Frozen embryos

[Jaggy Bunnet]

A woman is going to the European Court to ask them to overrule a decision that she cannot use embryos created from her egg and her former partners sperm without his consent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4263789.stm

Any thoughts on the ethics of this?

I think the courts so far have got it right, consent of both parties should be required and should be capable of being withdrawn. Thought there was an interesting inconsistency:

"If the UK law says that Howard can change his mind at any time, then Natallie feels that the law is unfair and breaches her human rights."

"It gives a man an absolute veto, which outside of the world of IVF and fertility treatment he would not enjoy."

&

"She cannot understand that the law requires them to be destroyed when they represent her last chance to have a natural child of her own."

So giving her a chance to have children which she would not have without IVF is acceptable, but it is wrong to give her partner something he would not have outside of IVF treatment (ability to withdraw consent).

I think the fact that his consent was given within the framework of legislation that specifically required consent at all stages (i.e. not just when the embryos are created) means it would be a greater breach of his rights to allow them to be used without his consent.

 

[kimiko]

"It gives a man an absolute veto, which outside of the world of IVF and fertility treatment he would not enjoy."

So giving her a chance to have children which she would not have without IVF is acceptable, but it is wrong to give her partner something he would not have outside of IVF treatment (ability to withdraw consent).

I think reproductive decisions should be mutual and both parties have a veto, and the only reason I err on letting the woman make the decision after conception is because it happens in her body. In this case, the embryos aren't inside her, so they should both maintain their right to refuse consent. Biology is discriminatory in a natural conception, but when we've gone beyond that through technology we must keep it as fair as possible, not as natural as possible. Restricting him to what choices he would have otherwise is a cop-out.

I'm surprised they didn't freeze unfertilized eggs; I've heard of people freezing gametes if they have to undergo cancer therapies that might leave them sterile.

 

[richardm]

I think it's absolutely right that both parties should have a say in these circumstances.

And for a quick derail: If it's possible to freeze and defrost embryos in such a way that cell damage doesn't occur, why are problems in freezing held up to be a reason that cryogenically frozen fully-developed humans can't be restarted?

 

[Bruce]

Frozen embroyos are considered a delicacy in some galaxies.


I prefer mine scrambled.

 

[Dragonrock]

I look at it this way: Right now, at this time, the man is not a father. He does not wish to be a father. By carrying the embryos she would make him a father against his will.

 

[Mojo]

Another consideration is that, as the biological father, the former partner would be liable to pay child support under current UK law, whether he wants the child or not.

 

[jj]

Another consideration is that, as the biological father, the former partner would be liable to pay child support under current UK law, whether he wants the child or not.

Now that's a different issue, but a very important one. I wonder if that's his objection?

(I'm not denying that he ought to be able to raise it.)

I presume that it's like at least some states in the USA, where even if the two parties agree he's not liable he can be held liable?

There have been cases here of people trying to find and sue sperm donors for paternity. Talk about stupid!