View Full Version : Woman embryo appeal verdict due
A woman left infertile after cancer therapy is due to learn a court's final judgement on her plea to use frozen embryos fertilised by an ex-partner.
Natallie Evans, from Trowbridge, Wilts, and Howard Johnston began IVF treatment in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up.
She turned to the European courts after exhausting the UK legal process.
Ms Evans, 35, says her appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court is her last chance to have a baby.
'Great sympathy'
Ms Evans was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2001, but six of the couple's fertilised embryos were frozen and stored prior to her treatment.
But she and Mr Johnston, who lives in Gloucester, split up in 2002 and he wrote to the clinic asking for the embryos to be destroyed.
Ms Evans took the case to the High Court in 2003 asking to be allowed to use them without Mr Johnston's permission.
She has argued he 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 allows either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted.
Ms Evans lost both the case and the appeal and was told she could not take the case to the House of Lords.
She then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which again ruled against her a year ago.
The 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, in a majority verdict, it was ruled that even in such exceptional circumstances as those of 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.
'Wrong way'
Her final route of appeal is before the Grand Chamber of the European Court.
Ms Evans's solicitor, Muiris Lyons, said the ruling was her "last chance".
He told the BBC's Today programme: "What we're saying to the Strasbourg court is that the UK law can regulate how IVF is dealt with in a number of different ways.
"But to have this rule that there must be consent of both parties at all times without exceptions is the wrong way to do it.
"There should be a mechanism for dealing with exceptional cases."
Dr Mark Hamilton, chairman of the British Fertility Society, warned that the rights of men would be adversely affected if the court were to rule in Ms Evans's favour.
He added: "It would be downgrading the role that a man has.
"Unfortunately, relationships do run into trouble."
Speaking after the ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Johnston said he was not thinking about it in terms of a victory.
"The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family," he added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think??
I think that this is so sad.
Many people split up after a child is conceived and the father is still responsible financially and emotionally for the child.
In this case the bloke has a second chance NOT to have a child with this woman - and he has grabbed it.
Exceptionally, he is denying her the chance of ever having a child of her own - and I think that the way forward for other people would be to only have eggs stored during cancer treatment of women and not embryos.
I would guess that legal ownership of the embryos needs to be established. If it is joint ownership then he does have the right to refuse.
Again - very sad.
Pinkbanana
10-04-2007, 12:01
Its a shame she just didnt freeze the eggs, rather than having them fertilised first.
I think its sad, and I think the chap in this does lack compassion for the plight of the woman at the centre of this case...she has said that she wont ask for any support from him (either financially or otherwise), but I guess it always has taken two people to make a child, and he has decided that he doesnt want one with this woman, and it would be rough on the child if/when he is older enough to understand that one of his parents didnt want him to exist.
Just shows that advancements in medical science can be a blessing and a curse.
I think there is more to this case than meets the eye. Agreed there is case where a man leaves a woman pregnant and he doesn't have anything to do with the child but in this case they got the eggs fertilized to be used at a later time but it is also a man's right not to have kids. If he doesn't want kids he has the right to say no too.
I think there is more to this case than meets the eye. Agreed there is case where a man leaves a woman pregnant and he doesn't have anything to do with the child but in this case they got the eggs fertilized to be used at a later time but it is also a man's right not to have kids. If he doesn't want kids he has the right to say no too.Surely if he had a shred of decency he would think of the plight of this poor woman. She will never be able to have children now. If I was him I think I would give this woman the chance to at least try for a family. As was said earlier its just a pity she let him fertilize the eggs in the first place
A woman left infertile after cancer therapy has lost her fight to use frozen embryos fertilised by an ex-partner.
Natallie Evans, from Trowbridge, Wilts, and Howard Johnston began IVF treatment in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up.
She turned to the European courts after exhausting the UK legal process.
Ms Evans, 35, has said her appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court was her last chance to have a baby.
Ms Evans was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2001, but six of the couple's fertilised embryos were frozen and stored prior to her treatment.
Embryos
But she and Mr Johnston, who lives in Gloucester, split up in 2002 and he wrote to the clinic asking for the embryos to be destroyed.
Ms Evans took the case to the High Court in 2003 asking to be allowed to use them without Mr Johnston's permission.
She has argued he 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 allows either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted.
Ms Evans lost both the case and the appeal and was told she could not take the case to the House of Lords.
She then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which again ruled against her a year ago.
Her appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court represented her last chance to save the embryos.
