select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a woman left infertile after cancer treatment cannot use her frozen embryos to have a baby without the consent of her former partner.
Dr Chris Willmott, University of Leicester, said:
“This case highlights the profound difficulties in legislating for emerging therapies.”
Dr Ainsley Newson, Lecturer in Biomedical Ethics, Centre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, said:
“Whilst sympathetic to Natallie’s situation, it’s difficult to overcome her ex-partner’s change of heart about wanting to father a child in this way. His decision is completely within the limits of the law then and now. Further, this is different to abortion – where a prospective father has no right to intervene – as no pregnancy has yet been established. We should also question the value we place on genetic ties, as one option still open to Natallie is to have a child using donor gametes.”
Dr Gillian Lockwood, Chair of the British Fertility Society Ethics Sub-Committee, said:
“The decision to encourage Natallie to appeal to the Grand Chamber indicates the exceptional sympathy that the judges in Strasbourg had for her plight. UK legislation is quite clear, that the ongoing consent of both parties is required for embryos to be created, stored, and used, and that principle is at the heart of the HFEA Act.
“Natallie’s terrible difficulty, and Howard’s dilemma, could have been prevented if Natallie had had her eggs harvested and frozen without being fertilised. That would have given her a chance of genetic motherhood without forcing Howard to become a parent against his will.”
Ms Anna Smajdor, Researcher in Medical Ethics, Imperial College London, said:
“This ruling upholds the right of Mr Johnston, Ms Evans’ former partner, not to be a parent, at the expense of Ms Evans’ only possibility of exercising her own right to have children. It is not clear that allowing Ms Evans to have her embryos implanted would be detrimental either to the children, or to Mr Johnston. The decision reveals an overemphasis on the importance of genetic parenthood. To be a father involves far more than simply sharing genes with one’s offspring. If Ms Evans is not demanding that Mr Johnston has any involvement with her children, the fact that these embryos share some DNA with Mr Johnston should not justify him in decreeing that they should be destroyed.”
Dr Allan Pacey, Senior Lecturer in Andrology, University of Sheffield, Secretary of the British Fertility Society, said:
“I think this is a very sad situation, but UK law has always been very clear that the man has shared consent in this process. Women don’t have the luxury of preserving their fertility in the way that men do prior to cancer treatment. Once we perfect the technology to freeze eggs or ovarian tissue as a matter of course for women, this sort of situation will be avoided.”
Dr Daniel K. Sokol, Researcher in Medical Ethics, Imperial College, London, said:
“The European Court’s decision is, in my view, the right one. Ms Evans’ former partner surely did not consent to the use of the embryos in all circumstances. They are no longer a couple. The circumstances have changed drastically. The consent is no longer valid.
“Natallie Evans’ inability to have children without using the frozen embryos is, without question, a tragedy, but her former partner’s enforced fatherhood would have been a gross injustice.”
Professor Thomas Baldwin, Professor Philosophy at the University of York, said:
“Although the European Court was right not to interfere with UK domestic law on this matter, the present UK law on this matter should be modified during the current review of the 1990 HFE Act . In my judgement, people in Natallie Evans’ situation should be permitted by the HFEA to use existing embryos without the consent of their former partner where they have no chance of creating further embryos.”
Professor Baldwin was Deputy-chair of the HFEA from 2002 until 2005 (and Chair of the HFEA Ethics and Law committee 2003-5).
Mrs Liz Corrigan, University of Bristol Centre for Reproductive Medicine, said:
“We feel that the judgment made by the European court was very fair and in keeping with UK law. They took into account the rights of both partners and by doing that they also took into account the welfare of any child to be born (or any existing children). The Centre for Reproductive Medicine, University of Bristol, has always believed that couples should still be together when frozen embryos are replaced and welcome this judgment.”
Professor John Harris, Sir David Alliance Professor of Bioethics, University of Manchester, said:
“This is a sad decision for Nathalie Evans – Imagine how frustrating it must be to know that embryos exist that may enable you to have your own children and yet not be able to use them.
“The decision of the European Court of Human Rights is to be welcomed in one respect. They have confirmed yet again that the embryo has no independent right to life. This may act as further confirmation that the U.K. policy towards embryo research is in line with The European Court of Human Rights most recent decision.”
Professor William L Ledger, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Sheffield, said:
“I think its a good decision although very sad news for Natallie. Decisions regarding the fate of embryos should be made by the couple who’s DNA is contained within them. The information on the HFEA consent forms regarding embryo storage and replacement is unambiguous, and states that both partners must consent before replacement. It is a great pity that this couple could not reach that agreement.”
Professor Anne McLaren, Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, said:
“When the embryo is outside the woman’s body, genetics tells us that father and mother have equal rights. When the embryo is inside the body, physiology tells us that the woman’s right is paramount.”
Raanan Gillon, Emeritus Professor of Medical Ethics, Imperial College London, said:
“Ethically the law could have been written either way, and either way painful choices would sometimes result. But both parties knew the UK law when they signed up to IVF and there seems no overall justification for changing it, painful as this is for the woman concerned. One major benefit from the European Court’s ruling is its confirmation that human embryos do not have ‘a right to life’.”
Dr Kirsty Horsey, reproduction editor of BioNews, published by Progress Educational Trust, said:
“I feel much sympathy for Natallie Evans, as the European Court of Human Rights has ruled today that, in refusing to allow her to use her stored IVF embryos, the UK has not breached her fundamental human rights. I do not agree with all of the court’s reasoning in this case.
“As the court acknowledged, I agree that a fairer balance might have been struck by the UK’s law, by, for example, making the consent of her partner irrevocable at the point of creation of the embryo, rather than during its continued storage or use.
“The judgment of the court relies too heavily on the fact that Natallie’s former partner genetically contributed to the embryos. But being a parent is clearly not exclusively about genetic input.
“Natallie agreed to store her embryos in this way very quickly after receiving the news that her ovaries were cancerous. Her testimony in the UK courts suggests that she might have made a different decision had she realised the full weight of this decision at the time.
“According to the press statement from Natallie’s solicitor, she will be taking her case forward to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR – I wish her the best of luck.”