Women lose embryo battle.

[Burnsy]

This is a story that has been pretty big over here in the UK. An excerpt is below:

Two women have lost their High Court battle to use their frozen embryos against the will of their former partners.

Natallie Evans and Lorraine Hadley were challenging a law which says both parties must consent to the storage and use of embryos at every stage of the IVF process.

They have been refused the right to appeal, but could take their case to the Court of Appeal or on to the European Courts.

The High Court ruled the embryos of both women should be destroyed - but that will not happen until the conclusion of the appeals process.

Fertility clinics will now have to counsel couples having IVF to consider carefully what would happen to any embryos that were created if they split up.

Both women have said throughout the case that the frozen embryos represent their only chance of having a child naturally.

They argued that preventing them from using the embryos infringed their human rights.

The women said if they had fallen pregnant naturally, and then split up with their partners, the men would have no say over whether or not they could have their babies.

But the Judge Justice Wall said that, although he had sympathy for the women's situation, he could not over-rule the law as it stood.

He said it was up to Parliament, rather than the High Court, to decide if the law in this area needed to be changed.

I'm curious as to your opinions on this.

Was the right decision made?

If you think the decision was wrong, would you still think that if it were reversed with the men wanting to use the embryos and the women refusing?

Is this really a breach of the womens' human rights?

If the women were allowed to use the embryos without the mens' consent would it be a breach of their human rights? ie. Forcing the legal, financial and moral responsibilities on them.


No flames please, just opinions on the case.

 

[Zebo]

Was the right decision made?

Depends if the male has to support the child. If not I see no harm in letting them do what they will.

but could take their case to the Court of Appeal or on to the European Courts.

I can't believe Great Britain has given up thier sovernty. Greatest nation on earth at one time becomming a lacky of NWO.

 

[Burnsy]

Depends if the male has to support the child. If not I see no harm in letting them do what they will.

This was not addressed in the case, which leaves open the possibility of the male getting chased down for support money at some point in the future.

Of course, you also have to take into consideration the fact that this man would have a child out there somewhere that might track him down later on and may cause a lot of turmoil in his life. It doesn't matter if he has to support the child or not, it's still going to have a profound effect on him

[Edit] At least it would on me, try and imagine yourself in that situation.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Burnsy

Depends if the male has to support the child. If not I see no harm in letting them do what they will.

This was not addressed in the case, which leaves open the possibility of the male getting chased down for support money at some point in the future. Of course, you also have to take into consideration the fact that this man would have a child out there somewhere that might track him down later on and may cause a lot of turmoil in his life. It doesn't matter if he has to support the child or not, it's still going to have a profound effect on him [Edit] At least it would on me, try and imagine yourself in that situation.

As the law stands, I understand that the man would have to support the child. But this is about more than just the money.

I really don't think there's a good answer to this. It is very sad that these embryos are (in one of the cases) the womans only chance to have her own children (she can still adopt), but the standard of full consent should not be deviated from, whether it is the woman or the man who wants to continue with the process