I really feel for this woman. But i can't help wonder what happened when they split up, that would make him take this action against her having any children at all. The media is making him sound like the bad guy, but for all we know, something might have happened to give him reason why he didn't want her to have his children. I'm not condoning her, as i said, i really feel for any woman who can't have children. I just get the impression that we dont know the full story about what happened, to give him justification for this...
This is so sad, I agree with what PB said that they could of frozen some of her eggs as well. I cant imagie what it must be like for her and I think in a case like this it sounds more compliacted than people may think to decide what is right.
I am really pleased with the verdict. Yes its sad she cant have her own kids. Has she heard of fostering or adoption.
I cant have kids of my own but there are other avenues that can be gone down if/when the time is right for my husband and I.
He has never slagged her off during this time. He has said he wants to choose when and with whom he has children. Isn't it best for children to be brought into the world through a loving partnership than this media circus.
Pinkbanana
10-04-2007, 23:07
I am really pleased with the verdict.
.
I really cant believe you have written that you are REALLY pleased that this woman has lost her appeal. :eek:
I think its extremely sad that she was sooo close, yet so far away from having her own child. Whatever, you think about the case...I dont think anyone with a heart would claim to be pleased with the outcome...
I 100 % agree. Yes she culd adopt or foster but it really isnt the same sa having your own child and as she has the chance of that she should have been allowed to use them! He consented to them being fertilised in the first place
I am really pleased with the verdict. Yes its sad she cant have her own kids. Has she heard of fostering or adoption.
I cant have kids of my own but there are other avenues that can be gone down if/when the time is right for my husband and I.
He has never slagged her off during this time. He has said he wants to choose when and with whom he has children. Isn't it best for children to be brought into the world through a loving partnership than this media circus.
I think its a bit harsh to say you are really pleased with the verdict - sorry, but no matter what your thoughts and feelings are on the subject, to be pleased is a little harsh isn't it?
I'm sure she has heard of fostering and adoption, but knowing that she has embryo's frozen awaiting implantation, must have been ripping her heart to pieces.
In an ideal world, yes children would all be born through loving partnerships, but this isn't an ideal world - women are leaving it later and later to get married and start a family, sometimes ending up looking at artificial insemination as an option as a first and apart from that, there are a lot of women that have fallen pregnant whilst on the pill etc (myself included) that had been in the relationship for only a few months when inception occured. But unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world.
Maybe this was her first option, and now, when she has gone through the grieving process that she ultimately will do, she may look at the alternatives.
Chloe O'brien
12-04-2007, 00:49
There was never going to be a happy ending in this issue. I know you have to look at both sides of the equation and that her ex-partner had a right to stop her from using the embryos because they were fertilised outside her womb. If they were born inside he wouldn't have a say. I'm sure he could have shown a little compassion as well as compromising with her that he does not have to provide her with any finanical support. Look at the Diane Blood story a few years ago her husband died but she was able to use his frozen sperm to give birth to two children after her husband had died.
littlemo
21-04-2007, 01:53
It's really hard to say what is right or wrong here. But first of all, before i go into anything, can i just say to the person that said they were 'pleased with the verdict', i don't think they've replied, but it didn't sound like they mean't anything by it. Just that they thought it was right how it panned out, and that's their opinion, so I don't really think it needs to be judged. :)
I suppose there is a difference between a man having sex with a woman and getting her pregnant, to a man fertilising an egg via IVF, cause he probably didn't really see it as making a baby, it's not actually having a baby unless it's in the womb. After it was fertilised they would have got to decide when it was put in the womb, and then there would probably be a chance it wouldn't work or something. So it wasn't something that was going to happen immediately, and he knew that.
It's sounding like i'm being sexist here; but i think women are generally a lot more emotional when it comes to having babies, and clearly in this case, it was so much more important to her than it was to him. I feel sorry for her, but I do understand her husbands plight.
But then i would feel differently if the man got her pregnant while having sex, cause i'd feel like he was half responsible for making the baby. And i don't even know if that makes sense. Shame she couldn't have just implanted it before they split up.
littlemo
21-04-2007, 01:55
There was never going to be a happy ending in this issue. I know you have to look at both sides of the equation and that her ex-partner had a right to stop her from using the embryos because they were fertilised outside her womb. If they were born inside he wouldn't have a say. I'm sure he could have shown a little compassion as well as compromising with her that he does not have to provide her with any finanical support. Look at the Diane Blood story a few years ago her husband died but she was able to use his frozen sperm to give birth to two children after her husband had died.
I cant remember, did he freeze the sperm, with the intention that she would use it to have his kids?
I think there may be another way of looking at this ....
