OK,
A woman is diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She gets the consent of her partner to put 6 of their embryos into storage prior to an operation that will leave her barren. After the operation, they split up and he withdraws his consent- she's in the high court at the moment pleading for the right to access these embryos regardless of his consent.
I don't know what would make this man refuse consent in this particular situation, but it's happened. What do you think should happen next? How should the story end?
[ external link ]
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
As we're not talking about a living ...
As we're not talking about a living thing here that's developing inside a woman, and he dosen't want to be a father, destroy them, he has as much right NOT to be a father as she has to be a mother, she can always adopt ............
Oooohhhh- not afraid to get your feet ...
Oooohhhh- not afraid to get your feet wet, huh? ;-)
Ok, I'll put a toe in... so these ...
Ok, I'll put a toe in... so these embryos are the property of the man and the woman, formerly defacto, who have now split up- why not just divide them evenly, like anything else they owned together? 3 each?
;-) .... because he'll still be ...
;-) .... because he'll still be responable for her three IF she decides to put him ( or he's already down ) as the father on the birth certificate. If he dosen't want anything to do with her, or the kids they could have had together then it's his choice .. what if she was pregnat with his child .. he wants it, she dosen't, what say does he have ? .. maybe she should have just frozen the eggs .......
//he has as much right NOT to be a ...
//he has as much right NOT to be a father as she has to be a mother//
disgusting
/what if she was pregnat with his child ...
/what if she was pregnat with his child .. he wants it, she dosen't, what say does he have ?
That's about the point where my brain stops working... I'm trying to put my judgements through different tests to see what sticks. She could've tried putting some of her eggs in storage, but for whatever reason they both made a commitment to putting 6 embryos in storage, inextricably tying responsibility back to the both of them together.
The conservative in me says no-one should be allowed to reneg on a commitment of that magnitude, those embryos in storage are as much potential human lives as they would be in a conventional pregnancy, & there's nothing accidental about storing embryos, so the parents would've been contemplating way more issues than those which would concern conventional parents ... which brings back the child support angle you & V are talking about... The liberal in me says that embryos have as much or as little value as the parents are willing to bestow upon them- embryos have no intrinsic value or rights, they are quite distinctly not human lives, so responsibilty ultimately depends on what both parents are prepared to provide...
Except these two can't agree, and it's being pushed back onto the courts...
Should the fact that she can no longer have any children affect what's right & wrong, here?
Poor sore brain... time for bed...
Rdor .. why is it wrong to say the ...
Rdor .. why is it wrong to say the right thing .. disgusting you say .. everyone looks at it from the womans point of view ... oh look it's a poor woman fighting for her right to have a child with a mean nasty man who's being mean ... poor her, well what about his reasons for not wanting to have the embryos used, anyone know anything about him ... a prick according to grusome. It's his right in this case not to decide to be a father, he has a say in the matter, as I said above had it been her ( or any other woman ) being pregnant she dosen't even have to tell the father if she wants to abort it, and she can also have it with or without his consent, making him a father weather he wants it or not. It just so happens in this case he has a voice and he's made his position on the matter known. Sad yes, but right in this case I feel .....
/he has as much right NOT to be a ...
/he has as much right NOT to be a father as she has to be a mother
Yeah, especially because in this case we're talking about a frozen embryo, solely dependant on being stored at the right temperature- it's a different story if you talk about a conventional pregnancy, where the embryo is 'stored' by the mum & she get's the last word.
Maybe this always comes down to whoever owns the storage unit ;-) ...even though they have no parental claim to the embryo, they're keeping it's freezer at the right temperature. They are the embyro's 'primary care giver'. (?)
//everyone looks at it from the womans ...
//everyone looks at it from the womans point of view /
no it's not that, those embryos have the right to grow into people, they have a future. Destroying them is like destroying an individuals future (well it is doing that). This has been argued over before...
//Destroying them is like destroying an ...
//Destroying them is like destroying an individuals future
Hmmm, then you must really hate the whole test-tube baby thing anyway? Don't they usually make a whole bunch of viable embryos? Then implant one, and if it works destroy the rest? Are you saying that say they try to make 50, and 15 work, that they should try to implant all 15?
Or would you prefer that they were left frozen, rather than destroyed, even if there was no intention of ever using them?
Okay Rdor, I see where your coming ...
Okay Rdor, I see where your coming from, but do you think it would be the right thing to bring the frozen embryos back into a "conscious" state and bring them full term, only for them to find out later they weren't wanted by one of their parents ?? he's nothing more than a sperm / gene donor ? To be honest I'm not really thinking about the embryos as such, I'm thinking of a man who dosen't want to be a father in the circmstances he's found himself in .. and yes it's sad , very sad for the woman involved and even to the embryos, and if it wasn't for the advances in science, not nature .. we wouldn't be having to deal with situations like this .. shame.
Yeah, I don't know how the laws work ...
Yeah, I don't know how the laws work over there, but the way it is here those embryos are both his and hers. If he consents, he can legally be required to pay child support for these kids, and if they're no longer together, it's totally understandable that he wouldn't want to.
Yeah as you can see .. my point too .......
Yeah as you can see .. my point too ....
//I don't know what would make this ...
//I don't know what would make this man refuse consent in this particular situation
probably the same reason they split up - he's obviously a prick.
in all honesty, the state should ...
in all honesty, the state should destroy the embryos - you can't split them up, they have no monetary value, so get rid of them. contrary to popular opinion, there's more to life than having kids - if you can't have them, there's plenty of other ways to further the species...
and all this shit should have been spelled out BEFORE they decided to split up..
/and all this shit should have been ...
/and all this shit should have been spelled out BEFORE they decided to split up..
Hell yes. Still, it was only a matter of time before a situation like this would crop up... and hopefully it will help spell things out in future disputes.
Shit, this is tough. Basically, the ...
Shit, this is tough.
Basically, the embryo is a fertilised egg, right? This required both mother and father to be willing to engage the possibility of having children together. However, consenting to having embryos frozen and having them used to create children is a totally different thing. The guy may have been under intense pressure - as was the woman - and agreed to store embryos in case he ever did decide he wanted kids (for instance).
Stupidity and short-sightedness is a bit irrelevant here. I never want to see kids brought into the world without one parent wanting that kid to exist. My guess is one side of lawyers will argue that consenting to storage is not consenting to birth The other side will argue the logic that by accepting that embryos he fertilised would be kept because his wife would be rendered infertile, the obvious implication is he consented to them being used to counter that infertility.
Who fuckin knows really. I know my opinion, but every case is individual and law will never be satisfactory, but it's the best system we've got.
Maybe the law needs to be 'tough' in ...
Maybe the law needs to be 'tough' in these situations, to prevent people from wandering into them blindly- e.g. destroy the embryo if either parent's consent is withdrawn. If potential parents were afraid of things working out this way, maybe they'd think twice before putting embryos in storage in the first place?
With you on that one mate ... did you ...
With you on that one mate ... did you get your beer token for tonight .. ?
Yup. Mmm, beer & embryos. Sounds like a ...
Yup. Mmm, beer & embryos. Sounds like a party!
I'll bring the pringles...
I'll bring the pringles
Does anyone remember that episode of ...
Does anyone remember that episode of South Park where Cartman's trying to sell a truckload of unwanted embryos?
You're breaking my balls, Garry, you're breaking my balls...
</i>...