Woman loses appeal over frozen embryos

drkpower · 16-12-2009 01:36AM

Annie; if you had an ill-fated dalliance with the Jehovah's witnesss faith in 2002 and signed an advance directive stating you did not want blood in the event of an emergency, do you think you should be allowed to revoke that consent in 2009 when you are no longer of the JW faith?

anniehoo · 16-12-2009 01:44AM

Ah drkpower c'mooon i cant be the only one ...seriously???? You're not stickin me in with the "weirdo" lot after this thread are ya

Im shockin myself here as i still havent changed my opinion and id normally be sittin on the fence with most things.

Alanstrainor · 16-12-2009 01:53AM

I have to say i agree with the majority here, the woman is mad to think that she has a right to use the remaining embryos to have more kids. They both agreed to use IVF treatment to have one child the first time around. Not to have more kids 7 years down the line when they are separated.

drkpower · 16-12-2009 01:57AM

anniehoo wrote: »

Ah drkpower c'mooon i cant be the only one ...seriously???? You're not stickin me in with the "weirdo" lot after this thread are ya

Im shockin myself here as i still havent changed my opinion and id normally be sittin on the fence with most things.

If you cant see my analogy and you cant answer the question, Im not surprised you havent changed your opinion.

TimTim · 16-12-2009 02:00AM

My understanding is the IVF was done for the purpose of having one child which they did and since they seperated afterwards she can't use the remaining embryos without his consent which I'd tend to agree with.

What I've found really interesting is the supreme court giving defining partly what 'unborn' is considered to be. Now that we have no laws on IVF and since these embryos don't have a physical attachment to the mother they aren't considered unborn and therefore have no protection under the consitution or the law because they are no laws for situations like this.

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing stopping anyone now doing research on embryos for stem cells etc in Ireland. Will be interesting on seeing what the govt do about that.

anniehoo · 16-12-2009 02:05AM

drkpower wrote: »

If you cant see my analogy and you cant answer the question, Im not surprised you havent changed your opinion.

I dont know why you're comparing the Jehovahs Witnesses non-blood donation receiving belief-thingy to this "debate" thats why i cant answer. Its no where near the the same..at all!!!!

Kelda09 · 16-12-2009 02:06AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

The point is they are no longer together and he doesn't want anymore children with this woman...2002 is a long time ago in their relationship and in this case the man certainly has the right to withdraw his consent to have children with a woman he is no longer with.

Totally aggree namloc1980. Im so glad with the result, if the ex consented, then fine, but jesus she sounds like shes a few sandwiches short of a picnic tbh. It's pretty much like saying to a woman 'you aggreed to have a baby in '02, you cant change your mind now'. could you imagine the reaction if that happened!

Bottle_of_Smoke · 16-12-2009 02:14AM

People keep focusing on the money but if a child was created he could well want to support it; his own flesh and blood.

He simply didn't want a child with this woman and for this situation to arise. Delighted with the supreme court's ruling.

OutlawPete · 16-12-2009 02:25AM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

He simply didn't want a child with this woman and for this situation to arise. Delighted with the supreme court's ruling.

Quite right.

The embryos are not hers to do as she wishes with.

If the shoe was on the other foot and HE wanted them to use with a surrogate mother, then the case would not have even got this far.

kumate_champ07 · 16-12-2009 02:31AM

Im glad he won, men usually always lose any case in relation to 'children', its a win for Irish men!

If the kid was born would he have the ability to withstand really cold weather unclothed? must be weird bein frozen and not knowing if your gonna be put in a vadge or just binned

The_Minister · 16-12-2009 02:35AM

davyjose wrote: »

Ex-Husband's a prick. He could have easily green-lighted this and had nothing more to do with it.

Or she could have sued him for maintenance, as she intended.

K-9 · 16-12-2009 02:43AM

The test for this is just applying the case the other way round!

It's that simple. If you agree with the father having the same rights and using a surrogate mother, fair enough. If not but you side with her, why?

