# Woman loses final appeal to use frozen embryos



## Jennifer (Jul 22, 2004)

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,2053914,00.html

This is so sad.

My heart goes out to Natallie. Personally I think its a disgrace.

Her husband consented for those embryos to be created and the spark of life started there and then, at conception. I do not feel you can then reverse your consent.

I am very upset about this - I cannot imagine how Natallie must be feeling. This was her only chance to have her own biological child 

Her ex-husband comes out of this looking very bad I think. Selfish 



/links


----------



## Jennifer (Jul 22, 2004)

I hope this scenario is covered now in the consent forms so it cannot happen again.  If she knew from the beginning that this could happen it would be slightly different, although no less painfull for her.


----------



## *Bev* (Dec 20, 2005)

I was discussing this with my DH last night, I am probably going to put my foot in this as i'm not very clear about my own feelings either  

I completely sympathise with this ladies position, the embryos were created with the consent of her then DP but there lives have gone in different ways for whatever reason therefore can she really expect a man who is no longer part of her life to effectively father a child with someone that he has no interest in seeing/ hearing from or spending his life with. 

Its always the same through IF in my opinion not often are the emotions of the father taken into consideration, completely different scenario but all through my pg everyone asked how I was, was I excited etc etc.... DH was equally excited/ nervous at times.  The same when Alex was born everyone asked how I was doing, DH had been through an ordeal too  .

Obviously the fact that this lady can now no longer have any children which are biologically hers is a huge sadness for her, BUT there are ladies I read of every day that for whatever reason have to have egg donation, I hope that this is an option for her at some point in the future.

All this said, i've not been in this position and I have no idea how I would feel.  Hopefully some good can come out of this case in that hopefully the public will now be better informed of the legal standing on these type of cases.

This is just my opinion, I hope that i've not offended anyone.

Bev xx


----------



## Kamac80 (Nov 24, 2005)

My hubby asked me this question last nite as he had been reading this in the paper.

I said in all honesty and in my position he did consent to this and therefore she should have kept the embryos. However if he wants them destroyed as he wants no invlovement if she had a baby then surely he could now sign something that he would have no finanical right over that baby if the tx worked for her and effectively be a donor.

Also how would he feel if he now found out with his new partner that he had a problem and could not have a biological child of his own?

Kate xx


----------



## Jennifer (Jul 22, 2004)

I agree with Kate - He could have been able to sign away any rights/responsibilities over the child.  Of course, how that child might feel later would be another heated debate !

Egg donation is a viable option, of course - Its how I had my girls but that does not take away the fact that this woman had perfectly healthy embryos of her own that should have been given a further chance of life.

I realise that not everyone will agree on this subject and I am rarely offended by other's views.  I just might not agree with some of them


----------



## Kamac80 (Nov 24, 2005)

Jennifer - its great that people give different opinions and i think if i could have had a baby easily i wouldnt think twice about this story and probably just feel sorry for the woman but as i do have problems i kind of in a way know how devastating this is for her knowing that the embryos will be destroyed.

Kate xx


----------



## Mish3434 (Dec 14, 2004)

My heart goes out to Natalie its like she has to face her infirtility all over again! if that makes sense.  I really hope she gets through this awful time.  Maybe she will look to donor eggs in the future and has probably already given it some thought.

I asked DH what would happen if we were ever to split up as we have 7 frozen and he said he would still let me use them, however saying it now and then it happening if we did split, I feel would be a totally different matter.  Its a very emotive subject, and especially on here is likely to create a lot of varying opinions

Good luck to Natalie for her future

Shelley x


----------



## *Bev* (Dec 20, 2005)

Hi

Its so hard isn't as we all have dealt with IF to some degree or another and know how difficult it is the deal with IF alone, nevermind the loss of embies.

I do sincerely wish Natalie all the luck in the world for the future.

Such a difficult subject.

Bev x


----------



## Bels (Aug 21, 2004)

I am going to play devil's advocate here ...

What about the rights of the father?  Alot has been made about her right to motherhood, but not his right to fatherhood? and finally as Jennifer quite rightly pointed out, what about the effects on the child/children had the decision gone the other way?

I don't think there is a wrong or right answer in this case because it's too emotional and emotive a subject.

So unfortunately the rulings can only be made within the current legal frame work, which is what has happened.

Bels


----------



## Jennifer (Jul 22, 2004)

IF Natallie had been aware that her husband could later refuse to allow her to use her embryos, do you think she might have chosen to freeze unfertilised eggs OR do half donor sperm. Particularly knowing these would be her last ever eggs.

I know I would have done as I considered this in our tx cycle.


----------



## Kamac80 (Nov 24, 2005)

Bels u are right there is no right or wrong answer it just feels sad i guess that the embryos will be destroyed.

Did anyone see this morning? They said that natalie had no form of consent to place those embryos inside her but the father had consent to withdraw his own consent. Hope that makes sense?!!

