[Marxism] British court upholds "father's" right to v eto use of embrys to produce children

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well -- for comrades who didn't experience my waverings on the list on the
so-caled "right-to die" issue in the famous Florida case of the brain-dead
woman, I am a little soft on both the so-called "right to lofe" and the
so-called "right to die".  On the right to life, I think the only right
involved is the unconditional right of the woman carrying the embryo
conceived in her body and -- this is just a fact of life -- in noone else's
body. This belongs to her  body, not the man who contributed to it.

So I disagree with this ruling, which I see as an attack in fact on her
right to bear children, and also on her right NOT to bear children.  That
is, an attack on WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.  Conception takes place only in
her body, not the man's.  Embryos are her product not the man's, though of
course he makes a necessary contribution, usually quite voluntarily, in her
body.

Just to make sure that all disclaimers are in place, I will say that my
quite unintentional contribution to contribute to my companion's bearing of
a child was the best decision I never made. But I don't think my political
view hinges at all on my very positive personal experience.

The political point is valid nonetheless. The embryo is part of the woman's
body, not an equal property of the man and the woman.
Fred Feldman


Woman loses final embryos appeal

James Sturcke, Karen McVeigh and agencies
Tuesday April 10, 2007

Guardian Unlimited

A woman who was left infertile after cancer treatment lost her last legal
chance to use her frozen embryos after a court ruling today.
The 17-judge Grand Chamber of the European court of human rights ruled that
Natallie Evans, who underwent IVF as she fought ovarian cancer, could not
force the embryos to be used against the wishes of her former partner,
Howard Johnston.

The judges, by a majority of 13 to four, found that Ms Evans' right to have
a family life - article eight of the European convention on human rights -
had not been violated.

The court also ruled unanimously that the embryo had no right to life under
article two or, by a 13-4 majority, that Ms Evans was not being
discriminated against under article 14.

In a statement, 34-year-old Ms Evans, of Melksham, Wiltshire, said she was
"distraught" at the court's decision.

"It's very hard for me to accept that the embryos will now be destroyed and
that I will never become a mother. I would ask Howard to consider whether he
could ever permit me to have the children I so dearly long for, and which he
was happy to consent to when the procedure took place to create these
embryos," she said.

Mr Johnston, 30, said the latest decision was a "big relief", adding that
"common sense has prevailed". He told a news conference he wanted to be able
to choose when to start a family.

In a ruling that referred to "great sympathy" for Ms Evans in a "morally and
ethically difficult case", the judges noted that she was not complaining
that she could not become a mother by adoption.

It said each person's interest was entirely irreconcilable with the other's,
meaning that, whatever the outcome, one party would be "wholly frustrated".

The ruling said the judges did not consider that Ms Evans' "right to respect
for the decision to become a parent in the genetic sense should be accorded
greater weight" than her former partner's decision not to have a child with
her.

The judges heard that she began IVF treatment with Mr Johnston in 2001 after
being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, the treatment for which would leave her
infertile.

When the couple split up, he withdrew consent for her to use the six frozen
embryos, which had been fertilised with his sperm.

Ms Evans applied to the high court, arguing that he had already consented to
the creation, storage and use of the embryos, and should not be allowed to
change his mind.

Her case was dismissed by the court, and later by the court of appeal. The
House of Lords - the last legal resort in the UK - would not consider it.

Having been ordered by British courts to destroy the embryos, Ms Evans
turned to Strasbourg, arguing that refusing to allow her to use them
breached the human rights convention, which guarantees the "right to family
life".

Her lawyers said it also breached discrimination laws because the fate of
the embryos was being determined entirely by her partner. Current IVF law -
the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act - requires consent from both man
and woman at every stage of the IVF process.

Mr Johnston denied suggestions that he had changed his mind over allowing Ms
Evans to use the embryos. He said: "The treatment we embarked on was based
on what we wanted at the time. We have since split up, so I wouldn't chose
to have a child with her now. I would never had thought someone would want
children with me even though we're not together."

He said he also objected to having "no input into the upbringing".

Ms Evans' solicitor, Muiris Lyons, said: "Natallie has shown great courage
and determination throughout this battle. All she has ever asked for is the
chance to use her embryos to bring her own child into the world.

"This was her last chance to become a mother and it now appears likely that,
unless Mr Johnston changes his mind, the embryos will be destroyed." 

Dr Allan Pacey, the secretary of the British Fertility Society, said: "To
freeze embryos is currently the only realistic way that many women can
preserve their fertility before embarking on cancer treatment.

"As in many countries, the UK has clearly established principles of shared
responsibility from both the sperm and egg provider concerning the fate of
any frozen embryos up until the point that they are transferred back into a
woman.

"This will have been explained to Natallie and her partner at the time their
embryos were created and the BFS considers that it is only fair to Mr
Johnston that this principle has been upheld."

Mr Johnston said said that the decision taken by himself and Ms Evans to go
for IVF was taken "in about an hour" after she found out she had ovarian
cancer. He said today's result would give other couples the confidence that
both parties had to consent to an embryo's use.

Anna Smajdor, a researcher in medical ethics at Imperial College, London,
said Britain was "obsessed with the idea that shared genes are the essence
of parenthood".

"Ms Evans' ex-partner does not want to be a father and this apparently gives
him the right to destroy these embryos simply because they contain some of
his genes," she added.

"There is something deeply amiss here. Ms Evans is not allowed to have her
embryos implanted without her ex's consent, yet he - effectively - is
allowed to have them destroyed without hers."

Dr Simon Fishel, the managing director of the Care fertility group, said:
"The latest legal ruling for the requirement of the consent of both partners
involved in bringing into existence an embryo makes paramount the welfare of
any future child. This has to be the right and sensible decision."

Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's medical ethics committee, said the
organisation had "every sympathy for Natallie Evans, and understand why she
has challenged the law".

He added: "However, we welcome the fact that the European court has
supported the principle of consent from all parties. Having a child is a
lifelong undertaking to which both partners should be fully committed."

Mr Johnston said that "if the circumstances were right" and he was with the
right person, he would "definitely" want children, but added that he was
"not with anyone at the moment".

He said he could understand if people considered him "heartless" because of
the emotional side of the case. He said that he had not spoken to his former
girlfriend for five years, but said he sympathised with her position and
hoped she would find happiness. "Hopefully, Natallie will have children,
even though they will not be genetically hers." 

Guardian Unlimited C Guardian News and Media Limited 2007



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism