Was justice done for Natallie Evans?
We can only sympathise with the plight of Natallie Evans following the by the Grand Chamber of the European Court. Natallie is unable to have children by natural means, following treatment for ovarian cancer in 2001.
She and her former partner Howard Johnston began IVF treatment that year, and six embryos were created. These embryos remain frozen and in storage. But they will soon be destroyed following today's judgment. Because this couple ended their relationship in 2002 and Howard wrote to the IVF clinic to inform them that he no longer wished the embryos to be implanted. Under UK law, either partner may remove consent up to the point of implantation. In the absence of consent from both, no implantation can take place and the embryos should be destoyed.
Natallie's lawyers argued that this is her last chance to become a mother. She could, of course, seek to adopt children, but she longs desperately to have these embryos implanted so that she can give birth to her own children.
Today's decision does not set a new legal precedent; it merely applies the law. The law clearly enforces a shared responsibility up to the point of implantation in IVF cases. But I'm sure I am not the only person to wonder about the fairness of this outcome. If Natallie Evans had become pregnant in the more traditional way then ended her relationship during the gestation period, the law would protect her desire to continue with the pregnancy -- even against her former partner's wishes. Why, then, should she not be permitted to have these embryos implanted even though Howard no longer wishes to become a parent with her?
Comments
At last a voice raised in support of this poor woman. I've been listening to radio all day with people tellig her to get over herself. You've made a cogent case here. I regret that most of the judges today did not vote to support Natallie. She has lost her chance to become a mother. Howard can still become a father. He has taken that chance of parenting from his former partner. He is a decent man and I do not wish to attack him personally, I just wish he would reconsider his decision and give Natallie the chance to have the children they planned together.
Sad for this lady, but it takes two to tango. Although it is perfectly natural to want one's own biological offspring, these days we are far too hung up on the notion, and (dare I say it) it harks back to a time when the notion of heredity was something spooky and paranormal, instead of genetic information. What's more important - the precise DNA sequence that a person inherits, or the nurture and support of a loving family? Both are important.
William, in the "hypothetical" (yet real) scenario you envisaged, where the couple split while the female partner is pregnant, the male partner would still be liable for child maintenance payments. Are we legally quite clear whether Mr Johnston would have been liable? Or if he wished access, what his rights would have been then?
The lesson in this for couples in a similar scenario is to get some of your eggs fertilised with *anonymous donor* sperm, prior to freezing the embryos.
Or to bring in reproductive cloning...
Oh, and incidentally, she *can* become a mother via ovum donation or via adoption. The focus on the biological seems (to me anyway) to denigrate the *main* functions of motherhood, which are to look after and raise a child (as for fatherhood).
I don't know about justice but I think it is probably for the better.
Ovarian cancer is a very difficult disease to combat. There is a very high risk that the children would be left motherless at a rather young age which would be a worse tragedy for both them and their mother than the tragic circumstances being experienced by Ms. Evans at the moment.
Michael
So far I have not heard anyone authoritative officialy defending the law. Certainly situations like this were contemplated when the law was written and enacted. Has anyone interviewed any of the lawmakers. Some of them must still be speaking and breathing although having seen some proceedings of both houses of Parliament on TV it is questionable as to whether or not any of them were actually ever alive.
I've also not heard either the Anglican or Catholic Church weigh in on this issue. I'd think this is one time the Church would agree with the mother. After all, don't they consider those embryos human beings? Don't they argue that human life begins at conception? Isn't that why some theologians oppose stem cell research even though the embryos comprise only a few cells at the time the stem cells are harvested. Do frozen embryo's have souls?
Personally I come down on the side of the father and the law. Were these embryos to be brought to term, they would become children of a broken home. The father also had rights once his own DNA and potential responsibility for their care became an inseparable part of the equation. Why doesn't the woman adopt if she wants to be a mother? But I am open to reconsidering if someone can make a persuasive non theological case for the opposite.
The Catholic church's position on embryos (shared with some of the more extreme elements of Protestantism) is clear (and wrong): embryos are regarded as little people.
One problem with this absolutist view is that it elevates the *description* "human life" above what it is supposed to describe - a classic case of the fallacy of reification. As a result, what it *means* to be human is reduced to the merely biological process of cellular metabolism and growth. This is hardly sensible.
The argument is something like this: embryos are "life", and they are certainly "human", therefore they are "human life". A child is "human life", and deserves full protection, therefore so do embryos.
Such a view is a major ethical error - under such a definition, a sperm cell or an egg cell would be "human life" - even a skin cell in culture would be. In the meantime, such (fallacious) ethical "controversies" are hindering stem cell research, and people like the insufferable Quintavalles are interviewed every time there is a whiff of an "ethical" concern, and their views are given equal weight (or greater) to those of the real experts.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that Natallie was rather young to develop ovarian cancer,
and there is at least a risk that she may have a genetic
predisposition to such cancers, and any resultant children
may themselves be at risk. Not a huge risk, but at least a
concern.
William:
your argument is not a good one when you compare the case of natural conception to this. In natural conception both parties are aware that in the event of conception the woman will have the choice whether or not to continue it. In this case both entered an agreement that consent from both parties was necessary for each step. It's a different situation entirely. Why is it unfair for the law to enforce an agreement that two people entered voluntarily, knowing full well the conditions?
This decision was proper, moral and fair.
SG
If I were in that situation, and a former husband wanted to take the embryos and (by use of a surrogate) have children, I'd feel that that would have to be a joint decision.
