Embryo Case....

[Woodchip]

If the courts had said yes to the woman could a man then demand a woman have a baby even if she wanted an abortion?

That about sums it up.

 

[Gwylan]

I Unfortunately she was by then too old to adopt, but there is that option available to people, and there are lots of unwanted kids out there already.

There's no statutory upper age limit on adoption - although as a rule of thumb agencies will give a limit between the age of the child and the mother, normally about 40 or 45 years.

And, yes, there are plenty of children in care desperately looking for loving parents.

 

[DC Rules]

There's no statutory upper age limit on adoption - although as a rule of thumb agencies will give a limit between the age of the child and the mother, normally about 40 or 45 years.

And, yes, there are plenty of children in care desperately looking for loving parents.

When they were investigating adopting 15 years ago, they were told they were too old...I think things have changed a bit since then though.

 

[Nemesis]

If the courts had said yes to the woman could a man then demand a woman have a baby even if she wanted an abortion?

Wasn't there a case recently (last 12 months) where a guy tried to stop his ex-partner from having an abortion? The woman won if my recollections are correct.

 

[Buzzer]

Wasn't there a case recently (last 12 months) where a guy tried to stop his ex-partner from having an abortion? The woman won if my recollections are correct.

yes, but if the European courts had ruled in the embryo case woman's favour it would make a binding decision on UK courts and then in future any man COULD cite the embryo case. Not saying he would win but it would muddy the waters

 

[Simster]

I can see both sides - but it is simply very sad that he can't find it within himself to give her what is clearly so important. I am sure there are many reasons not to - but there is a simple humanitarian reason to let her use go ahead. All very sad.

Word.

I think justice was done simply because it confirms the principle of joint decision making and responsibility. But unless that was a particularly acrimonious split, I'm unimpressed with his stance. What would it have taken for him to have let her have her wish?

 

[Les Biehn]

Word.

I think justice was done simply because it confirms the principle of joint decision making and responsibility. But unless that was a particularly acrimonious split, I'm unimpressed with his stance. What would it have taken for him to have let her have her wish?

What? Let her have a child he didn't want. Its his right and a perfectly fair one at that.

 

[Simster]

What? Let her have a child he didn't want. Its his right and a perfectly fair one at that.

Yes Les, I agree. As you might have deduced if you'd read my words "justice was done". Just pointing out that it's not that clear cut because he had agreed to have his sperm fertilised at the time, and in any case, I'm sure there are plenty of men who might have considered allowing her to have that embryo under those (admittedly extreme) circumstances.

 

[Shirty]

What? Let her have a child he didn't want. Its his right and a perfectly fair one at that.

Absolutely correct. My understanding is that the fella was required to make the original decision to fertilize the eggs rather quickly (i.e. within a few hours of being asked) due to the requirement of the women to have the radiotherapy as a matter of urgency. He said yes on the basis that at some point in the future they might want to have kids together and this was the only way to allow them that opportunity. The fact that he has since withdrawn his consent should be enough to prevent the women using them.

I have every sympathy for her, but bringing a child in to the world is a huge moral responsibility for both parents for the rest of their lives and no-one has the right to force that responsibility onto another.

 

[ROSM]

There needs to be some better understanding of this case. The couple weren't married (not that this is strictly relevant) and irrespective of how much time he had to consider the decision (after all, a quick bunk up under the pier when you're sixteen is hardly a long considered decision is it? - and I bet at that age some of us blokes were quicker than Mr Johnston had been given to think this over!), he was told that he could change his mind right up to implantation. Therefore, in the law as it stands the correct decision was (albeit regrettably) reached.

However, this is where the whole fertility aspects of medicine and their relation in law needs to be better thought out. The legal decision making process that follows an unwanted pregnancy is left to the woman and is no longer a joint decision once the man provides his part of the process. Whereas in fertility, the decision has additional steps - and this totally boils down to the law trying to ascertain where human life starts. There are many who would (convincingly) argue that human life starts once an embryo is created and therefore the law should be similar to that of abortion and once fertilisation has taken place it is a decision for the woman.

Even accounting for joint decision making - the law is loaded on the negative option meaning that both have to AGREE in order to avoid embryos being implanted rather than both having to agree to them being destroyed.

You really though have to question what goes on with human beings that causes a case like this to have to be resolved in a court. I am not totally convinced that his decision making and stance on this has been driven by a moral concern for the well being of any child that may be born and may be more driven by his relationship breakdown. There is a great quote in the paper today that says his father was against him getting together with this woman as she had been divorced previously and he thought that she may want children at some point when his son wouldn't. Is that a man with foresight or someone trying to be wise after the event?

It's all well and good for people to say about him trying to prevent a child being born that he doesn't want - but he MUST have wanted a child at some stage even if he has now changed his mind. The alternative is that he didn't give it ANY thought.

Medicine has moved on and it is now possible to freeze human eggs for later use (albeit with a much lower success rate than freezing of embryos). Hopefully that would reduce the possibility of such a case occurring again.

