Deciding the fate of disputed embryos: ethical issues in the case of Natallie Evans

Open Access
Debate

Abstract

Background

A number of disputes have arisen in recent years over the status of non-transferred embryos cryopreserved during in vitro fertilisation. One such case is that of Natallie Evans who in April 2007 lost her final attempt to prevent the destruction of embryos created with the sperm of her former partner. Ms Evans had been rendered infertile by cancer treatment, and the embryos represented her only chance of having genetically related children.

Discussion

Arguments over stored embryos often conflate different concepts of parenthood. The effects of 'forcing' genetic parenthood on a man are mistakenly presented as being analogous with forcing women to bear children. Likewise, there is a tendency to assume that genetic parenthood necessarily involves legal, financial and psychological implications. Men (or women) who object to becoming parents should be encouraged to specify which aspects of parenthood they regard as being harmful. While the financial or physical burdens of forced parenthood involve objective harms, the putative psychological harms of enforced genetic parenthood are subjective, and this distinction should be recognised. Popular beliefs about genetic parenthood perpetuate the kinds of subjective concerns expressed by Ms Evans' partner, but the concept of genetic parenthood itself may come under pressure in the face of future technological developments.

Summary

Historical legal requirements obliging men to provide for their genetic offspring still pervade in the law. These perceptions are becoming outmoded in context of rapidly-moving reproductive technologies. To avoid disputes greater flexibility is required. The economic and legal components of parenthood should be negotiable in cases where disputes arise, and should not be assumed to flow inexorably from genetic paternity. To reduce the chances of disputes arising, consent protocols for cryopreservation of non-transferred embryos should be refined. Couples should address the possibility of divorce or the breakup of their relationships, and should be made aware that embryos can be destroyed at the behest of either party in these circumstances.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Mark Cutter for helpful advice and suggestions.

References

  1. 1.
    Woman loses final embryo appeal. BBC News Online. 10th April 2007., [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6530295.stm]
  2. 2.
    Case of Evans v. The United Kingdom. (Application no. 6339/05).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See, for example, comments listed by the Science Media Centre. Press releases 7th March 2006: Experts react to the Natallie Evans case ruling. [http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/press_releases/06-03-07_natallieevans.htm]
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Bayne T, Kolers A: Parenthood and Procreation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2006 Edition). Edited by: Zalta EN. Bayne and Kolers list four grounds of parenthood: genetic, gestational, genetic and causal. I have added to these the legal and nurturing components., [http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2006/entries/parenthood]
  6. 6.
    Brazier M: Reproductive Rights: Feminism or Patriarchy?. The Future of Human Reproduction. Edited by: Harris J, Soren H. 1998, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Case of Evans v. The United Kingdom. (Application no. 6339/05). B 23.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brake E: Fatherhood and Child Support: Do Men Have a Right to Choose?. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2005, 22 (1):CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis v. Davis. (Tenn. S. Ct. 1992) Tenn. LEXIS 400. 1992Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis v Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588, 597(Tenn. 1992) para 112.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Willans solicitors press release: Final hearing in 'Frozen embryos' case. Nov 15th 2006. [http://www.willans.co.uk/artman/publish/article_545.shtml]
  12. 12.
    Harris J: Assisted reproductive technological blunders. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2003, 29: 205-206. 10.1136/jme.29.4.205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Derbyshire D: Scientists seeking to create embryos with three parents. The Telegraph. 17th October 2004., [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/18/nembry18.xml]
  14. 14.
    Nagy ZP, Chang C: Current advances in artificial gametes. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2005, 11 (3): 332-339(8).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whittaker P: Stem cells to gametes: how far should we go?. Human Fertility. 2007, 10 (1): 1-5. 10.1080/14647270600883234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheldon S: Evans v Amicus Health Care: Revealing Cracks in the "Twin Pillars"?. Child and Family Law Quarterly. 2004, 437-52.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sheldon S: Gender Equality and Reproductive Decision-Making. Feminist Legal Studies. 2004, 12 (3): 303-316(14). 10.1007/s10691-004-4988-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nachmani v. Nachmani (50(4) P.D. 661 (Isr)).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Webster K: Whose embryo is it anyway? A critique of Evans v Amicus Healthcare [2003] EWHC 2161 (Fam). Journal of International Women's Studies. 2006, 7 (3): 71-86.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    An example of a standard consent form for men creating embryos is available from the HFEA's website. [http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/HFEA_MT_FORM_v.15.pdf]
  21. 21.
    O'Neill O: Informed consent and public health. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2004, 359 (1447): 1133-1136. 10.1098/rstb.2004.1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588, 597 (Tenn. 1992) para 112.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sheldon S: Fragmenting Fatherhood: The Regulation of Reproductive Technologies. Modern Law Review. 2005, 68 (4): 523-553. 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2005.00550.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    There is a separate issue here about the state's economic interest in preventing the creation of single parent families. However, there is not scope in this paper to explore this area, and the issue was not raised specifically with reference to the Evans case.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Smajdor; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2007

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Ethics Unit, Imperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations