|A victory for common sense and for children
|| 3rd October 2003
On 1st October, a court made a sensible decision in the case of 2 women who wanted to use fertilised embryos in spite of the wishes of the men who provided the sperm. It refused their request to retrospectively contravene the law. Hopefully, this decision will be confirmed on appeal.
“ Only the delusional will believe that the ruling against Natallie Evans and Lorraine Hadley is controversial. That men should not be compelled to become fathers against their will is so blindingly sensible, so patently egalitarian, that it cannot be wrong. ”
The law on this matter was absolutely clear. The permission of the men had to be obtained before implantation. This is not an arbitrary matter. It is possible that the men would not have started the process had they not had this right of veto. We need laws that are not casually overturned retrospectively.
According to child support laws, it would have been possible for the CSA to pursue the men for child support if the mothers had claimed Income Support. There is no contract that the women could have agreed to that would have stopped the CSA pursuing the claim.
Little has been said about the human rights of the children who would have been born with fathers who never wanted them. Too often, that is the case. It is the case for the "Man Not Included" service too. What would the children have thought while growing up?
Ananova, Women lose frozen embryo battle
The Times, Tim Luckhurst, Men are more than just sperm donors with cash
The Times, Professor Ian Craft, Implications of court ruling on IVF
Guardian, Jenni Murray, Cruel, mean spirited and selfish