 

[Lush]

I think it was the right decision. The split was obviously acrimonious. It's very hard when you are sharing children with someone you really can't stand the sight of - and not particularly good for parents or kids. Even if the father played no part at all in the kid's upbringing - it would still be his child and he'd be conscious of its existence every day of his life.

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

The correct decision in this case. I don't know if it's medically possible but couldn't they have just frozen some unfertilized eggs in case they split up. I'm sure her new boyfriend wouldn't mind jizzing into a petrie dish

The science wasnt there when she had the embryos fertilized. The eggs would have just shattered because of the freezing agents they used back then.

I dont think its fair, as she's lost the chance to have her babies - but i can understand the other argument.

 

[tedebear]

Although I'm very sad for the woman, I think its the right decision, as Lush says that man would know every day for the rest of his life that he has a child, and will feel some sort of responsibility whether the woman says he has or not.

I hope that she will be able to have a baby with donor embryos, sadly not hers but I hope she can get over it and love the baby as much as she would if it were her own.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I think it was the right decision. The split was obviously acrimonious. It's very hard when you are sharing children with someone you really can't stand the sight of - and not particularly good for parents or kids. Even if the father played no part at all in the kid's upbringing - it would still be his child and he'd be conscious of its existence every day of his life.

Being aware of its existence is hardly going to kill him is it. Can it be that tough ? He won't have formed a bond or anything - and if at a later date he or the child want contact - well what would be the problem. It happens all the time with sperm donors.

I just think it is sad he can't bring himself to allow it what is such a tremendous act of giving.

But we don't know what he thinks of his ex-partner, or indeed she of him.

 

[Lady Bracknell]

It was a difficult decision but ultimately the right one, I think. It's always wrong to force parenthood on an unwilling partner and while her former partner could have stood aside and let her go ahead I think he showed a deal of responsibility in saying that he didn't want a child of his born under the current circumstances precisely because he would feel a moral obligation towards the child. Sadly, for the woman in this case, it appears that advances in medical science now make it possible to store unfertilised embryos and had all this happened more recently there wouldn't have been the same problem.

However, I do honestly think that the root of a lot of infertility problems stem from a widespread assumption that everyone has a right to have children. Ideally everyone who wants a child of their own should be able to have one but sometimes this isn't going to be possible. So I wonder how many prospective parents spend years and years desperately attempting to achieve the impossible rather than looking at alternatives like adoption, fostering or even the benefits that come from not spending umpteen years raising children!

 

[rool]

There's no statutory upper age limit on adoption - although as a rule of thumb agencies will give a limit between the age of the child and the mother, normally about 40 or 45 years.

And, yes, there are plenty of children in care desperately looking for loving parents.

Correct, My sister has adopted two small children in the last four years and is now 52. Mind you it was a hard road to get through all the checks etc.

What is the law on this kind of thing with regards to future rights of the child regarding inheritance etc?. I'm not sure I'd be willing to do it either without being able to walk away from it all with the protection of some kind of watertight contract excluding me from any future responsibility.

 

[tedebear]

It was a difficult decision but ultimately the right one, I think. It's always wrong to force parenthood on an unwilling partner and while her former partner could have stood aside and let her go ahead I think he showed a deal of responsibility in saying that he didn't want a child of his born under the current circumstances precisely because he would feel a moral obligation towards the child. Sadly, for the woman in this case, it appears that advances in medical science now make it possible to store unfertilised embryos and had all this happened more recently there wouldn't have been the same problem.

However, I do honestly think that the root of a lot of infertility problems stem from a widespread assumption that everyone has a right to have children. Ideally everyone who wants a child of their own should be able to have one but sometimes this isn't going to be possible. So I wonder how many prospective parents spend years and years desperately attempting to achieve the impossible rather than looking at alternatives like adoption, fostering or even the benefits that come from not spending umpteen years raising children!

I'm of the often unpopular view that advances in medical science are not always for the best.

Nature has its own way of saying that we can or cannot do certain things, medical science is saying that is bollocks - we're working on doing exactly what we want.

Its not a nice thing to say to people who are desperate for children, but its my humble opinion.

 

[Buzzer]

I hear what you're saying, tede, but where's the line drawn?

No to embryos but yes to cancer treatment?

No to human cloning but yes to people having children to take marrow, organs, blood from them for existing children?

 

[tedebear]

Hmmm - yes good point - I don't know where the line is to be honest...I guess its a situation by situation question (which is impractical to say the least)

My gut feeling though is that if by some horrible strike of nature someone is unable to have kids, then isn't that natures way of saying no? You see on the news (although very infrequently) peolpe with poor kids conceived by IVF who have problems - isn't that again natural selection? (as horrible a thought as it is!)

Whereas cancer is a disease whereby medical science can attempt to cure it without creating or destroying life so yes?

Tricky one though...

 

[NMH]

There should be ONLY frozen embryos in any relationship. Only after many years have passed, and only on permission from both (or all living) parents, should an embryo be 'activated'.

There would be way less unwanted kids, way less kids altogether, and only the better unions, time-tested and sanctioned by both parents, would spawn.

These children of approved unions could then be named 'der Hilter Youth'.