Markus

Tricky case, but I feel the courts have rulled correctly.
If she really, really, really wants a child then she'd be open to any option, for example, adoption. Yes, from a biological standpoint it won't be her child, and that is quite possibly the core of the issue.

It seems to me that the chap would not consent, and instead of accepting that he has every right to, and looking at other options, she's decided to drag this through the courts, hoping that they will essentially force the chap to give his consent, or veto his choice of not giving consent, and allowing her to have a child.

That raises a far more worrying point in that it does not matter if you don't give consent, you can simply go to the courts and get them to change things to your liking, and that is just plain wrong.

Frosty The Snowman

Yep that has got to be the hardest thing to deal with, especially if, as I said earlier, they need something like a kidney off you or they are going to die.

All these sort of things will need to be taken into account when you donate sperm or eggs though soon as I seem to recall something in the news about the possibility of anonimity being taken off of sperm donations, which will just mean fewer people will donate in future Could have just imagined it though

Clarebabes

Well all I can say is I do feel sorry for some of you and that you must have been treated very badly by women in the past.

Please accept my condolences.

Clarebabes

Sorry, forgot the smilie.

Here it is -------------->

trails

iTrader: (41)

nail head on hit.

davyboy

PMSL at this thread

Tiggs

err????

anyone that has lived through cancer needs to think themselves lucky and get on with life....whats wrong with that?

the battle against it may cause some damage (in this case her ability to have kids) but she won....she's alive.

what part do you disagree with?

davyboy

I think myself lucky everyday.

In fact I am honoured to be able to use SN and reply to people like you.

Thankfully I made the right choices when I was given the news I had cancer.

davegtt

WTF is this thread turning into. Starting to sound tit for tat. Think you'll find if we did a poll the majority would rule the courts decision best for all. Including the child that nobody else seems to be taking into a account, imagine growing up knowing full well you was only born by a court ruling as your father didnt want you. Nice.

Tiggs

glad you agree with me then.

davyboy

I was being sarcastic.

Tiggs

why.....you dont agree with me? what part? if i lived through cancer i'd consider myself lucky.

Holy Ghost

the thing that made me sigh was all this twaddle about having "a right to a family". no-one has a "right" to a family. sounds like she's been suckered by yet another lawyerly money-spinning scheme abusing that piece of tat called the EU bill of human rights (drafted, of course, by lawyers for lawyers, for the exclusive purpose of lining their pockets at £250/hour).

nice to see a sensible judicial ruling (two in two days what with the pikeys rightly being told to get off other people's property) for a change.

in response to the thread title: i doubt it. regardless of her sad circumstances, i'd say he just doesn't want to be forced into parenthood against his wishes by a woman he neither no longer loves nor wishes to have children with. the only "right" involved here is his right to refuse or grant permission, in line with the law of the land.

Brendan Hughes

Er yes they have, it's written into various laws, constitutions, and is legally enforceable. What more of a "right" do you want?

It's a lot more of a right than most crap which you see posted on NSR (the right to smoke, the right to do what they want, the right to...) which just means "I can't do whatever I want so I'm going to sulk".

Rachael

It's been a long time since I've used my own user name... I tend to use my partner's as he is the one with the scoob, (not that I've posted under his name for a long time either!) and the one who posts here... however, I can't hold my peace here, I have to post, in MY name.

This is a situation that I have followed with interest for a very long time. When the case first came to light 4 years ago (nearly) I had just been diagnosed with bowel cancer at the age of 29. I was aware that I was going to receive intensive chemo and radiotherapy and that the likelihood of me being able to conceive afterwards was very slight.
My oncologist insisted that I go to the assisted fertility clinic 70 miles away before I started my treatment to discuss my options. One of the options we were given was to freeze embryoes for future use. There were many reasons for not doing this. There was the ethical arguement. Should I not survive my treatment, what would happen to the fertilised eggs? (They are frozen as fertilized... they could ALREADY be babies). Another reason was that we felt that I couldn't delay my treatment. My cancer was already invading my bladder, and as much as children figured in my future plans, I needed to make sure I was alive to have plans.

Then there was this case. At the time of diagnosis, our relationship though strong, wasn't necessarilly cemented. I could never have faced the heartbreak of this sort of case happening. (Though I can't imagine my partner ever refusing that - even if we had split up - which we haven't! )

Our choice was to put treatment first, and think about what to do should we ever decide to have children.

I am thankfully 2 years clear now and healthy. I am also infertile. It hasn't been easy. I have watched my friends marry, have children and build their own families. I have had days when I've cried and cried. As a female, it's my RIGHT to have children... BUT I also know that I could never carry a child full term anyway because of the damage caused by radiotherapy to my womb. It DOES hurt. Most females are genetically programmed to want children. (I'm sure there's a few exceptions though!)