Kate xx


----------



## *Bev* (Dec 20, 2005)

Bels - You put it soooo much better than I did!!


----------



## ritzi (Feb 18, 2006)

hi all

there were many posts on this some time ago - and if i remember correctly natalie knew the risks that her dp could withdraw his consent - she was offered donor sperm to fertilise her eggs but refused it and had the eggs fertilised with her (then) dp sperm - of course she probably never dreamed they would split up....

i feel incredably sad about this situation - BUT - i think common sense has prevailed - as her ex-dp was reported as saying. As a man he does have the right to choose when/how/to whom he becomes a father, and as harsh as that sounds i think that is the truth. We live in a free-society and all have our own choices to make. 

can you imagine the uproar if a man forced a woman to become a mother against her will? of course this does happen in marriages where religious dominance is an issue, domestic violence, rape etc....and most people think it is completely unacceptable. why is it different when a woman is trying to force a man to be a father? 

It is just incredably sad that natalie (like most of us on FF) cannot decide when she will become a mother - and now with the embryos being destroyed her chance of a biological child are gone  

can i also say that when you do EC you do have to sign consent forms (both partners) which consent to the freezing of the embies - and then sign again to the thawing and use of the embies in FET......so i think unless i misunderstood, 'this morning' must have got that bit wrong  

i think if the case had gone the other way it would have caused chaos for fertility clinics, and the other couples who are also in this split up situation - and most importantly for the innocent children that may have been born. 

ritz.


----------



## samblue (Apr 5, 2007)

Hi ladies, hope you don't mind me joining in on this one. 
After watching her on the news I felt so sorry for Natalie, and, although it probably is common sense, felt some sense of disgust at her ex-partner.  He can sit there at a news conference and talk about being able to decide when and with whom he has children with, it's fine for him, she now has no say in the matter.
It's very sad.  luv to Natalie 
xxx


----------



## sheena 1M (Oct 4, 2006)

One of the reasons I really feel for her is that say for example she'd had a one night stand with a bloke a got pregnant - she would have had the chance to keep the pregnancy and follow it through to birth even if the bloke didn't want a child.  The law would never have forced her to abort. Further more, some women dupe their other halves into pregnancy and in those cases although naughty, the father does not get the right to insist on abortion. So by creating the embryos I do feel the ex husband had consented to life.  

I do hope she considers egg donation now.  Above all else she deserves to be a mother.

So sad.
Sheena


----------



## Betty M (Dec 6, 2005)

If anyone is interested the Court's judgment is at:
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=50&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=12236423&skin=hudoc-en

Regardless of the law which was clearly on his side in this case personally I think her ex is being supremely selfish and spiteful. I bet he will end up fathering his own kids soon enough.

betty

/links


----------



## Caz (Jul 21, 2002)

I'm inclined to agree with that last comment about her ex. While I think the court's decision is right, legally and morally, I think it's very sad that he can't see it within his heart to look at her situation and do the decent thing and let her use them. He could, as has been pointed out, consider himself a sperm donor instead of a father. Although there's no legal precedent for it I am sure some documetation or legal paperwork could be brought together and approved to allow this and to allow Natallie and her new partner to be the legal parents of any child she might have had. He has every right to want to become a father when he's ready (and not when she dictates) but it does seem to be particularly cruel of him under these circumstances. They obviously have not had a terribly amicable split - whenever Natallie talks about him you can almost see the venom in her eyes - and I do wonder if that might have contributed to his absolute stance of denial for her to use them. Maybe things might have been different if they'd remained a bit more friendly towards each other?

Having said that, I do feel that Natallie was a bit obsessive about this. Yes, I do understand her need to be a mother and, even to think of her embyros as her own babies already and be horrified at the thought of destroying them. However I think it must have been fairly obvious from an early stage that no decision on this would ever go her way - legally she didn't have a leg to stand on so it feels like she's been flogging bit of a dead horse on it for a long time. I can't get over thinking she might have been better to mourn the loss of her genetic children, move on and explore other options for becoming a mother, such as donor eggs or adpotion. There's far more to parenthood than genetics, after all. I just think it's very sad she's wasted so much time and energy on this when she could perhaps be a mother already if she'd let it go and moved on. 

C~x


----------



## guava (Apr 17, 2007)

Sorry for the length of this it's just me rambling on & not intended to cause offence to anyone.

The ruling has personally made my stomach churn. Science may have helped mature Natalie's eggs but they were already there to begin with. The bringing together of sperm & egg has natural consequences fertilisation & then if successful an embryo. However it was done the result made an embryo which is natural & not posing a threat to life by merely existing. It should be exposed to the law of nature which dictates an embryo belongs to a womb. As men don't have those it's the mothers, if her intention is to put it in a womb. Which should always be hers if it could be. If the mother doesn't want them implanted then they should be considered an abandoned product. And the father could order their destruction or claim them to be implanted in a surrogate. Surely that would be the 'common sense' decision. We can not forget both parties consented to their creation. The man did not take part for compasionate reasons as he knew the eggs could be stored unfertilised.

