STRASBOURG, France (AP) -- A British woman left infertile after being treated for ovarian cancer has no right to frozen embryos against the wishes of her former fiance, who provided the sperm, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Tuesday.
The court's Grand Chamber, a panel of 17 European judges, confirmed a lower court ruling upholding a British law that stipulates consent from both parents is needed at every stage of the in vitro fertilization process.
Tuesday's verdict cannot be appealed, and the frozen embryos will be destroyed.
The court said it felt ''great sympathy'' for Natalie Evans, but ruled that her desire to become a parent should not be accorded greater weight than her former fiance's right not to have a genetically related child with her.
Evans, 35, was left infertile after receiving treatment for cancer, but in 2001, prior to the removal of her ovaries, six of her eggs were fertilized by Howard Johnston's sperm through in vitro fertilization.
The couple then split up, and Johnston withdrew his consent for her to use the embryos. Evans took him to a British court, but judges there rejected her legal appeals to implant an embryo, saying consent from both partners was needed and ordering the destruction of the embryos.
Evans claimed the British law breached her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. She said her right to privacy and family life, and the embryo's right to life, were being violated by Johnston's refusal to grant permission for use of his sperm. She had also argued his attempt to prevent her from having the baby was discriminatory.
But the court said there was no violation of the convention, and upheld its earlier ruling that said it was up to national law to define when the right to life began. Under British law an embryo does not have independent rights or interests.
''I am distraught at the court's decision today. It's very hard for me to accept that the embryos will now be destroyed and that I will never become a mother,'' Evans said in a statement.
Johnston said that, while he sympathized with Evans, he was relieved that ''common sense has prevailed.''
''I want to be able to choose when I become a parent,'' he said.
The European court requested a stay of an order to destroy the embryos in February 2005 while it considered Evans' case.
Suppose Johnston were legally relieved of all parental rights and responsibilities, much as is the case with "donor insemination". Should the result be the same? What considerations should guide that decision?
Comments?
No comments:
Post a Comment