• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

IVF

#2
I think he has the right to choose as well.

What decent bloke would want his child to grow up without it's dad? Their relationship broke down ages ago, and while it's sad that it's her last chance to have a baby, it's still half his technically.

I agree with him. She can always offer a life to a child already born and adopt, there are enough of the poor sods out there who need a good home.
 
#3
I'm afraid that this is a straightforward case (in my eyes!) of unlucky!

Some people can have babies, some people can't.

She was arguing her right to a family, yet ignoring her ex-partners right to not have one.

This to me appears to be a victory for common sense from the European Courts.
 
#4
I find the contrast with abortion quite interesting: current UK law (rightly IMO) holds that the father's wishes cannot compel the mother to have an abortion or to refrain from having one. (Every now and then there is a court case in which the father tries to stop the mother having an abortion, with no success to date.)

The operative principle (or at least, a key principle) in the case of abortion seems to be bodily integrity/bodily self-determination of the woman - such a principle does not apply to the (tragic) IVF case mentioned. (I see that the other woman who was also fighting a similar case has given up?)

It's hard to know what to do in such a case: being (broadly) a utilitarian, I'm inclinded to think that the woman in the case is suffering more by not having her own child than the man would suffer by such a child being brought into the world.
 
#5
And what about the child?

Why should the child grow up without a father?

With regards to abortions, there is always a risk with any pregnancy and it has a direct impact on the womans body, so I agree the ultimate decision in abortion should lie with the woman.

In this case however, there is no impact physically, only emotionally, both parties emotions. So I believe the father should have a say. If she craves a child, adopt one.
 
#6
Artemis,

I see your point about it affecting the woman by not having her own child.

However what about the man who doesn't wish to have a child when he is not in a relationship with the mother. What about if she were given permission and the child grew up to look for a father who never wanted her. How would he feel knowing that his own flesh and blood had been born without his wishes?

Moodybitch is right when she says why doesn't she go for adoption.
 
#7
There is also the financial angle. The father would, I presume be legally obliged to pay child support if she had won.

Bottom line, she is a selfish woman. It may not be the popular thing to say but I do not believe in IVF at all. There are plenty of orphans/unwanted kids in the world. If natural selection has decided you cant concieve or you are some sort of raving lesbian feminist or just too greedy to start a family at a sensible time because of your career or whatever, tough.
 
#8
Horridlittleman said:
Artemis,

I see your point about it affecting the woman by not having her own child.

However what about the man who doesn't wish to have a child when he is not in a relationship with the mother. What about if she were given permission and the child grew up to look for a father who never wanted her. How would he feel knowing that his own flesh and blood had been born without his wishes?

Moodybitch is right when she says why doesn't she go for adoption.
Agreed about the adoption point: the desire to have "one's own" child does seem to get fetishised in some cases. (Although interesting to note the reaction that some celebs get when they choose to adopt rather then to have their own child.)

Ref your comment that I've put in bold: such situations happen at the moment, in any circumstance when a woman becomes pregnant when she's not in a relationship and she keeps the baby against the father's wishes.

What you might say there is "well, he should have used protection" - could the same thing not be said of the man in the IVF case? I.e. "he shouldn't have consented in the first place?"
 
#10
_Artemis_ said:
Horridlittleman said:
Artemis,

I see your point about it affecting the woman by not having her own child.

However what about the man who doesn't wish to have a child when he is not in a relationship with the mother. What about if she were given permission and the child grew up to look for a father who never wanted her. How would he feel knowing that his own flesh and blood had been born without his wishes?

Moodybitch is right when she says why doesn't she go for adoption.
Agreed about the adoption point: the desire to have "one's own" child does seem to get fetishised in some cases. (Although interesting to note the reaction that some celebs get when they choose to adopt rather then to have their own child.)

Ref your comment that I've put in bold: such situations happen at the moment, in any circumstance when a woman becomes pregnant when she's not in a relationship and she keeps the baby against the father's wishes.

What you might say there is "well, he should have used protection" - could the same thing not be said of the man in the IVF case? I.e. "he shouldn't have consented in the first place?"
Perhaps he felt under pressure to consent when she was undergoing medical treatment?

Perhaps he did want to be the father of her child at the time?

Now he doesn't, so surely he should have the chance to withdraw (sorry about the pun) now that they are no longer together?

