Thread: Fight for cancer woman to use embryos fertilised by ex-partner

Oh my lord how one sided can they get. The embryos fate is being determined by one partner is descriminatory is it then explain abortion.
He should not be allowed to withdraw his consent. Then women shouldn't be able to withdraw their consent for sex after the fact.

Fortunately she lost.

Woman Seeking Frozen Embryos Loses Case

Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:49 AM EDT

STRASBOURG, FRANCE — A British woman left infertile after being treated for ovarian cancer has no right to frozen embryos against the wishes of her former fiance, who provided the sperm, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Tuesday.

The court's Grand Chamber, a panel of 17 European judges, confirmed a lower court ruling upholding a British law that stipulates consent from both parents is needed at every stage of the in vitro fertilization process.
Tuesday's verdict cannot be appealed, and the frozen embryos will be destroyed.

The court said it felt "great sympathy" for Natalie Evans, but ruled that her desire to become a parent should not be accorded greater weight than her former fiance's right not to have a genetically related child with her.
Evans, 35, was left infertile after receiving treatment for cancer, but in 2001, prior to the removal of her ovaries, six of her eggs were fertilized by Howard Johnston's sperm through in vitro fertilization.

The couple then split up, and Johnston withdrew his consent for her to use the embryos. Evans took him to a British court, but judges there rejected her legal appeals to implant an embryo, saying consent from both partners was needed and ordering the destruction of the embryos.

Evans claimed the British law breached her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. She said her right to privacy and family life, and the embryo's right to life, were being violated by Johnston's refusal to grant permission for use of his sperm. She had also argued his attempt to prevent her from having the baby was discriminatory.

But the court said there was no violation of the convention, and upheld its earlier ruling that said it was up to national law to define when the right to life began. Under British law an embryo does not have independent rights or interests.

"I am distraught at the court's decision today. It's very hard for me to accept that the embryos will now be destroyed and that I will never become a mother," Evans said in a statement.

Johnston said that, while he sympathized with Evans, he was relieved that "common sense has prevailed."

"I want to be able to choose when I become a parent," he said.
The European court requested a stay of an order to destroy the embryos in February 2005 while it considered Evans' case.

Link.

Finaly a mans reproductive rights were protected. It amazes me that that stupid femm was so crass as to think that he should have no say in the matter and let's hope that this stupid femm will not realise she could adopt or talk some other femm into giving her an egg.

The court said it felt "great sympathy" for Natalie Evans, but ruled that her desire to become a parent should not be accorded greater weight than her former fiance's right not to have a genetically related child with her.

Well, that has to be a rare occurence, a womans "desire" isn't accorded greater weight then the rights of a man.

I'd like to see that concept enshrined in law "the desires of women shall not supersede the rights of men."

Amen brother amen.

I'm quite shocked at two things:

1) Common sense did not come to this woman at an earlier time (i.e. she continued fighting & fighting and)

2) As with others, that her 'wishes' were not somehow considered superior to those of a man...

Can you imagine, had she won, guess who would be paying C$A for the next 16-21 yrs..

Here is a good article about this case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1787

The court was right to stop Natallie becoming a mother

The moment Natallie Evans broke down, having just heard that her embryos would be destroyed and would never become the beloved child she dreamed of, her pain was clear for all to see.
But perhaps more clear for those of us who, like Natallie, have also struggled to have a child, who like her have battled through years of disappointment, only one ghastly day to have to accept the truth - that we will never be a mother.

