Embryos and the Right to Children

There's been a really quite interesting news story recently, or rather the continuation of one that's been floating around for a year or two. The latest installment of the sorry saga is on the BBC website here, and it raises some questions. For those who don't want to check the website, a brief summary:

Natalie Evans and her then partner, Howard Johnston, started IVF treatment in 2001. This resulted in embryos being created from their eggs and sperm. These embyos were frozen. Subsequently, the couple have split up, and Ms Evans has been left infertile by cancer. She wants to proceed with the treatment and become pregnant, but can only do so with these embryos. Mr Johnston does not wish to have a child/children with Ms Evans. Ms Evans has pursued the matter through the courts in Britain, and been denied, and has just been again denied by the European Court of Human Rights. She plans to appeal to the Grand Jury of the European Court, and also hopes Mr Johnston will change his mind. Furthermore, under UK law, the embryos will be destroyed in October, as Mr Johnston has withdrawn his consent for them to be used.

The European Court is quoted as saying: "The Court, like the national courts, had great sympathy for the plight of the applicant who, if implantation did not take place, would be deprived of the ability to give birth to her own child." However, they rule that the fact Mr Johnston has withdrawn consent takes precedence over Ms Evans being able to carry a child.

Ok, I think that summarises the sorry tale so far. Frankly, it raises so many issues, it's difficult to know where to start. Perhaps we should start with the creation of these embryos.

In the Beginning...
It has been argued by Josephine Quintavalle of the pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics that Mr Johnston in fact became a father with the creation of the embryos. This strikes me as coming close to various arguments on abortion that center on when a human becomes a human and not a cluster of cells. I don't wish to seem harsh, but these are not humans we're talking about. They are potential humans. So are my sperm, and I've flushed quite a lot of those away without anyone campaigning outside my door. But I don't want to get into the abortion debate here.

The point is, the law requires the consent of both partners every step of the way, and rightly so. Imagine the outcry had the roles been reversed and it was Mr Johnston who had become sterile and was now insisting Ms Evans carry a child she doesn't want. Yes, I'm aware that women have to physically carry and bear the child, but there still remains the fact that no one should be forced to be a parent against their will. There are some rather strange arguments along the lines of "Well, what if she legally waives any responsibility he has to the child?" Firstly, I'm not sure that this can actually be done. Secondly, even if he had no legal responsibility, no man worth his salt could walk away from a child he knew was his. Men have feelings too, you know?

I'm fascinated that anyone would seriously consider making someone a parent against their will. We're not talking about a woman who's pregnant, we're talking about a woman who cannot become pregnant without this man becoming a father. A man who admits that he doesn't want a family at this time, and certainly not with a woman he's already seperated from. We're not talking about a foetus that will have to be aborted, we're talking about a few cells little more advanced than the stuff men and women regularly dispose of.

Of course, it's not just these two people who are affected. Under the bizarre way British law works, if Ms Evans were in fact granted permission to use these embryos, it would set a precendent that would affect any similar case in the future. Enough to make you think twice about IVF, lads?

The Right to Give Birth
The larger issue that strikes me is the whole point that Ms Evans feels she has a right to bear a child that is biologically "hers." This seems to be a common sentiment in the world, and one I totally disagree with. Given both the over-population problems we are beginning to face, and the already large number of children without parents for whatever reason, I can see no reason why Ms Evans isn't told to adopt if she wants a child that badly. Yes, it won't be "biologically hers," but sadly this happens in life. I don't understand this "right" to have children. Or rather, I do.

I understand the biological imperative to pass on our genes. It is what drives every animal, hell every living thing. It proves that we're not as superior to the rest of creation as we like to think. Personally, I like to think that if I ever have children, what I pass on won't be the concoction of DNA from generations of random breeding, mixed with someone else's equally random genetic structure. What I hope to pass on, whether to my children or to other's, are ideas, thoughts, a way of looking at the world. Isn't that just a bit more important than being able to say "Ooh, he's got my dad's eyes?"

I hope that this will spark some comment, as it's not really complete in itself, and I fully expect to return to the subject in the future.