Female. male or embryo rights?

Uncia on 7/3/2006 at 20:34

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Why not?

Because of the father.

Quote:

I'd argue that the embryo ought to be treated as if it were already implanted in the mother, whether it is or isn't.

Why?

dh124289 on 7/3/2006 at 20:46

She should just wait until the technology exists to take her DNA, fuse it with a genetically inert donor egg then use donor sperm to fertilise it.. probably not far off!

Or even better just put 100% of her own DNA in the inert egg and have her own clone :joke:

SD on 7/3/2006 at 20:50

Quote Posted by mopgoblin

Why? There doesn't seem to be any sort of reasoning in your argument at all.

Because in 99.99999% of cases when an egg gets fertilised, that's where it happens - in the mother. Why are we treating it differently just because the fertilisation happens to be technologically assisted? We are transporting a process that would naturally occur inside the mother into a test tube for the sake of expedience; it therefore seems logical to me to treat that test tube (and its contents) as an extension of the mother.

But look, we can argue over the fine details and the rights and wrongs of people breaking agreements until we are blue in the face - all I want is a change in the law to prevent this situation happening again. And I'm glad to see the European judges agree with me:

Quote:

It was also decided, by a majority of five to two, that Ms Evans' right to a family life was not sufficient to override Mr Johnston's withdrawal of consent to IVF treatment.

But the five said a different legal balance might have been struck by UK parliament in drawing up the legislation, perhaps by making the consent of the male donor irrevocable.

I do think it's appalling that a man is able to withdraw his consent after a woman has put all her eggs in his basket, and I think the law should make allowances for that. I don't think that is at all contentious, and I think some people in this thread are just arguing for the sake of it.

Rug Burn Junky on 7/3/2006 at 21:05

Oh fucking christ, StD, you argue as though cars run on stupidity in your world and you're just trying create a new, more concentrated fuel.

dh124289 on 7/3/2006 at 21:09

It's a tough call.

Legally I think the correct decision has been made.

Morally, I think Mr. Johnston is bang out of order because he knew that Ms Evans' cancer treatment would render her infertile and she made advance arrangements to get round this and have a child in the future. Including suggesting to him at the time that she have some of her eggs fertilised by anonymous donors - which he refused to go along with.

I'm not criticising Mr. Johnston for not agreeing with her suggestion - and nor should Ms Evans criticise him for not wanting to raise another man's child since she now seems incapable of raising another woman's child (i.e. adopting). My criticism lies with the fact that he turned down her suggestion in favour of using ONLY his sperm.

The case is a minefield. Having recently been through a messy breakup with the end result being that I only get to see my 2-year old daughter properly on weekends, I'm thankful for that small mercy.

Edit - from what I can gather, Mr. Johnston didn't withdraw his consent when they broke up.. he never withdrew his consent until much later, giving strength to the argument that his actions are spiteful in nature...

Navyhacker006 on 7/3/2006 at 21:25

Based on the first and last paragraphs, I'm going to say that he withdrew his consent when they broke up.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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".

And the embryos are slated for destruction in October this year - so he would have to have withdrawn the consent 5 years ago, or just after breaking up.

SD on 7/3/2006 at 21:41

Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky

Oh fucking christ, StD, you argue as though cars run on stupidity in your world and you're just trying create a new, more concentrated fuel.

How about addressing the point that I and the ECHR judges are making? Or is that too much for you?

Nicker on 7/3/2006 at 21:45

Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man

Am I going to merge this thread with the other one? Tune in later to find out.

If you do can you randomise the order of the posts just to make it more fun?

There are two issues getting mixed up here; the general legal / ethical question of who has the right to make what choices when & the questionable quality of the choices made by the people in this particular case. Even though this issue has been precipitated by their decisions, they by no means limit the matter’s scope, as speculation here has shown.

In hindsight, the woman’s decision to trust her boyfriend was ill-founded. His decision to withhold the embryos seems vindictive and selfish. And while a prudent decision for them under present laws might be informative, it need not be binding on new legislation.

I think a law which enshrined enduring consent without liability (i.e. child support) on the part of both parties, might give them reason to think more carefully about the agreement they are making when they mingle their genes. There is a difference between the nature of consent for something being done TO you and trying to control something you have donated to an external cause, even if it carries your genes.

I think the fair thing is for both parties to have equal access to the embryos, as a shared resource, without restricting or encumbering the other person. The fact that a child with half your DNA might be brought into the world without your present approval (as opposed to consent) is a risk that should be made clear at the time the embryos are created.

Is it possible that under such a law someone might have a child in order to pursue some sort of punitive agenda against the other ‘donor’. But then parents regularly and tragically use their children as pawns in divorce. Bad choices by individuals are not grounds for restricting those choices but they are cause to make sure that laws clearly delineate the risks and obligations of such joint ventures.

Rug Burn Junky on 7/3/2006 at 21:47

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

How about addressing the point that I and the ECHR judges are making? Or is that too much for you?

Because a) the ECHR already got it right, b) you're just being a twat and c) you're impervious to logic, so what's the fucking point in joining in the chorus of people trying to explain that to you?

mopgoblin on 7/3/2006 at 21:48

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

What? Fertilisation doesn't usually happen this way, so we should ignore everything that makes it distinct from the usual case? I haven't heard such an amazingly stupid argument for a long long time.