Geeklawyer sided with Natallie Evans in her quest to use her & her ex-boyfriends stored embryos to have a child. One doesn’t know what the true background to the breakup were. Howard Johnston reeks of a dumped man seeking a revenge as cold as the ex-couples embryos, but maybe not its only a hunch. Geeklawyer has been dumped once or twice and such a gelid retort would have been manna had he had it; he reckons Johnston was so availed.
Nonetheless, none of that is relevant to the principle. The ECtHR balanced the human rights of both parties, true; but it seems they didn’t accord the weight Geeklawyer would have done to the point that had the burden of unwilling fatherhood fallen on Johnston he was well able to do as such men have done down through the ages: run away.
Sure, he may have been subject to financial obligations imposed by statute that he couldn’t shake off (Geeklawyer is not sure if an indemnity agreement between Evans & Johnston was possible, binding or effective in these circumstances) but in the absence of that, depriving a woman of her best, possibly only, realistic shot at the prime biological imperative of a woman seems to be a poor balance indeed (apologies to wimmin’) when all that the man will suffer is the uncomfortable knowledge that somewhere his unwelcome progeny roam abroad. Not exactly the greatest burden a man can shoulder.
It was the ECtHR, not the ECJ.
(pedant mode off)
The BBC News Online articles on this case keep referrring to the ‘European Court’ without saying which one so it’s no wonder that people get them mixed up.
However, there should be no excuse for a lawyer
Sooner or later people will discover I am really a trucker.
Sooner at this rate …
Ruthie thought this was an interesting case, but that ultimately the correct decision was reached. In standard acts of procreation, bith parties are (usually) willing at the time. It seems unfair to Ruthie to force a man to have a child with a woman with whom he no longer has a relationship, which will then become a next of kin and which he is at the very least morally bound to look after.
Reproduction is not just the prime biological imperative of women, but of men also. We are programmed to survive reproduce and die.
Its just a shame Ruthie hasnt ‘found a man thats good enough yet…
I think you mean that so far they have all had full vision and hearing
What is the legal position of implanting someone else’s embryos into Ms Evans?
Add us to your Blogroll and I will do my best to give you an answer.
That’s a very pragmatic way to look at things. People cannot help (I imagine) but have an interest in their progeny, as part of our nature as humans. To allow Natallie Evans to have the baby (or babies) would be to impose on Howard Johnston an emotional burden of the greatest kind — that plainly cannot be fair, and the precedent would be worrying. The issue of monetary upkeep is secondary to the emotional issue in my opinion.
I have to sympathise with Evans, it is a desperately sad case, but the court made the right decision. She is simply a victim of cruel circumstances.
Perhaps they should have frozen just her eggs instead of fertilised embryos? Perhaps that should be standard practice (embryos + unfertilised eggs/sperm) in future to avoid such disputes/despair?
I understand that at the time the embryos were frozen it was not possible to freeze eggs alone as the ice particles destroyed the structure of the egg. Apparently a method has now been devised to make this possible so hopefully these tragic circumstances need never arise again.
As for people having an interest in their progengy: most people have an interest if only from the selfish interest of seeing the outcome of their geneic imput, as for whether that interest translates into care or concern is another matter. Levels of child cruelty and neglect would tend to suggest not. Sadly as society becomes more and more selfish, children seem to be incresingly neglected, and surprisongly often in affluent families where the neglect can be hidden behind material provision.
It’s a shame that freezing just eggs wasn’t possible at the time.
What I meant by interest in our progeny is that Johnston would have imposed on him one of the most fundamentally profound events that can happen to us as human beings — procreation. It would not be fair to impose such a thing, even if it involved no financial outlay or obligations of care (legally). The form of Johnston’s interest in the would-be child is kind of irrelevant; the point is that the interest would be imposed upon him, and that cannot be morally justified, on the grounds that it necessarily undermines some (perhaps much?) of his autonomy.
If he was so callous as to care not for his child in any way whatsoever, the precedent would still be set — and there would be moral obligations being placed upon unwilling fathers all over the place without so much as a consultation. It’ll be intriguing to see what the feminists make of this!
PS I agree with your original post Ruthie, I was basically reframing it from my perspective!
…and there’s the issue of the child being born necessarily without his or her biological father. Whatever the merits of the debate on that particular issue*, it nonetheless seems to me that the desires of the mother have overshadowed the needs of the child in much of the debate on this issue.
*Issues of single parent families, homosexual couples with kids and a load of other stuff is potentially relevent but way too much to get into here. However, I happen to subscribe to the thought that kids should have both their biological parents present, where possible.
