select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog

scientists and ethicists respond to embryo ruling by European Court of Human Rights

The court ruled that Natallie Evans could not use the frozen embryos which had been created using the sperm of her former partner.

Dr Allan Pacey, Secretary of the British Fertility Society, said:

“It is a very sad situation that Natallie has found herself in, and we’d like to express our sympathy to her. 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. However, the BFS hopes that this situation might be avoided in the future by encouraging progress to be made in the science and practice of freezing and storing eggs. This would mean that women could bank their eggs before cancer treatment, in the same way that men are able to bank their sperm, and would avoid the need to create embryos at that time.”

Ms Anna Smajdor, Researcher in medical ethics, Imperial College, London, said:

“As a society we are 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. 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 them without hers. No couple can guarantee an ongoing relationship, and both parties need to understand and accept that the creation of embryos together is a reproductive endeavour which cannot simply be revoked. If this is seems risky or unpalatable, consent should not be given in the first place.”

Dr Simon Fishel, Managing Director, CARE Fertility Group, said:

“This is a very sad day for Natalie Evans and we must all understand her huge disappointment. However, the UK and HFEA’s position was taken after careful deliberations following several capricious circumstances arising in other countries – notably the US. 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.”

David Baird, Emeritus Professor of Reproductive Endocrinology, University of Edinburgh and Honorary President of the British Fertility Society, said:

“This is in keeping with the the present law in the UK as defined within the HFE Act. It recognizes that the father has a equal rights (and responsibilities) in the creation of an embryo and its fate.”

Dr Sue Avery, Director of the Assisted Conception Unit, Birmingham Women’s Health Care NHS Trust, said:

“This is a highly emotive case, but the right conclusion has been reached, in that it supports the underlying law, and takes account of male reproductive rights, in this case the right to choose with whom to have children. In future women in Natalie’s position should be counselled about the choice between egg and embryo freezing. While the results of egg freezing are improving they do not yet match the success of frozen embryos and so women will need to consider the risks involved in both strategies.”

Professor Ian Craft and Mr David Hodgson, London Fertility Centre, said:

“We are sympathetic to Ms Evans’ situation. Ms Evans and her partner both provided their consent in order to create the embryos for use in providing treatment services for Ms Evans. It is therefore disappointing that Ms Evans’ partner has chosen to withdraw his consent. However, the European Court of Human Rights has considered that both partners have equal rights over the embryos once created. This ruling supports the HFEA Act which requires both parties to consent or in this instance, withdraw that consent.”

in this section

filter RoundUps by year

search by tag