General Chat

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. as sad as i feel for her,i feel her ex partner has a right to refuse too.what do you think.xxx

Not knowing the ins and outs its hard to form a proper opinion, but i feel the man has the right to refuse, much as its very sad for her.

That's a knotty one. I suppose the partner's thinking of - was there a change in the law recently where you have the right to seek out your biological parent if you're born by IVF now? Maybe he doesn't want to feel that he will have to get to know them in eighteen years time. On the other hand, I can understand her wanting to have a child. My mum couldn't conceive naturally owing to a botched appendicectomy when she was 15, and had many operations and had their name down for IVF until they found out I was available for adoption and removed their names from the list. I can understand that she might desperately want a child but I can also understand him not wanting retrospective responsibility.

Can see it from both sides but they had a relationship once and this is her last chance surely as they once loved each other they could come to an agreement whereby she asks him for nothing in way of help for the baby, yes the child may want to find him in the end but surely they wouldnt resent him but see what a nice loveing man he was to give their mum her last chance of a family. Id so sad that a couple that once were in love end up in the courts to make a decision

wowee thats a tough one. like dawn says i can see both sides. i can totally understand how the woman sees this as her only chance to conceive her 'own' children. but then the guy cant morally just let her have them and not want any contact and just walk away. real tough call this one.

hi strumpxx its on bbc news,shes waiting for the european council or something.think the ex is settled with a new partner now. take a look it gives more details on the news.xxxxxxxxx

Hiya Joyous My opinion is that the man agreed at the time to make an embryo with his then wife, why should he be able to change his mind now? What will happen to the embryos now if the judge says they cant be used? Will they be *binned*? Would also be interesting to know whether he has children with his new partner. I think he is being selfish. K X

paul i like toughy debates lol.hi vizxxgood point too. also wonder if she wants baby so much adoption is an option. looking at what kates said gave me that idea.the fertilized eggs will be binned.xxx

I'll have a look, but i doubt my opinion would change. For instance, what if god forbid some thing happened to her and she possibly had no one to bring her child up....what would be this mans position then? So many things to consider.And what of his new partner? Very tricky situation and i do feel for the lady concerned, but he is her 'ex' and no longer has any sort of obligation to her. I hope im not sounding to hard on this.

It doesnt seem a particularly difficult moral dilemma to me. Had the timing been different, this couple might have had say, two children born from the embryos and THEN split up - would the father still be asking for the children to be destroyed? Many children are knowingly brought into the world without the involvement or interest of the biological father. Whether that is right or wrong is another debate - but why should it be different for this one woman just because medical intervention is involved? Perhaps the authorities should make couples sign a declaration at the time of fertilisation of embryos, making it clear what will happen to the embryos if the couple later split. No one can force a biological father to take an interest in, or even acknowledge, his children. These children, if born, will be in no worse position than many thousands of other people. OC

its very sad for her but would be unfair to expect the ex to agree to have a child when they are no longer together,he could resent it

Would have to agree 100% with Kim on this one also thought i heard on gmtv that him and his partner did have a child

there were 2 women on gmtv,one with a child already with ex.the other without

I have to say I think he is being incredibly selfish. He KNEW this was her only chance to have children when they created the embryos and he went ahead with it armed with that knowledge. IF he had at the time expressed any doubts she presumably would have taken a different path and had her unfertilized eggs frozen. No one forced him into the cubicle to contribute his share ,he did that willingly. As a result life ,albeit for now frozen,life has been created. In that poor ladies eyes those frozen embryos are already her babies. My heart goes out to her xx.

shes lost her appeal............. 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, said she was 'distraught' after the Grand Chamber of the European Court ruling, but Mr Johnston said 'common sense had prevailed.' 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.

Awwwwww bless her xx

i watched it on the news,i will keep my opinion to myself as it may by swayed somewhat by the fact i did not like his attitude and what he had to say.didnt like him one bit..sorry.

As replies were coming in on this thread l was thinking 'Mmmm he has the right to do as he pleases, which he does' but l also think he's being selfish and agree with others in that he started this whole thing with his then wife - they could so easily have children now, but they have'nt and this poor women has to suffer this. He's alright jack!!!! l think this is her last chance aswell for appeal, there was a documentary sometime last year - very sad!! jude sarf wales

selina hun,dont be sorry,we all have our opinions.you say what you want.xxxx

if i was her i d have offered him money for them it would have cost a lot less than its cost in court fees alone money talks