“Sadly as society becomes more and more selfish, children seem to be incresingly [sic] neglected”
These sorts of argument always sound great, but are they true? Is neglect worse now than it was a hundred years ago? Two hundred? A thousand? Or are we only talking about the last five years? A period which is surely too short for any sort of meaningful trend to become apparent.
Maybe it the cohort now having children really are worse than the one before? But even so we should expect to see some numbers. And what evidence do we have that a cohort who neglects their children doesn’t give rise to a cohort that does the opposite due to their childhood? And the cycle continues with their children then thinking neglect is OK again because they didn’t suffer it.
I suspect what it really is is a wish to paint ourselves worse than we really are and our forbears better than they were.
Here in Thailand child labour still occurs, children are often neglected and often mistreated. I’m sure that I wouldn’t find many who have holidayed here that wouldn’t envy Thai family life over British though. Not for what it actually is, but for what they presume it is.
Interesting observation Kirit (and thank you for pointing out my spelling mistake (sigh)). Neglect born of ignorance and poverty is still neglect, just a differnt kind. Ruthie thinks that neglect from an unwillingness to give time and affection to ones children even when one is in a position to do is somehow worse. Its neglect by choice rather than circumstance.
“thank you for pointing out my spelling mistake” — just sticking up for the geek
Not that I do any better… “Maybe it the cohort” — idiot 
Thank you for pointing that out kirit: I get nagged now I point out that Ruthie isn’t perfect.
In fact I’m probably going to get nagged for thanking you
…Not that I feel in any way pressured into this — I have done as you requested. Ironically GeekLawyer was the first law blog I ever read, yet I’ve never linked to it.
This is not my area of law but since you have aceeded to my request I’ll do my best, just as long as this answer doesnt end up in an essay OK?
I understand if someone elses embryos are implanted into the mother then it is done under a safeguarded contractural arrangement. Certainly the original “parents” have no moral or financial obligation to the child. The “mother” is the woman who gives birth to the child.
The embryo donor(s) in that instance give consent for the embryo to be implanted. The difference here is that one of the biological parents did not consent, although it would appear that he consented for the eggs to be fertilised with a view to being implanted at some stage in the past. It appears that there were therefore two stages of consent to be given. Interesting when you consider that in the normal act of intercourse there is only one stage of consent. However that consent is given in the context of an ongoing relationship where pregnancy will occur ( if its going to at all, within about 10 days of the event).
I agree with Laurence, Ms Evans is simply the victim of cruel circumstances. Unfortunately scientific expertise did not allow the freezing of just her eggs, although this case should suggest it becomes common practice to store both embryos and eggs, as Laurence suggests.
In any case, it would be been extremely unfar on Johnstone to have this child brought into the world which, while his, he had no say over and would constantly suffer conflicting feelings over.
Tough, but fair.
Oh, and my first comment here, finally!
I do not understand.
The putative father did have a say in this process. He gave his sperm.
The fact that the relationship with the now “unable to reproduce” putative mother broke down does not cancel his earlier decision to have at least one child with this mother.
Until the law accepts that there is responsibility with action we will have these HR conflicts.
If I make love with a lady, do I have a responsibility if she becomes pregnant? Can I revoke that responsibility at any time? Can I avoid responsibility for any offspring? Should offspring have a right to trace biological parents if the source material was donated to help infertile couples have children to nurture?
It makes sense that a family biological history should be available to the IVF or adopted child, but not that a financial obligation should arise on biological parent to child once a new legal parentage has been established.
My own moral stand-point is that I would wish to be involved with my progeny, even if the parental relationship broke down, but not if that personal desire seemed to be harming the child.
I sadly do not have children, and suspect am not in the correct cash or judicial category to attract an intelligent partner such as Ruthie. But you never know whats around the corner
No GL not you
I’d like to think that I’m not quite that shallow that I’m only interested in cash and status.…
bwah hahaha. Great, thanks Ruthie best laugh I’ve had all day
If someone consents to sex then they have no right to force a women to have an abortion if they then withdraw their consent.
It’s a shame the initial consent couldn’t have been legally binding, perhaps we need pre-embryonic contracts…
And yet if a woman consents to wanting to have a baby and becomes pregnant and then later changes her mind she is completely free to do so.
well it is her body
Which of course highlights the difference in this case. The embryo is not in her so she no longer has the ultimate decision as to what should happen to it.
I’m not sure Google have quite got the hang of this ‘clever advertising’.
The advert I’m seeing at the top now reads “Battered Women: Find the best deals at lowest price…choose from 1000s”.