more on fathers' rights

crkramp · #1 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 05:52 PM

Here is an interesting twist to the other debates on this board.

LONDON, England -- The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a British woman has no right to use frozen embryos to have a baby without the consent of the man who provided the sperm.

The court upheld a UK law that says permission from both parents is needed at every stage of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process, as well as for the storage and implantation of the fertilized eggs.

Natallie Evans, 34, underwent IVF in 2001 with her partner Howard Johnston ahead of ovarian cancer treatment which rendered her infertile.

The couple later split and he withdrew his consent for the embryos to be used, triggering a drawn-out legal battle.

Evans was defeated in the British courts and faced an order to destroy the embryos. With time running out for the use of her stored embryos, she turned to the European court, based in Strasbourg, France.

But on Tuesday judges backed the British law, effectively signaling the eventual destruction of the six embryos which held Evans's only hopes of having a child that is genetically hers.

Johnston argued he did not want the financial or emotional burden of being a father to a child he would not bring up.

Lawyers for Evans had said the British law, which requires both the man and women to give consent, infringes her human rights.

She said her right to privacy and family life and the embryo's right to life were being violated by Johnston's decision to withdraw his permission for use of his sperm. She also argued his attempt to block her having the baby was discriminatory.

The court said it sympathized Evans' plight, but ruled that Johnston's withdrawal of consent for the use of his sperm did not violate her right to family life as stipulated in Europe's human rights convention.

Evans said she would appeal to the human rights court's Grand Chamber -- a panel of 17 European judges -- and the court urged the British government to ensure the embryos are not destroyed while the appeal is considered.

Evans also begged Johnston to reconsider and let her use the embryos.

"Howard may feel it is too late for him to change his mind, but it is not. Howard, please think about it," she read from a prepared statement in London.

Johnston said he disliked the attention the case has brought and was relieved the court ruled in his favor.

"The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when and if I start a family. So, that's been the basis for it," he told journalists in Cheltenham, England, according to The Associated Press.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/07/em...ing/index.html

kwright · #2 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 06:00 PM

I have to say in this case, I agree with the courts. The embryos do not and aren't residing in her body. They are in a storage facility, and such as stated by this law concent of both is needed.

Kadydid · #3 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 06:13 PM

I have to say in this case, I agree with the courts. The embryos do not and aren't residing in her body. They are in a storage facility, and such as stated by this law concent of both is needed.

ITA. At this point it is still 50/50. Sucks for her, but that's life.

davenrae · #4 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 07:00 PM

It's sad but I agree also. He has a right as much as she does at this point.

BooBooKItty · #5 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 09:30 PM

I agree

jillindelray · #6 (**permalink**) 03-10-2006, 06:14 AM

how sad for her.

let that be a lesson to all women. store your eggs separately. never know when the sperm donor is gonna back out!

Monicasgirls · #7 (**permalink**) 03-10-2006, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by jillindelray

how sad for her.

let that be a lesson to all women. store your eggs separately. never know when the sperm donor is gonna back out!

As far as I know, eggs on their own do not keep. They must be embryos to survive storage.

I feel really bad for her. This is her only chance to have bio-children. That really sucks. I can sympathize w/ the man, as well. I wouldn't want my bio-children out in the world w/out me, but I also wouldn't want to have to be tied to a person forever if the child wasn't made when we were together. He does have rights to his DNA at this point, and rightly so.

jillindelray · #8 (**permalink**) 03-10-2006, 08:22 AM

As far as I know, eggs on their own do not keep

not true. eggs (as well as sperm..as we all know) can be stored on their own.