I too have known the depths of that darkness, and have some idea of the pain ahead for her: the loitering by Baby Gap, the lingering glances into baby buggies, the bitter-sweet smile at mums at the school gate.
If anyone should be her champion, it should be me. But I know that the heartbreak verdict was the right one.
The decision not to allow this young woman to use her frozen embryos was truly a terrible tragedy for Natallie. But it was the only decision the courts could come to.
Why? Because had the European Court of Human Rights supported Ms Evans's claim to an inalienable right to motherhood, it would have legislated men out of fatherhood ... and legislated fathers out of families.
In other words, it would have set in law the right of a woman to use a man as nothing more than a means of having a baby - irrespective of the father's wishes or, indeed, the future needs of the child.
The case of Natallie Evans is a tragedy in three parts, starting five years ago when, at just 29, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer.
She and her partner Howard Johnston began IVF treatment in order that, after her ovaries were removed, she would still be able to have their child. Six of the couple's fertilised embryos were frozen and stored.
Then a year later, tragedy struck again when she and her fiancÈ split up. Mr Johnston wrote to the clinic where the embryos were stored and asked for them to be destroyed.
He was within his rights to do so, since British law sensibly requires both partners to give consent before an IVF pregnancy can progress - up to the point at which the embryo is implanted.
The end to the tragedy for Ms Evans came yesterday when the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously against her.
"I am distraught at the court's decision," she said afterwards. "It is very hard for me to accept the embryos will be destroyed and that I will never become a mother." Her pain was palpable.
The rather private Mr Johnston's response was typically understated: "I feel common sense has prevailed." And indeed it has.
Had the court not effectively found in favour of the father, the ruling would have had the most serious consequences for the future of IVF law and for the likelihood of men getting involved in this harrowing procedure at all.
Those who have undertaken IVF will know that the process is desperately traumatic. Putting aside for a moment the physical price a woman pays, the emotional toll, especially on women but also on men, is incalculable.
So much is at stake when you are in the last chance saloon of parenthood. Most couples require three cycles of IVF before it is successful - if it is successful. Sometimes it takes years to get pregnant.
Just imagine how much more reluctant men would be to go through with it all if they knew that the moment they handed over their sperm there could be no turning back.
But it is not just IVF that this ruling concerns - the very notion of fatherhood itself was at stake.
Throughout this ordeal, it has been impossible not to feel utmost sympathy for Ms Evans, desperate to have her own baby and prepared to spend more than five years fighting for that chance, first through the British then the European courts.
Yet at her Press conference yesterday after the court's decision, Miss Evans - newly blonde and fashionably bobbed - insisted on "my right to be a mother".
It seems that beneath the talk of shattered dreams lies a determination to exercise this "right", whatever the consequences.
A year ago she was saying "I'm still as determined as ever" as she demanded of her former fiancÈ Howard: "Just let me have what I want."
What is so disturbing about Miss Evans's argument is that it is always a case of her rights. She wants a right to motherhood. A right to a child by a man who wants nothing more to do with her. A right to raise that child without a father.
Thank heavens the courts saw sanity and considered that fathers, too, have rights, as do the children involved in such cases.
Far from being the heartless person Miss Evans would portray him as, Howard Johnston has always been steadfast in his refusal to father a child he would neither see nor care for.
He has said that he "could not countenance" the idea of bringing a child into the world when he knew he would not be able to fulfil his role as father.
At a time when one of the greatest threats to the stability of our society is the breakdown of marriages and the absence of fathers - a threat now recognised even by the liberal Left - surely this is the sensible approach.
And however often Ms Evans publicly reassured Mr Johnston that she sought no financial support for herself or the child, that is a guarantee no one can offer.
How can she possibly know what her financial situation will be in ten or 20 years? Or that of her child?
And how condescending it is to Mr Johnston for Miss Evans to assume he would want to waive his duties to his offspring anyway.
Any decent man would want to take care of his child - and by all accounts Mr Johnston is an honourable man.
Let us not forget, in this world where feral, feckless fathers grab the headlines, that most men are decent and desperate to take care of their children. Most do not want to be sidelined, legally or practically, from their upbringing.
As Baroness Ruth Deech, the former head of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, warned: "The danger with this advanced science of IVF is that men are gradually being cast aside, reduced to a sort of genetic blob, and having done their duty in the laboratory they are no longer necessary."
There is no doubt Howard Johnston will be vilified by feminists for standing up for fathers' rights.
As a society, we find it easy to empathise with Ms Evans and her desperate bid to be a mother, often overlooking the harrowing half decade this young man has spent quietly and with great dignity defending what he believed was right.
When Ms Evans lost her appeal in the British courts last year, the Guardian led the feminist charge against Mr Johnston. "He loved her once. How can he deny her this chance?" asked one of its columnists.
The sisterhood shrieked: "Howard Johnston may have the law on his side, but does he have a heart?"
From the evidence of his courage and steadfast behaviour over this very difficult court case, I would suggest that he has. And painful though I know it must be for Natallie Evans, the European Court made the right decision.

Because had the European Court of Human Rights supported Ms Evans's claim to an inalienable right to motherhood, it would have legislated men out of fatherhood ... and legislated fathers out of families.

Which is what feminism has fanatically strived for since the early 70's, the legal and physical isolation of the father, leaving only a financial obligation to a child/ren he'll rarely if ever see.