If I objected to his plan, and as I've divorced the hypothetical so-and-so I may well have some objection, I'd feel free to refuse consent.
I think I feel like that because I agree with Natalie, I think there is something special about my biological offspring. And because I feel that bond, I couldn't be content to have my children brought up in a family situation that I wasn't happy about (given that I had a choice in the matter.)
Even though I agree with the court's decision, I feel very sorry for Natalie.
A woman can choose to kill her unborn baby regardless of the father's view.
But is a man is not allowed to do the same thing in this IVF case?
Is our technology outstripping the ability of our characters to cope with it?
PB
SO ... pb is now defending a man's right to kill an unborn child?
This situation has some complexities that merit further examination.
When Natallie decided with Howard to begin IVF treatment, they both understood that this would be her last chance to have a child of her own. Howard agreed on those terms to go ahead with the treatment. They discussed the possibility of the relationship ending, because Natallie was concerned that she would not be able to try this procedure in the future, after her cancer treatment. Howard told her an end to their relationsip was very unlikely and brushed aside her concerns. He thus discouraged Natallie from seeking donor sperm elsewhere.
A year later, the relationship ended and he withdrew consent.
Natallie's lawyers have made it clear that Howard would be under absolutely no legal or financial liability in respect of the child that would be born. He can walk away from this situation without any change to his life. All that would happen if he gave his consent is that Natallie would be able to have a child.
Doctors for Natallie, in response to an earlier comment, say she and her potential children would have no greater risks of disability or death than the ordinary cases of IVF.
Natallie has much more to lose in this situation than Howard, who has nothing at all to lose. I don't understand why he is maintaining his stance.
dumb dumb, interesting choice of name ;-)
...just pointing out the contradictions and the apparent cause of same...
PB
Test to bring back disappering comments.
Hmmm the 'preview' trick works! Interesting!
Michael
william - since when was forcing a man to have a child against his will, flying in the face of an informed, legally binding mutual agreement, a good example of "fair"?
Sheesh!
Pete.
Claire Greenstock #11
The woman does not have an inalienable right to bear children. Had this been as serious an issue with her when it first came up as it is now, she'd have done well to have seen a lawyer to have the father sign a binding contract. She doesn't seem to have any problem finding lawyers now.
Speaking of lawyers, neither they nor the mother can give away the financial obligation of the father to child support. Only a court can do that. The theory of child support is that the money is given to the child, not the parent. The parent is only there to see to it that the money is used in the child's best interest. If she were to become a mother from one of these embryos and was financially destitute, it wouldn't matter how many disclaimers she or her lawyers had signed waiving rights to child support, the court could still impose it on the father.
Are you suggesting that the law should be ignored because of sympathies for the mother? She can still always adopt...if an adoption agency finds she is fit to be a mother, a test she would not have to pass if she were simply to give birth or to have her embryos implanted.
Claire Greenstock #11
The woman does not have an inalienable right to bear children. Had this been as serious an issue with her when it first came up as it is now, she'd have done well to have seen a lawyer to have the father sign a binding contract. She doesn't seem to have any problem finding lawyers now.
Speaking of lawyers, neither they nor the mother can give away the financial obligation of the father to child support. Only a court can do that. The theory of child support is that the money is given to the child, not the parent. The parent is only there to see to it that the money is used in the child's best interest. If she were to become a mother from one of these embryos and was financially destitute, it wouldn't matter how many disclaimers she or her lawyers had signed waiving rights to child support, the court could still impose it on the father.
Are you suggesting that the law should be ignored because of sympathies for the mother? She can still always adopt...if an adoption agency finds she is fit to be a mother, a test she would not have to pass if she were simply to give birth or to have her embryos implanted.
It's a good point to raise that if Howard found a new Mrs, and they decided to implant the embryos in *her*, there would not even be this debate.
Although this is sad, and an unusual case, the degree of distress involved is not in any way unusual. Hundreds of thousands of couples in the UK endure the pain of infertility; the newsworthiness of this case is not the pain, but the ethics and legality of an unusual situation.
So while everyone I'm sure feels a great deal of sympathy for Natallie, her pain is not worse than that of anyone else, and sometimes the Right thing to do is to say No, even though you say it with a heavy heart.
(BTW, these are embryos, NOT "unborn children).
In the leader to this discussion, William wrote: "..she longs desperately to have these embryos implanted so that she can give birth to her own children."
That is a misleading comment since the children would not just be "her" children; they would be the children of both Natallie and Howard. The proper term is "their" children. Since their relationship has broken down, it is sadly no longer possible to proceed with the implant since Howard has refused his consent.
Both parties in this situation have equal rights. If either of them had withdrawn their consent, the outcome would have been the same. It just so happens that the refusal has come from Howard.
The present situation is not all gloom. Natallie still has choices: she could apply to adopt a child; she could live childless and work with children; or she could wait to see if medical advances will bring her another chance. She should put her failed relationship with Howard behind her and get on with her life.
Being discussed now
coach faux purse on The Final Word on The Duh Vinci Code
coach faux purse on The Mother of All Liturgies
coach faux purse on Tony and the Sacred Thread
coach faux purse on The Latex Papacy (part 2)
coach faux purse on Why truth matters
Will, I think the ´óÏó´«Ã½ blog needs to be moderated. It is being destroyed by nonsense. Also comments are still not appearing in the thread. The Preview trick is sometimes the only way I can see all of the comments.
Regards,
Michael