The reason I wanted to write was the comment (somewhere) that she should be happy enough to still be alive. Oh please! Of course she's happy to still be alive... I am too. But just because you get through cancer doesn't mean that you are an emotional brick wall where other feelings are concerned. It's not being ungrateful... it's being human.

There is no right or wrong answer to this. It is a question that could be debated for ever. Personally, I have every sympathy for this woman, I can empathise with her wish to have children, and people who say 'adopt instead' have no bl**dy clue! (IMHO) However, I do also think that her ex-partner has every right to say no too... what is the answer???

On the other hand, in a month where 3 of my online friends have died of cancer, I am grateful to be here.

Just a little food for thought... hope I haven't rambled too much.

Rachael

davyboy

Nice post Rachael

I suspect many on here have no first hand knowledge of the subject - so it's only normal for them to come across as if they don't have a clue.

sarasquares

iTrader: (1)

there is no answer to this one. she had cancer, lived to tell the tale but cant have her own children. its sad but it isnt the end of the world. if it was me i would prolly want to adopt a child that needed a family. if she wants to be a mother she still can

davyboy

...sure she can, and I guess as this door has closed, she'll look at other options.

Good luck to her.....but I still think the blokes a coont!

Rachael

Are you aware that by the time you're 38 you are considered too old to adopt?

That's what I was told by my consultant... need to prove that I can stay alive for that long too... we have to give an adoption application a good 2 years to go through, I need to prove that I'm emotionally stable enough to bring up a child... it could count against us that we're not married... as 'worthy' and 'rewarding' as adoption is, iand however much you love the child, it is NOT the same as child-birth.

No, it isn't the end of the world, I'm not suggesting it is, but if you haven't been in that situation HOW can you analyse all the under-lying issues with this?

Castrol

Not true. I'm 46 and my Wife's 40.

We're currently 4 months into the adoption process, after being courted by a number of agencies - all of which were very keen for us to sign up with them. If all goes well and we're approved, we've been told to expect a child in January/February of 2007.

We were told by 3 agencies, that 13/14 months from start to finish was normal. I'm a College Lecturer and my Wife's a Primary School teacher, although I don't see that speeding up the process.

Try another agency - you owe it to yourself.

Cheers and good luck!

PS I wouldn't want to allow my ex Wife to have my baby in similar circumstances to the aforementioned legal case. I have a responsibility to my second Wife, that far outweighs any prior responsibility to the first.

Tiggs

how many children do you have?

Brit_in_Japan

Nice post Rachael.

The nearest equivalent situation from a male perpective would be if they contributed sperm to fertilize eggs before they became infertile (cancer treatment or whatever). Assuming there was no frozen sperm stored seperately, what right woud he have over the fertilized embryos without the permission of the woman who donated the eggs? Could he insist that the eggs be implanted in a surrogate mother so the children could be born? It would be the only way he could become a father biologically speaking.

I think the desire to procreate is every bit as strong in men as it is women. Men can be the father figure to children with a different biological fathers, whether conceived naturally (because of a prior relationship) or via donated sperm, but ultimately the man knows they are not biologically his. How much does that matter? Well that depends on the man concerned.

It sounded like Howard Johnston feels very strong responsibility towards taking an active part in raising any biological offspring, and clearly that was not going to happen in this case. As the embryos were not implanted, he had equal right to decide what happened to them, and he exercised that right. I don't think his motives were motivated by hatred.

At a human level and can feel sorry for Natallie Evans' situation, but I think the courts made the right decision.

OllyK

Go and have a chat with some mothers that are infertile and have gone down this route and maybe a few of the kids before you ridicule the idea. It strikes me that it's perhaps you that needs to get the clue.

OllyK

Wrong - the age keeps going up and even 50 year olds are being considered
http://adopting.adoption.com/child/o...-adoption.html

Rachael

Thanks... when it happens.

Its nice to hear from people who know... I go by what I was told, its good to know that it isn't necessarilly the right information. Good luck to you both.

Rachael

Maybe I do need to get a clue. I know how my infertility feels, and I know through talking to quite a few people in the same situation as me. I look forward to being proved wrong.

That's all, I'll go and hide back in the shadows again now.

oik

LOL!

Another 'life outside OilyGay's village' shocker!

Iwan

This is the same wrong assumption the BBC were making in their biased reporting. They aren't her embryos, they are their embryos, made in a lab from her eggs and his sperm. The law says he can withdraw consent for them to be used if he doesn't want a child with her.

Not wishing to have a go at you but it's not a females right, carrying children is just something a woman can do from a biological standpoint.

Castrol

Thanks Rachael; appreciated.

Cheers!