The Scotsman - Opinion
Friday 20th Sept 2002.
AN EXTRAORDINARY, unprecedented legal action began
at the English High Courtís Family Division yesterday, as lawyers acting
for Natallie Evans and Lorraine Hadley began their fight to win access to
their frozen embryos. It promises to be a painful affair when the case is
heard in full in the new year.
Both women have split up from the partners, whose sperm fertilised their eggs. The men now want the embryos destroyed. Under the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, if one party withdraws consent to the storage of frozen embryos, then the law requires them to be destroyed. The women will argue that this conflicts with their human rights.
They will say they are being discriminated against because they can only become pregnant through IVF treatment. Each will argue that if she had become pregnant naturally, then her ex-partner would have no right of veto.
Ms Hadley, who has a daughter from a previous relationship, underwent an unsuccessful course of treatment with her husband, Wayne, before they split up. Had she become pregnant then, Mr Hadley would have had no say legally.
Ms Evans lost her ovaries to cancer, and has battled back to health. Her relationship with her fiancÈ, Howard Johnston, broke up before she could start IVF treatment. She will remain childless, unless she scores a legal victory, or Mr Johnston relents.
Only Mr Hadley has commented. He has since become a father, and has had no desire for his child to be born to his ex-wife so long after their relationship ended. What damage, he asked, would a child suffer born in these circumstances?
This is a case of conflicting human rights, a minefield. Should men enter into a contract binding for life, to allow the woman access to the embryos whenever she wants, when they agree to IVF treatment? Should each case be judged on its merits?
All these are questions for another time. But they underline the complex issues which technological advances throw up. There are no easy answers.
Both women have split up from the partners, whose sperm fertilised their eggs. The men now want the embryos destroyed. Under the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, if one party withdraws consent to the storage of frozen embryos, then the law requires them to be destroyed. The women will argue that this conflicts with their human rights.
They will say they are being discriminated against because they can only become pregnant through IVF treatment. Each will argue that if she had become pregnant naturally, then her ex-partner would have no right of veto.
Ms Hadley, who has a daughter from a previous relationship, underwent an unsuccessful course of treatment with her husband, Wayne, before they split up. Had she become pregnant then, Mr Hadley would have had no say legally.
Ms Evans lost her ovaries to cancer, and has battled back to health. Her relationship with her fiancÈ, Howard Johnston, broke up before she could start IVF treatment. She will remain childless, unless she scores a legal victory, or Mr Johnston relents.
Only Mr Hadley has commented. He has since become a father, and has had no desire for his child to be born to his ex-wife so long after their relationship ended. What damage, he asked, would a child suffer born in these circumstances?
This is a case of conflicting human rights, a minefield. Should men enter into a contract binding for life, to allow the woman access to the embryos whenever she wants, when they agree to IVF treatment? Should each case be judged on its merits?
All these are questions for another time. But they underline the complex issues which technological advances throw up. There are no easy answers.