Is the embryo property or human life? An embryo seems to be viewed as property. As if it were human life it could have a right to life. But as property how can the reason he gave stand up, as you can't parent property.
If considered human life, because the physical act of fatherhood has taken place. Then his only further part would be parenting, which is a decision to have a psychological relationship/bond with a child already born. No child in the real world has 'the right to know/have a relationship with their father/mother' so this is surely redundant. No relationship could be forced on him. Therefore he will still have the same decision to parent or not. Just withdraw his financial obligation. Finances should not enter into this just as they don't for any ably fertile women. That is to allow discrimination. The state would provide for a child's basic needs, if needs be.

This case seems to be political correctness gone wrong. Nature decided an embryo is the exclusive property of a womb. That is just a fact, people seem to be trying to make a case for it being sexism when it's not. If we allow this surely we should allow any embryo containing a mans DNA who decided he didn't want to be a father to be destroyed on his say so. Can you imagine the public outcry then if ALL WOMEN not just the fertility patient ones faced possibly having their embryos destroyed against their consent.

As far as an embryo having a right to life, I'm not sure. Here's my thoughts though- an embryo could be classed as the purest form of human. It has/can grow so it is living. We know it is likely to grow in the right environment. Do we consider putting it into its natural environment as a heroic measure to save it? To describe embryos as building blocks of human life is surely a bit of false advertising. The building blocks of human life are the egg & the sperm. So isn't an embryo a 'built human' albeit in it's most basic form. Just because we declare our existence as starting the time we were born & declaring that as day 1 does not make it so. We do not live in the dark ages we know day one is fertilisation. I can not believe doctors who are suppose to save life/do no harm can allow this. Though I suppose it figures, these are people who would kill us & rip us from our wombs. And only give us a reprieve when we have reached our 24th wk, even though they already know it's possible to live & be healthy if born at 21 wks. They don't care, it's just a job to them. Plus they have ulterior motives eg. experimenting on/dissecting & using an embryos genetic matter. Just because an embryo is not our image of a living human that does not make it any less so. People exist out there in society today who look nothing like we traditionally consider human, but that does not make them any less so. 

It seems the main reason an embryo is not given rights is to stop them being given constitutional protection. Which could make it illegal not to implant all embryos. And to make continuing a pregnancy enforceable even if a baby born will be terminally ill or the mother could die as a direct result.

Also I'm not clear on the whole an embryo 'not existing ex utero'. We now know it can, hasn't the law been updated yet. Can't an embryo live frozen for decades at least. To 'exist' is what? the potential to continue normal function/grow if so these embryos have that. Why not merely keep the embryos frozen why does the decision of their fate have to be decided now? Surely she must give consent to for them to be allowed to perish. They could be frozen indefinitely why does a decision of destruction have to take place at all while the two are still living & have a claim. Their use is in question not their existence. For all he knows the man may become infertile himself one day & be glad they are there. Or there may be the hope science may one day find a way to remove the mans DNA from them. 

Not bringing a biological child into the world can drive some people to depression/breakdown or suicide etc. (usually women). The inbuilt need to pass on your own genes can be that strong. It ensures continuation of the species at all cost. Counselling is often unable to reprogramme their thinking or allow the person to find a way to cope with the deep instinctual feeling. I feel myself personally that if I knew I would never have my own biological child I would want to be dead already. And that is something no one can change only my own biological child. Genes are a big part of our makeup to be able to pass on your own genes is the possibility to leave your living genes behind even after death & possibly indefinitely. Although adoption or egg donation may give a child to whom you can pass on your knowledge/love etc. it is not the same. It is 'parenting' in the mental relationship sense, although it could be a relationship just as precious as with a biological child. It may not be what your entire being yearns for. For Natalie her fertility was taken by her treatment not by her condition. This must make the potential harm that could be done to her mental state from this ruling even worse. Surely she is having unusual cruelty inflicted on her.

When will man stop trying to decide who has the right to live, we are not Gods & will always make mistakes. Nature decided ONLY a woman/her embryo & her womb can affect the outcome of an embryo. Are we saying nature & our entire existence is wrong? To interfere when the embryos or the carriers physical health is not in danger is to assume the power of God for immoral reasons. No man can have the rite to decide a human embryos future whatsoever while the woman wishes to keep it - that is the law in our society as well as nature. To allow a man to interfere is to give him the power of God. If these were the queens embryos would we even be discussing their destruction!


----------



## Chenoa (Jan 30, 2007)

I think the same as Jennifer.  If they had then been fertilised in the womb, these embryos would now be children. He wouldn't be able to say he wanted them destroyed
because he had split up from this woman.

I feel so sorry for her.


----------