OutlawPete · 16-12-2009 02:43AM

The_Minister wrote: »

Or she could have sued him for maintenance, as she intended.

Did she? I missed that. What a bast*rd.

I can't understand anyone that thinks she should have got them.

16-12-2009 02:45AM

The_Minister wrote: »

Tbh, I'm glad she failed. I don't think it was fair on the husband that he should have to pay maintenance for a child he didn't want or create.

Of course, thousands of men have to do the same when a woman falls pregnant naturally - only women have the right to choose.

K-9 · 16-12-2009 02:45AM

The_Minister wrote: »

Or she could have sued him for maintenance, as she intended.

Bunny boiler type then.

johnny_knoxvile · 16-12-2009 09:53AM

HB are bringing out a frozen embryo ice lolly in responce to the interest in this case. Nyom!

Zulu · 16-12-2009 10:11AM

I'm delighted for him.
What she was proposing to do was preposterous.

I hope she got smacked up with the legal fees?

spank_inferno · 16-12-2009 10:13AM

This case is kind of odd.
The woman lost in the high court and then took it to the Supreme court.

The reason I think its odd is the considerable cost this would have been.
Having a case go through both courts must cost many thousands of euro for both parties.

So why would he drag her estranged husband through that?
Both parties may have been wealthy enough or there must have been a considerable emnity between them.

Anyway I think the court made the right decision.
An un-implanted embryo is not a life.... it he the possibility of life subject to a sucessfull implantation.

IV treatement always tries to create a surplus of embryos if the initial implantation attempts failed.

They were sucessfull so the extra empryos were surplus to requirements.

That the man would have had to pay for this extra child without consent would have been wrong.

drkpower · 16-12-2009 10:25AM

anniehoo wrote: »

I dont know why you're comparing the Jehovahs Witnesses non-blood donation receiving belief-thingy to this "debate" thats why i cant answer. Its no where near the the same..at all!!!!

It is the same in the context that I raised it in.
If you consent to something in 2002, are you entitled to revoke that consent in 2009. You appear to think not but Im not entirely sure as you havent answered the question yet.

You wonder why your opinion hasnt changed, yet then you seem incapable of thinking about the subject; that is probably the reason.

dearg lady · 16-12-2009 11:01AM

drkpower wrote: »

Annie; if you had an ill-fated dalliance with the Jehovah's witnesss faith in 2002 and signed an advance directive stating you did not want blood in the event of an emergency, do you think you should be allowed to revoke that consent in 2009 when you are no longer of the JW faith?

anniehoo wrote: »

I dont know why you're comparing the Jehovahs Witnesses non-blood donation receiving belief-thingy to this "debate" thats why i cant answer. Its no where near the the same..at all!!!!

Annie, I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to make the connection between the question asked by drk and the topic at hand. He's not suggesting you're a jehovahs witness, the point is, if you made a conscious decision and signed an agreement in 2002(to go through with IVF OR to not recieve a blood transfusion) and 7 year later changed your mind, would you feel the original documenatation still stood, and you wouldn't be entitle to change your mind?

I'm with the majority here, both parties would need to agree now for this to go ahead. I just hope the govt legislates for this kind of thing in the future.

rumour · 16-12-2009 11:07AM

anniehoo wrote: »

Potential parents entering into IVF are made aware that none or multiple embryos may be created thats why it shouldnt be entered into lightly by anybody. So, id be fairly sure thats theres no "tick the box" to the amount of embryos fertilised as its the luck of the draw tbh. The "luck of the draw" being ..you will end up with "no babies" or being "jon and kate plus 8"

Can I put this another way, what if the mother wants them destroyed and the father doesn't. Furthermore the father now departed from the relationship wants to force this particular woman to be the mother of his desired children again.

Do you believe she should be forced to do this?

seamus · 16-12-2009 11:21AM

rumour wrote: »

Can I put this another way, what if the mother wants them destroyed and the father doesn't. Furthermore the father now departed from the relationship wants to force this particular woman to be the mother of his desired children again.

Do you believe she should be forced to do this?

