U.K. Woman Loses Court Case to Implant Frozen Embryo

Interesting News For The Day
Click on Title for Link to Bloomberg.com Article


U.K. Woman Loses Court Case to Implant Frozen Embryo

By Anna Jenkinson

April 10 (Bloomberg) -- A British woman, left infertile after cancer treatment, was blocked by a European court from pursuing her only chance to have a child of her own.

Natallie Evans doesn't have the right to use embryos created from the in vitro fertilization treatment that she and her ex- fiance Howard Johnston had in 2001 without his agreement, the European Court of Human Rights ruled. Johnston withdrew his permission for the embryos to be used after their relationship ended in 2002. Evans, 35, argued that this breached her rights.
``Each person's interest was entirely irreconcilable with the other's,'' the Strasbourg, France-based court, the highest Evans can turn to, ruled today. The court said that while it sympathized with Evans, ``who clearly desired a genetically related child above all else,'' it didn't consider her rights should be given more weight than Johnston's.

The court highlighted the case's ``morally and ethically delicate nature'' and its wider implications on legislation throughout Europe. In line with U.K. law, Evans and Johnston signed a form that stated it would be possible for either of them to withdraw consent before the embryos were implanted.

`Common Sense'

``The absolute nature of the rule served to promote legal certainty and to avoid the problems of arbitrariness and inconsistency,'' the court's 17-judge Grand Chamber said. ``Those general interests were legitimate and consistent'' with European human rights law, it said.
Evans said at a news conference that she was ``distraught'' by the decision.

Johnston said at his own televised news conference that ``common sense has prevailed.''
``I want to choose as and when I become a parent,'' he said.

The British Medical Association welcomed the ruling's support for the principle of consent.

``Having a child is a life-long undertaking to which both partners should be fully committed,''

Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's medical ethics committee, said in an e-mailed statement.
Evans had considered whether she should explore other means of having her remaining eggs fertilized in case her relationship ended. Johnston reassured her that would not happen, according to a court summary of the case.

Two weeks after the in vitro fertilization treatment, Evans had her ovaries removed to treat a pre-cancerous condition. After the operation, Evans was told she would need to wait two years before implanting the embryos. In May 2002, the couple's relationship ended and Johnston withdrew his consent for the use of the embryos.

Fight Over
Evans argued that requiring the father's consent for the continued storage and implantation of the fertilized eggs breached her right to respect for private and family life, the prohibition of discrimination and the embryos' right to life.

A lower chamber of the court ruled against Evans in March 2006, saying that the need for the consent of both donors under U.K. law is ``a clear and principled rule, which was explained to the parties to IVF treatment, and clearly set out in the forms they both signed.''
Today's ruling supported the lower chamber's decision.

``Her legal fight is now over,'' Muiris Lyons, the lawyer representing Evans, said at the televised press conference today. ``Her loss will last forever.''

The case is Evans v. United Kingdom, 6339/05.
To contact the reporter on this story: Anna Jenkinson in Brussels at ajenkinson@bloomberg.net