| ||
| ||
| ||
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Women fail in frozen embryo ruling
LONDON, England -- Two women have failed in their attempt to use frozen embryos to have children without the consent of their former partners. The women said they were "devastated" after failing in London's High Court to overturn the rules governing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. The law says that both partners must agree to the storage and use of the embryos, otherwise they must be destroyed. For one of the women, Natallie Evans, the frozen embryos represent her last chance to have a baby after her ovaries were removed because of the discovery of pre-cancerous cells. A lawyer for Evans said after the verdict: "She is devastated. For her, these embryos are her babies." Mr. Justice Wall, giving his verdict, said that while he had "considerable sympathy" for the women, the laws governing IVF treatment under the Human Fertislisation and Embryology Act were clear. The other plaintiff, Lorraine Hadley, said through her lawyer that she "strongly believes that life has already been created and wants to finish what has been started." "Naturally, she is very upset and disappointed at the decision," the lawyer added. Both women are considering taking the case to the Court of Appeal, and their embryos will not be destroyed until the outcome of such an appeal has been decided. Evans, 31, from Trowbridge, southwest England, and Hadley, 38, from Sandwell, central England, had fertility treatment when they were with their former partners and have a couple of embryos each in storage. But both relationships have ended and the men have withdrawn consent for the use of the embryos. Wall, one of Britain's top family judges, heard the case in June and July before giving his ruling at the High Court Wednesday. Evans told the court her former partner, Howard Johnston, led her to believe he would never stop her using the embryos as he knew how important having a child was to her. They met in 1999 and lived together before the relationship ended. Evans' lawyer said the women's legal argument had been that an ex-partner's veto was unfair and a breach of the Human Rights Act. Johnston's lawyer read out a statement after the verdict in which he explained his client's reasons for withdrawing his consent. "Mr Johnston's decision to withdraw his consent to the future use and continued storage of the embryos was, he instructs me, the most difficult decision of his life." But he would have had "ongoing legal and financial responsibilities," the lawyer added. "He would be a father on a legal, moral, emotional and psychological basis." Johnston "continues to have a large amount of sympathy" for Evans and the dilemma she faces but believes the outcome is the correct one, the lawyer said. Hadley was married to Wayne Hadley until 2000. When they separated, Mr. Hadley agreed the embryos should remain in storage but later changed his mind. In a statement issued by his solicitors, Hadley said: "I am absolutely delighted with the outcome of proceedings. I have no ill feeling towards Lorraine and no desire to cause her any further distress." Hadley has had a child with his new partner, his ex-wife's lawyer said. The judge said the two former partners were also deserving of sympathy and any criticism of their motives in wanting the embryos destroyed was unfair.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