What if it was him who couldn't have children and the female was refusing to let him have the emryo implanted .. for example in a surrogate... would this change anyones perspective?
I personally think the court came to the right decision ... the minute this got to court, if judgment had gone in her favour, could you imagine the impact the news coverage of this trial would have had on the child?
Does anyone know why she didnt freeze her eggs and froze an embryo instead?
littlemo
02-05-2007, 22:05
Assuming that she thought she was in a committed relationship. It is quite naive, but i suppose people don't think at the time, that they are destructable.
Wow came under some flak for my views! Ok maybe I should have said I thought the right decision had been made. That opinion might have been more morally acceptable by some on this forum. But I was pleased and I wont apologise for feeling the way I do.
I just do not believe if it had got the go ahead that the child would like to find out when they were old enough, that the dad was dead against the birth...Imagine how that would feel, that the dad didn't want them.
Pinkbanana
03-05-2007, 17:16
Wow came under some flak for my views! Ok maybe I should have said I thought the right decision had been made. That opinion might have been more morally acceptable by some on this forum. But I was pleased and I wont apologise for feeling the way I do.
Im incensed by your comment that you are ‘pleased’ that this woman cannot ever have a child.
Yep you are entitled to an opinion, but is it really necessary to be soooo downright insensitive? This is a case were there are really no winners, its just extremely sad. Nothing to be pleased about!
Think the guy concerned will feel that he is a winner.
I cant ever have a child, cancer saw to that, but there is fostering or adoption so dont give me a lecture. I am entitled to my view just like you are entitled to yours. If we all thought the same we would be like robots.
Pinkbanana
03-05-2007, 22:49
Think the guy concerned will feel that he is a winner.
I cant ever have a child, cancer saw to that, but there is fostering or adoption so dont give me a lecture. I am entitled to my view just like you are entitled to yours. If we all thought the same we would be like robots.
If you had bothered to read my post properly, you will have seen that I wrote that you are entitled to your opinion (no one is saying otherwise or that we have to be like robots)... or that I was lecturing you...:rolleyes: My issue was with the wording of your post, ie that you are PLEASED that this woman cant ever have a child. That makes you seem, in my eyes, very unsympathetic and insensitive.
Jessie Wallace
03-05-2007, 23:33
Indeed PB, it's almost like us saying were glad you can't have children, it just seems a bit nasty to me, but as you say, everyone's allowed an opinion.
Right Im signing off from this forum - talk about a hostile place. I will complain to the webmaster and mods.
Bye
Right Im signing off from this forum - talk about a hostile place. I will complain to the webmaster and mods.
Bye
:confused: blooming heck thats a bit over the top imo! Others were voicing their opinions over your post that was all.
as you said everyones entitled to their opinions
Snapper - this forum isn't hostile - never has been in the 2 years that I've been a member here or a mod.
Everyone IS entitled to their opinion but with an issue as sensitive as this, you have to be careful how those opinions are worded. I feel for everyone involved in this case - the woman who up until this verdict had the hope alive that she may be able to have her own biological child, whose dream has now been shattered, to the man who provided sperm to fertilise those eggs who has decided that he doesn't want any children to be borne in this manner, to other people who are undergoing treatment, knowing that the outcome will be that they will also be infertile (like you) and not be able to have their own children and to all of those couples out there who may have also had embryos frozen in the same manner, now wonder if the relationship they are in, is strong enough to last in order for them to be able to use those embryo's or whether they will end up in the same situation.
There are so many women and men out there that have problems conceiving or are infertile including members on this forum, who may have found your viewpoint on the subject about being pleased that the woman would never have her own biological children insensitive to their own problems aswell as this womans. Yes, adoption, fostering are all options and there are many children in homes around the country requiring the love of a stable family, but being pleased that a woman has gone through what she has and has now had those hopes dashed, are IMO insensitive. By all means be glad of the outcome of the verdict, but surely not pleased that another woman has been placed in the same situation as yourself with not being able to have children of her own naturally. Yes, hopefully this woman will now go on to foster or adopt, but she has to go through a grieving process, no doubt like you had to, initially, before being able to go through this very long and drawn out process.
I, personally think, that this is what the objections to your post are, but like has been said, you were voicing your opinions and the others were voicing their own views on your opinions. Many of us will not agree with what others say, some will say nothing, some will say something, but it doesn't make this forum a hostile place - its one of the friendliest forums that I have ever known, and I'm proud to be a member here.
Don't feel that you can't come here, we aren't hostile, but as you said, everyone is entitled to their opinions and I think that is exactly what has happened here - people have voiced their opinions, like you, about a very sensitive subject.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.