There's an interesting post by HM2 Viking at Left in the Heartland about the very recent case of a British woman, Natalie Evans who was not allowed to implant embryos because the father, Howard Johnston, refused permission.
Mr Viking seems to think that it should be part of her right to choose. I disagree. The essence of the choice argument to me is that it's my body, my choice. Those embryos exist outside of her body now and are only half hers - and it seems reasonable that both parties should agree that any implantation go forward. And certainly under the current laws and regulation - which requires consent from both parties at every stage - there is no other ruling that could have been reached.
I feel very sorry for Natalie Evans, she had to have her ovaries removed to prevent cancer and at the time (and perhaps still now) technology for freezing eggs on their own wasn't good. Now these frozen embryos represent her only chance to have her own biological children.
At the time, she was in a relationship and it seemed only natural that she would want the biological children of her partner. Unfortunately the relationship broke down and now Howard Johnston, the ex-boyfriend doesn't want to have a new life created with Ms Evans. It's not ok to say that he should be allowed to terminate his parental rights and she should be able to go ahead. Perhaps he's a sensitive chap and couldn't go on knowing that he had a child and not be involved with the child - not at least wonder how the kid was doing.
The answer, in retrospect, was to fertilise some of her eggs with donated sperm. The answer was also to have better counselling during the fertility treatment - forcing the couple to think ahead about what might happen if the relationship did not persist. This is a sad, sad case and not the only one (there was a similar case in Maryville, TN many years ago with the same results). I can certainly understand her frustration and anguish, but I'm not sure I could support any other outcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
thanks for linking to my post.
Fertility issues are always painful. There are no easy answers to a situation like MS Evans. I still believe that we need to learn to work together to help each other succeed. Hopefully the 2 of them can have a discussion to come to a better outcome. I think they both lose if the court decision stands. No one liked the outcome in the article that I read.
Well, yes obviously I would be happy if Mr Johnston gave his agreement - that would be his choice. She might be a crazy nutter or he might be a crazy nutter and that's the reason they can't come to any agreement.
What if we looked at it like intellectual property? He allowed his intellectual property to be incorpoated into hers, and therefore relinquished his rights to that intellectual property.
By the way, there are lots and lots of children in the world who need a mother.
Oh goodness, Vol K - not sure what the Vol-in-Law will make of that - he being Mr. intellectual property.
Not sure why she didn't lose rights to her IP through incorporating it with his, then? >:)
I think in this situation it has to be all or nothing. Either both partners are agreed that a genetically related baby will come out of it, or they're not. And if both parties are not agreed, then neither party can use them. Can you imagine what people would say if the father wanted to use the embryos to have a child through a surrogate?
In the end, I don't think costs, responsibility, etc. factor into it at all. These embryos were created for the specific intent of BOTH parents having a child. The situation has now changed, and while I sympathise with the woman, they're not *her* embryos entirely because they were created by two people.
If there was a possibility to separate egg from sperm, I could understand the man's point. But it's a little like jumping off a cliff - the action was done, and can't be undone. What if she was 7 months pregnant? Should she have an abortion because he's changed his mind about being a parent?
Post a Comment