Female. male or embryo rights?

SubJeff on 7/3/2006 at 08:38

Ok, this bonkers case is about to be ruled on in Europe (and was taken there because the rule of UK law was unsatisfactory for the woman invovled): (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4779876.stm)

In a nutshell -
Woman has ovaries removed due to cancerous changes.
Partner at the time gives sperm for egg fertilisation.
Embryos frozen.
Couple split up.
Woman wants children now and the only remains of her gametes are in said embryos.
Man doesn't want kids with her and therefore doesn't want her to use the embryos containing his genetic information.
Heads asplode!!

What a mess! Technology interfering with our lives. This is a very interesting case to me since it involves male consent for once, and thus gender equality in an area where women usually trump (for obvious reasons). Lol, the technology levelling the playing field.

mopgoblin on 7/3/2006 at 08:57

I reckon she shouldn't be able to use them without the man's consent. Presumably he donated the sperm with the assumption that they'd be having kids together, so it seems reasonable that the embryos shouldn't be used in any other way without the consent of both parents.

SD on 7/3/2006 at 09:01

I was just thinking about this cos it's just been on the radio.

I'm no legal expert, but I think she SHOULD be allowed to use the embryos because they were fertilised at a time that the couple were still together.

I appreciate that the man doesn't want children with this woman, but he really ought to have thought of that before he got her pregnant - because that's basically what has happened. The fact that the embryos are not implanted in her womb should not take away from the fact that he HAS given his consent to create a shared embryo from his genetic information. That stage of the process is done and dusted, and what she does with the embryos he fertilised should be no longer any of his concern - in much the same way as a normal pregnancy would be out of his hands.

mopgoblin on 7/3/2006 at 09:21

A normal pregnancy would be out of his hands only because it's in another person's body. The embryos are just sitting in some sort of freezer somewhere, so why should either parent have greater control over what happens to them? If there's a similar case where the man is sterile and the woman is fertile, should the man get to use them if he can find a surrogate mother?

Shadowcat on 7/3/2006 at 10:11

mopgoblin makes a good point. They basically each provided some genetic material from their bodies, which was then combined in a test tube. Why would the woman have any more 'ownership' over the result than the man?

I also disagree with the "he should have thought of this first" argument. Hell, she was having her ovaries *removed*. This was a safety measure, because if they didn't do it and they wanted kids later on, they were screwed. As they (as a couple) do not want kids, I figure the embryos should stay where they are.

The embryos aren't a pregnancy. They're a potential pregnancy.

The man surely has rights here.

dvrabel on 7/3/2006 at 11:14

The ECHR (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4779876.stm) has ruled in favour of requiring the consent of both parties and that embryos do not have a right to life.

Shug on 7/3/2006 at 11:15

Reminds me of that skit from The Sketch Show

MEN HAVE RIGHTS TOO, YOU KNOW

SD on 7/3/2006 at 12:01

An appalling decision from the ECHR. What next - men get to tell their pregnant ex-partners they have to have an abortion? Sperm donors have a veto over the women who get their sperm?

This sets a very dangerous legal precedent. How the Christ can you ungive your consent like that?

IMO once a woman's egg is fertilised, it ought to be 100% up to her what happens to that resulting embryo. It should not make one iota of difference whather he shoots his load inside her or a pyrex beaker.

SubJeff on 7/3/2006 at 12:24

How can you "ungive" consent? People do it all the time. Consent has to be continuous, in medical law and in most other cases. It's like the right of a woman to say no in the middle of intercourse, or a patient being able to decide against a procedure right now even if they agreed to it being performed 10 minutes ago.

The difference with a pregnancy is that an abortion interfers with a woman's body and until the baby is born it has no rights. In pregancy it is only the woman's rights that are considered.

This was not the situation here.

And if we ever have artificial Brave New World style baby growing labs men and women will and should have equal say on the issue of abortion. Why should a woman have 100% say over the fate of an embryo that is not gestating inside her? It seems like you are making a value judgement as to the worth of some aspect of the man's input. I can't tell what though. Is sperm less important (lol sacred) than an egg?

dvrabel on 7/3/2006 at 12:25

UK law states that consent must be given at the time of implantation. Therefore the man didn't withdrawn his consent -- he never gave it.