TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Morally right ?-Legally wrong?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Morally right ?-Legally wrong?

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
I was just searching for the outcome of a case in the Uk last year after following
the story.I did a search to see if had been discussed already but couldn't find
anything.
I was very surprised at the outcome of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4779876.stm
The lady in question (Natalie Evans) was living with her partner when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer.
She and her partner both consented to have her eggs collected, fertilized and preserved so she could still have children after her cancer treatment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...03_06_echr.pdf

After he signed the consent to say he would go ahead with the IVF and assured not
only her but the doctors that they would not split-up they went ahead with the process
of collecting her eggs and fertilising them.
They split up later.
He withdrew his consent after their split for her to use her own eggs that were fertilised with his consent.
Uk 'IVF Law' said that to use the eggs she needed his consent so her case was not
upheld.
She took her case to the European court of human rights and they decided in HIS
favour....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...03_06_echr.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4779876.stm

I don't know what your thoughts are on this but IMO this is totally wrong...If he
consented at the time then he should not be allowed to 'back out' just because they
split up.
If they had conceived naturally he would not be able to back out....
Now she has to have her eggs destroyed,with NO chance of having her own baby and
he can get on with his life and father hundreds of kids if he wants.
I just think that goes against her human rights....Your thoughts on this??
post #2 of 17
Wow. That's a tough one.

Part of me thinks about the father's rights. It's true if they had conseived years ago, he couldn't back out. But they didn't. As of now, he has no children with this woman. And he is being asked to be a dad....even if he doesn't, he'd owe child support. If it was a matter of creating a child naturally now, he'd have a choice.

I see the woman's point of view. She has a shot at kids here. But then again, she could find another donor or adopt. To say she is doomed to be childless is not necessarily true. But I'm sure it's devastating for her, for the chance to be taken away.
post #3 of 17
I think he has the right to back out too. No-one should be forced to father a child against their will. If she had already conceived - either naturally or by implantation of the eggs - then that would be different. He would already be a father. But they're no longer together and although it's sad that she can't have children that doesn't give her the right to use him for her own ends. I don't think that having children is a right. And forcing someone to father a child against their will is definitely not a right, imo. If she wants to be a parent there are other option available to her - adoption, fostering or maybe even surrogacy depending on how she feels about that.
post #4 of 17
IMO he should have the right to NOT be obligated financially even if he was the father and now did'nt want to be one. She could still have the child but could not seek any child support from him.

That way he's off the hook, but she still could have a child.
post #5 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
IMO he should have the right to NOT be obligated financially even if he was the father and now did'nt want to be one. She could still have the child but could not seek any child support from him.

That way he's off the hook, but she still could have a child.
Yeah, I think that is what should have happened too, but I kinda look at it this way, if he broke a promise, then what happens if she says that she wouldn't seek child support and then changed her mind also. The courts could then say that he had to pay child support for a child that he didn't want in the first place.
post #6 of 17
Well they both have to agree that this is the final result - neither can change their minds in the future. I feel sorry for both of them. Its a big mess! Would really hate to be the judge on this one!

And besides when you adopt a child, its FINAL - the birth mother can't come back years later and change her mind!
post #7 of 17
yes, I do feel for the both of them too, it is indeed a sad situation.
post #8 of 17
I think the correct decision was made.

I believe that the woman should have had some of just her eggs frozen and to heck with him. You just never know about relationships.
post #9 of 17
They are just now trying to find the best and most reliable way to freeze and thaw eggs- they are just so much more delicate than sperm, so that probably wasn't an option for her.

