It appears that Natalie Evans has lost the final chance of ever having her own child.
For those of you who don't know Ms Evans was diagnosed with ovarian cancer is 2001. She and her then partner froze some embryos for future use. Unfortunately the couple subsequently broke up and Howard Johnston has refused her the right to use the embryos.
UK law currently says that BOTH parties must consent for the eggs to be implanted. Ms Evans has taken her case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights but has lost.
I do feel some sympathy with Ms Evans, but her then partner had always been told he had the right to withdraw consent and any time up to implantation. I can understand that he would feel that whatever his legal status with any child, he would feel a moral obligation for a child he had not wanted. Perhaps the law should be rewritten but as it stands the courts had no choice.
It is perhaps an indication of science advancing quicker than our own moral ability to
The eggs will now be destroyed.
4 comments:
A tentative suggestion here - perhaps the only way to solve some of these moral dilemmas is to look at them in the context of the times. For instance, is there a shortage of children? Or is the world overpopulated? I can see both considerations having a bearing on the individual cases. Perhaps the answer would always be different depending on this wider context.
This is such a sad story, I'm glad I wasn't the one who had to make a decision. I do think the right decision was reached, but I feel so sorry for Miss Evans. If the level of determination she has shown is anything to go by, she would have made a devoted mother.
diddums - I don't think you can treat cases on merit. you have to have hard and fast rules I think
Kate - they followed the law which made it easier. I do feel for her though
The problem with hard and fast rules is... if we were struggling to keep the population going, I can quite easily see it going in favour of using the eggs rather than destroying them.
Post a Comment