Or to be a little fairer, imagine the father came along and decided he wanted his new girlfriend to be a surrogate mother to the children, but his ex-wife would listed as the mother on the birth cert.

Should he be able to do this without the consent of his ex-wife? No, clearly not.

anniehoo - the other issue with your "it's life" standpoint is what to do if both of them decided that they didn't want to use the leftover embryos? Should the state force her to attempt to carry them to term? Should the state acquire them and find a surrogate? What if they reach their "shelf-life" without having ever been implanted - should the parents and the scientists involved be charged because they allowed this "life" to die?

the_syco · 16-12-2009 11:53AM

anniehoo wrote: »

The "luck of the draw" being ..you will end up with "no babies" or being "jon and kate plus 8"

It's now "Kate Plus 8". I wonder will Jon want more kids?

davyjose wrote: »

Ex-Husband's a prick. He could have easily green-lighted this and had nothing more to do with it.

If he green lights it, the baby gets born, and he doesn't have an option to not paying child maintenance. He has to pay it, if she wants him to pay it.

anniehoo wrote: »

I honestly think...TOUGH..it was done,end of!

Sounds a bit like rape, in a way: he doesn't consent to it, but he would be the father.

seamus · 16-12-2009 12:09PM

the_syco wrote: »

If he green lights it, the baby gets born, and he doesn't have an option to not paying child maintenance. He has to pay it, if she wants him to pay it.

Not to mention any emotional aspects. As much as some people would like to have us think, the vast majority of men aren't capable of dropping our seed and simply forgetting about the end result. Whether he consented or not, he would still feel some connection and responsibility for his offspring.

CrazyRabbit · 16-12-2009 12:51PM

anniehoo wrote: »

I kept changing my mind about this today and finally came to the conclusion that she should have got to keep them and have the chance to produce siblings for her current child.

Those embryos were created equally and consensually by both parents at the time so although their marital status has changed, the value of the lives of those embryos hasnt. Her husband entered into IVF with the expectation and hope "life" could and would be created. It was. They had one child.The fact that some of that life has been "on hold" doesnt make it any less right that the other embryos should be destroyed.

Ive always quandered about abortion and the "right to life" choice. But, even though its IVF, its basically "scientific sex"! You entered into a decision and life was created.Generally its the female who gets the ultimate decision in real life but on this occasion, if you have a willing and loving parent prepared to love and nurture the rest of that potential childs existance then i think it should be allowed go ahead. If the father under legal law has refused to allow it then something should be stated that legal guardianship is denied and therefore any maintenance should be nullified and the "father" has no legal,financial or parental rights from then on.

The problem is that he consented to using his sperm to create 1 baby, which did happen. Routinely, several eggs are fertilized during IVF, and each one is implanted until there is a successful pregnancy. It's not expected that they continue to be implanted after the sucessful pregnancy.

WindSock · 16-12-2009 12:57PM

Why would they hang onto the eggs after they had the baby they wanted?

WindSock · 16-12-2009 12:59PM

seamus wrote: »

Not to mention any emotional aspects. As much as some people would like to have us think, the vast majority of men aren't capable of dropping our seed and simply forgetting about the end result.

Inluding donors?

seamus · 16-12-2009 01:03PM

WindSock wrote: »

Inluding donors?

Donation is an anonymous and uncertain act (for all intents and purposes). What I'm referring to are cases where a man is aware that a child has been born and is his, I should have qualified that. Donation is obviously a little different in that you are never aware if your sperm has or ever will create a child. In some cases it may be rejected or used for research. There have been (afair) a number of cases of donor children tracking down their "fathers" and having a familial relationship with them.

Donation is something of a disconnected act - as far as the donor is concerned, it "ends" when that little cup is full.

Zulu · 16-12-2009 01:49PM

WindSock wrote: »

Why would they hang onto the eggs after they had the baby they wanted?

In terms of long term illness, they do it for "just in case" in the future.

speedboatchase · 16-12-2009 02:09PM

Glad she lost

Woman loses appeal over frozen embryos

Comments