It's too bad that they couldn't come up with some kind of sperm donor contract, so that he wouldn't be liable for child support, if that is the only reason for his not wanting her to take the embryos to term (sorry, I am running short on time and didn't get to read all the links). It does seem that he made a promise to her- a big promise with a big commitment- and he should be liable somehow for her putting "all her eggs in (his) one basket" so to speak.
post #10 of 17
Ohh my that is just SO sad! I feel very saddened for that woman.

post #11 of 17
I don't think he should have been made to consent but not have to pay any child support. It may be that he's actually a decent human being and would not want to have a child of his alive in the world and not be involved in his/her upbringing. And even if he was willing there's every chance the child would want to meet his/her father one day. And who's to say he wasn't coerced into agreeing in the first place? It would have been very difficult for him to refuse when she was diagnosed with cancer and it was her only chance of having a child. I doubt he had much choice in the matter tbh. But that was when they were a couple and expected to be together forever. I'm sure they've both broken lots of promises to each other as most couples who split do. That's life.
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbantigers View Post
I don't think he should have been made to consent but not have to pay any child support. It may be that he's actually a decent human being and would not want to have a child of his alive in the world and not be involved in his/her upbringing. And even if he was willing there's every chance the child would want to meet his/her father one day. And who's to say he wasn't coerced into agreeing in the first place? It would have been very difficult for him to refuse when she was diagnosed with cancer and it was her only chance of having a child. I doubt he had much choice in the matter tbh. But that was when they were a couple and expected to be together forever. I'm sure they've both broken lots of promises to each other as most couples who split do. That's life.
Yep, I agree with you.

Fathers should want to help take care of their children, unfortunately there are a lot of parents (both male and female) who want nothing to do with their children if the parents are split up.
post #13 of 17
See, that shows how much I DON'T know about this subject Cats. Thank you for telling me that.
post #14 of 17
I just happened to see a story on tv (probably the news) about it this week. Something about a woman who was pregnant with a baby conceived using a frozen egg...
post #15 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thank you for your opinions.
I know since this case that they are seeking a change in the law.

From what I understand about this case is she could have had
her eggs frozen without fertilising them,but it was him that
consented to them being fertilised,because fertilised eggs(embryos)
have a better chance of survival.
Now if he wanted to give her eggs a better chance of survival
then that also means he was prepared at that time to become
a father.
because'conception' is when the egg is fertilised and split into two.
Which is what happened to her eggs after he fertilised them.
To me that is no different than if they had sex and conceived
a child.He would have no say wether she had an abortion or not.
He must have signed a written consent to use his sperm to fertilise
her eggs.

This case seems to have been decided on his withdrawal of
his consent.

Now there was another case in the Uk of a lady and the reason I'm
bringing this up is because I think it's relevant to this debate.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/wa...t_05diane.html

Now this lady's husband died and she asked doctors to remove
his sperm so she could have herself artificially inseminated.
He was dead when they took his sperm and there were questions
asto wether that was 'rape' of somebody.
It was 'decided' that a person cannot 'own' their own sperm
and he was said to have given his wife an oral consent(not written)
Now wether or not he was her husband there was no written consent.
he was not able to confirm or deny consent.
She won her case and now has his children.

I would like to hear your thoughts.
Do you think the fact that in the first case they weren't married
had an effect on the judgement.

Do you think if somebody 'legally' does not own their sperm, have they
got the right to say what happens to it,even after they have consented
to it being used to fertilise an egg?

Do you think the guy in the first case 'owned' his sperm after he gave it
up to fertilise her eggs?
post #16 of 17
re the first case I still think that he has every right to withdraw his consent given that circumstances have changed and the fertilised eggs had not been implanted at the time when they split up. Maybe there should have been something in his written consent that said he only gave his consent if they are together as a couple at the time, but nobody thinks of splitting up when they're together do they? Bit like pre nup agreements. May be sensible but a lot of people don't want to consider divorce when they're getting married. I think the woman should just let it go and pursue becoming a parent by herself (or with a new partner if she is with someone else).

re the second case - I remember that case (but not the outcome) and think that is very wrong. He may have been willing to donate his sperm but as he never put that in writing no -one can be sure. To me it's crazy to say a man doesn't own his own sperm. Does a woman own her eggs? Taking sperm from a dead man without his consent is just horrible, imo
post #17 of 17
First, let me say this is a great topic for IMO. Its a tough one too - heartbreaking.

I have to say though, as much as I feel empathatic for the woman, I'd have to side with the man. If she had an unwanted pregnancy, he wouldn't have a right to stop her from getting an abortion, would he? It seems to me that its the same principle.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Morally right ?-Legally wrong?