of The Detroit News quotes her as saying.

Matt Dubay, the man at the centre of the case, said he did not expect the court to rule in his favour.

"What I expect to hear is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he told the Associated Press news agency.

"Just to create awareness would be enough to at least get a debate started."

'Roe v Wade for men'

Mr Dubay says that his former girlfriend became pregnant with his child after assuring him she had a physical condition that prevented her from conceiving.

He says she went on have the baby, despite knowing that he did not want to have a child with her.

He now wants the court to free him from his obligation to pay $500 (£287) in child support every month.

The National Center for Men is filing a case on behalf of Mr Dubay at a court in the US city of Detroit.

The centre's director, Mel Feit, told the Associated Press news agency: "There's such a spectrum of choice that women have - it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions.

"I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly," he said.

The centre has dubbed the case "Roe v Wade for men" - after the landmark US Supreme Court ruling that gave women the right to have abortions.