(A bit of an Op-Ed piece today, with apologies for my lack of posts of late. It's not that Olivia's not endlessly fasxinating, I promise. I can promise more exciting films soon, as we have a new video camera.)
An interesting case has reached a conclusion in the Grand Chamber of the European Court yesterday, having begun in the High Court in 2002.
Natalie Evans has been told that her frozen embryos must be destroyed after her final appeal was overturned. The story began when Ms Evans had a cycle of IVF and her fertilized embryos frozen when faced with a treatment for ovarian cancer that would render her sterile in 2001. She and partner Howard Johnston later split up. Mr Johnson wrote to the clinic asking them to destroy the embryos as he was withdrawing his consent for them to be implanted. Under UK law, both partners must consent for implantation to be attempted.
Given that the embryos represented her only possible opportunity of having her own biological children, Ms Evans took her case to court, claiming her human rights were being breached. She said that if she had become pregnant naturally, and then split up with the father, he would have no right to force her to abort the foetus. The High Court rejected her argument. She then took it to the Court of Appeal, the European Court of Human Rights and finally, the Grand Chamber of the European Court where her final line of appeal was rejected.
Ms Evan's argument that Mr Johnston would not be able to force her to have an abortion had she conceived naturally and then they'd split up is a fallacious one. Embryos and foetuses have no rights in law in the UK - birth is the point at which they are conferred. What would stop Mr Johnston from being able to force Ms Evans to abort in this hypothetical situation is Ms Evans' rights over her own body.
(Of course, some might wish to make an argument about when 'life' occurs and open up the whole abortion issue, but frankly it's completely academic to the case in hand.)
I also feel that if the scenario were reversed, if they'd split and then Mr Johnston had discovered he was infertile, would Ms Evans have approved of him using a surrogate? It's possible she might, but I don't think many would take his side.
I've seen it written that Ms Evans would have absolved Mr Johnston of his fiscal responsibilities to the child, but again, this is a non-starter of an argument. Ms Evans does not have the ability to hold Mr Johnston responsible for supporting the child and other legal duties, the State does. If it were true, it still matters not a jot.
So, I do feel that it is very sad for Ms Evans, but that the right decision has been reached. She still has adoption open to her. I realise that it is not the same, but she could mother a child and if, as has often been said about men, shooting spunk up a fanny* does not make a father, equally then not having gone through pregnancy and birth doesn't stop someone being a mother. I also think that if we're going to say women have the right to choose whether to have children or not, equally men deserve the same rights and that if you're going to have children with a partner, both need to consent.
Ultimately, what this issue is about is people's right to have children and the bottom line is, it is not a right. When Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family," it does not mean that fecundity is a right. (For some reason I am reminded of the scene in Life of Brian when they are debating Stan/ Loretta's right to have children!)
Some of us are lucky enough to want children and be able to have them. Some of us want them but cannot. It's not fair, but neither is it God or Satan or (insert other fictional character here_____) playing silly buggers. It's accidents of biology and random fortune.
As I say, the circumstances of this case are extremely sad, but I do feel emphatically that the correct decision has been reached.
* UK version of 'fanny', in case any Americans were getting concerned about our incompatible anatomies.
The other pertinent point I suppose is that, as one doctor said on TV the other night, technology has moved on now so that it's much easier to harvest/freeze eggs alone (rather than fertilised embryos) than it was three years ago. So this means of course that women now can choose to do this so that they can be fertilised when ready (by a consenting partner's sperm) rather than beforehand.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say – motherhood is not a human right. I feel for her, but there it is.