Ms Evans has still not given up hope
Posted on 03/07/2006 6:46:03 AM PST by NYer
A woman left infertile after cancer treatment cannot use her frozen embryos to have a baby, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
Natallie Evans started IVF treatment with her then partner Howard Johnston in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up.
Ms Evans went to the Strasbourg court after exhausting the UK legal process.
She now hopes to appeal to the Grand Jury of the European Court, but still wants her ex-fiancé to change his mind.
Ms Evans said: "I'm still as determined to do whatever it takes to have a child of my own."
She added: "Howard may feel it's too late for him to change his mind, but it's not."
But Mr Johnston said: "It seems that common sense has prevailed.
"The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family."
But he added: "I'm not thinking about this in terms of a victory."
Ms Evans' legal team had asked the judges to consider whether the UK law, under which her six stored embryos would be destroyed in October this year, was in breach of her human rights.
Right-to-life
In the court's judgement, decided by a panel of seven judges, said: "The Court, like the national courts, had great sympathy for the plight of the applicant who, if implantation did not take place, would be deprived of the ability to give birth to her own child."
But it was ruled, in a majority verdict that, even in such exceptional circumstances as Ms Evans', the right to a family life - enshrined in article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights - could not override Mr Johnston's withdrawal of consent.
It also ruled unanimously that the embryos did not have an independent right to life.
Cancer diagnosis
The UK's Court of Appeal and High Court had both ruled that Ms Evans, who is in her early 30s, could not use the embryos and she failed in her bid to take the case to the House of Lords.
Ms Evans, from Wiltshire, underwent IVF treatment following a diagnosis of ovarian cancer in which the embryos were created and placed in storage.
She has argued that Mr Johnston, from Gloucester, had already consented to their creation, storage and use, and should not be allowed to change his mind.
Current UK laws require both the man and woman to give consent, and allow either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted.
A Department of Health spokeswoman welcomed the European Court judgment.
She said the department recognised the distress caused to Ms Evans during the legal process, and added a review of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which included the issue of the storage of embryos, was currently underway.
'Ticking clock'
Josephine Quintavalle of the pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said of the court's ruling: "It's an inevitable judgement, but a very sad one."
She said Mr Johnston had "become a father" when the embryos were created, and should have compassion for Ms Evans.
But Michael Wilks, of the BMA ethics committee: "It's the right verdict, but a terrible situation."
However Dr Wilks called for a change to the five year limit for embryos to be stored after one partner withdraws consent should be extended so there was less of a "ticking clock".
DONUM VITAE Vatican document - Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation.
Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Bump!
Correct.
I agree. But, if having the children was all that mattered to her, why does she not agree to absolve Mr. Johnson of any parental right and responsibilities? That would include his having to provide and/or pay child support. As long as she holds a financial axe over his head, he will probably never agree. There is more to this case than meets the eye.
Over here many courts have held that one parent can't absolve another of responsibility because the support is the right of the child, and a parent can't give that away. The laws are probably the same or more strict over there.
I'm guessing that the law in UK is similiar to what it is in this country. Parents cannot contract to deny a child his/her legal, common law right to support by a parent.
"Brave New World."
Men can have abortions too, sometimes. That right trumps all. Prayers that this man will relent.
Mrs VS
Well, that's absolutely correct. Every child has a right to the support of his mother and father, and one parent can't "release" the other parent from this obligation TO THE CHILD.
But the child also has the right to parents who are securely and durably committed to him through being married to each other. Marriage is the relationship that forms the basis of family life, the birthright of every child. How is it that unmarried people have the legal "right" to procreate in-vitro children to begin with?
If we took children's rights seriously, we would have a much different view of out-of-wedlock sexual relations.
And as for IVF: it should be abolished. It turns the procreation of children into a laboratory procedure and a commercial transaction; it degrades the child, who is increasingly seen, not as a person, but as a product and a possession, to be fabricated, bought and sold, sorted and stored, traded, treasured, or destroyed.
*************
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Since Ms. Evans can no longer have children, I think it should be possible - if she married - for her husband to adopt the "children" - that is, be declared the father.
Exactly why the Church has its position on this technology. It's a Pandora's Box.
Our courts take the same view regarding "right to life" and so-called non-viable fetal tissue. Wasn't there a New Jersey case of a divorce with embryos still outstanding. One wanted to donate them, the other refused... something like that?
That would require the biological father to sign over rights. He may or may not do it. His reasoning my be motivated by more than simple financial considerations although I have to assume they play a part.
"In this particular case, this was a New Jersey couple, that, when they were married, were trying to have a child and had embryos created. They ended up having a child on their own and then divorced. This supreme court decision, which was unanimous, 7-0, said that the mother, who wanted to have these embryos destroyed after her divorce from her husband, was in fact able to do that. The husband wanted to keep the embryos in place so that perhaps his sister could have these children."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.