A case of Frozen Embryos-The 21st century is in FULL SWING

[Khayr]

I heard about this the other day on the radio...

 

Court rules couple must agree on use of embryos

By Dan Bilefsky International Herald Tribune WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2006

 

BRUSSELS In a landmark ruling Tuesday that will reverberate in bedrooms across Europe, a British woman whose ovaries were removed when doctors discovered symptoms of cancer lost a legal battle to have children using embryos fertilized by an ex-partner who decided that he did not want her to have his offspring. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg rejected the argument of Natallie Evans, 35, that her human rights had been violated by British court rulings that asserted the right of her former fiancé, Howard Johnston, to prevent her from using the frozen embryos. Judges in Britain had ruled that both a man and a woman must give their consent at every stage of the in vitro fertilization process, including the storage and implantation of fertilized eggs. The European court upheld these rulings, arguing that even in such exceptional circumstances as Evans's, the right to have a family - enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights - could not override Johnston's withdrawal of his consent. The court said that it was up to national law to define when the right to life began and that under British law an embryo did not have an independent right to life. Legal and medical experts said that although there was still no clear common ground in Europe on the issues raised by the Evans case, the ruling gave credence to the principle that parental rights trump those of the embryos they create. They said it also helped solidify the principle that both parents must consent before an embryo can be used. Dr. Michael Wilks, chairman of the British Medical Association's ethics committee, said, however, that the patchwork of legal and medical regulations in Europe meant that the ruling should not be construed as a precedent. "A British fetus would not be considered in the same way as an Italian fetus might be considered," he said. But he added that the case raised the global issue of what safeguards should be maintained by in vitro fertilization programs in the event that relations between partners sour. The case began in 2000 when Evans and Johnston sought fertility treatment in Bath, southwest England. Evans had been diagnosed with a pre-cancerous condition of her ovaries. Before having her ovaries removed, she and Johnston undertook in vitro fertilization and created six embryos that were frozen for storage. The embryos are the only remaining hope of motherhood for Evans. But months later, when Evans and Johnston separated, he withdrew his consent for the embryos to be used, arguing that he wanted neither the emotional nor the financial responsibility of being father to a child he would not raise. Evans appealed to the British courts to allow her to use the embryos, arguing that Johnston's failure to grant his permission violated her right to a family life and the embryos' right to life. She further contended that the refusal to grant her use of the embryos discriminated against her in comparison to women who can conceive naturally, since their male partners cannot withdraw consent to birth once the embryo is created. But Britain's Court of Appeals ruled against her in 2004, saying that both partners had to agree before embryos were used and that an ex-fiancé was entitled to withdraw his or her consent before implantation. Speaking after the ruling, Evans said she was disappointed and would appeal. "Please, Howard, just think about what you are doing to me," she said. Johnston said in a news conference broadcast on Sky that he felt "nothing." "The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family," he said. Wilks said he had sympathy for Evans's plight. But he added: "We believe it is crucial that both partners have given their permission to become parents before frozen embryos are used." The European Court of Human Rights rules on violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. Governments that signed the convention guarantee their citizens basic standards of civil liberties.

Source

[-Lily-]

Well while people can appreciate her pain, simply speaking motherhood is a privelige, it is not a right. It was quiet a big deal in the national press here but the prodominant view was that she shouldn't be allowed to have the babies.

 

It's disturbing to use embryos as insurance.

[Socod_badne]

Kheyr,

 

What's your take on the issue of Stem Cells and embryos? Pontificate away but stick to the subject. Meaning, don't mention Western Secularism, the earth is flat or any of your favourite subjects. Thank you.