Isn't that better than bringing an unwanted child into the world and having nothing to do with it?
 
#11
Artemis,

I agree that the point I made happen all of the time in the UK with regards to unplanned pregnancies and the man having no rights when abortion is involved. That doesn't mean it is correct!

The point in this case was that he consented to use the embryos while they were a couple. He then withdrew his consent when the situation changed. I don't see that there is anything wrong with him doing that. It is his right to remove consent at any time up until the embryos are implanted - he exercised that right!
 
#12
Blokeonabike said:
There is also the financial angle. The father would, I presume be legally obliged to pay child support if she had won.
Presumably she could formally have waived her right to child support - problem solved.

Blokeonabike said:
Bottom line, she is a selfish woman. It may not be the popular thing to say but I do not believe in IVF at all. There are plenty of orphans/unwanted kids in the world. If natural selection has decided you cant concieve or you are some sort of raving lesbian feminist or just too greedy to start a family at a sensible time because of your career or whatever, tough.
While I agree that people should be encouraged to think much more seriously about adoption rather than IVF, I find it hard to conclude that treatment for the medical condition of infertility should be denied. Natural selection isn't a totem that we follow blindly - we use scientific advances to cure congential conditions all the time. After all, we could take the "suck it up" approach to a number of medical conditions that are not life-threatening but nevertheless have a negative impact on people's lives.

I assume your comment about lesbians refers to the relatively recent BFS recommendation that one cycle of IVF on the NHS should be provided to gay couples and single women as well as straight couples? Again, I find it hard to see why an infertile single or gay woman should be treated differently from an infertile straight woman. I appreciate that "The child needs a father" arguments can be made here, but feel they are adequately responded to a) by the fact that many children brought up by a single or widowed mother are perfectly well-developed and b) by considering whether a fatherless child is SO badly off that it would have been better for that child never to have lived at all (since this is effectively what is being advocated).

An interesting and emotive subject.
 
#13
Moodybitch said:
Now he doesn't, so surely he should have the chance to withdraw (sorry about the pun) now that they are no longer together?

Isn't that better than bringing an unwanted child into the world and having nothing to do with it?
The point about withdrawing consent is a good one: currently we allow withdrawal of consent to end a procedure under virtually all circumstances - there's certainly a compelling argument to be made that the same thing should apply here. I'm by no means convinced that my utilitarian approach is the right one to take!

Ref your second point: the child wouldn't be unwanted - clearly the mother wants it very much. As I said above, I personally don't buy the "every child needs a father" line.
 
#14
Slightly off thread,

But why should anyone receive IVF on the NHS. Surely that would make the couple going for the process Dual Income - No Kids and therefore able to pay for the treatment themselves!
 
#15
Ermm...the bit about Lesbians/Gays......when you don't actually have all of the working parts to create a child due to your choice of partner, then it is kind of tough really in my view.
 
#16
Artemis,

No, not every child needs a father and there are plenty of children who grow up to prove that point. But they should not be brought into the world through a medical procedure when the father is not consenting to use his element!

As an aside a sperm donors allowed to withdraw consent for there sperm to be used at any stage or once donated do they lose any rights over when it is used?

Part of the debate here is at what point does someone lose the biological equivalent to the intellectual property rights to their sperm/eggs?
 
#17
Horridlittleman said:
Slightly off thread,

But why should anyone receive IVF on the NHS. Surely that would make the couple going for the process Dual Income - No Kids and therefore able to pay for the treatment themselves!
It's a reasonable issue to consider - however, what about infertile couples working minimum wage jobs? If we think the NHS should ever provide free, non-life-saving treatment, then surely there's a case for such couples to be helped?

You might make the reasonable point that couples above a certain income should have to pay for IVF and indeed all other forms of non-life-saving/non-mobility-improving etc treatment: again, that's a valid perspective, but that would lead to the demise of the NHS as we know it. Depends on whether or not you think that's a good or bad thing, really.

Moodybitch said:
Ermm...the bit about Lesbians/Gays......when you don't actually have all of the working parts to create a child due to your choice of partner, then it is kind of tough really in my view.
IIRC (and I may well be wrong on this, it isn't quite my field), current legislation on lesbian couples having access to IVF doesn't include lesbian couples who are fertile (the old turkey baster does the trick). It only includes couples who are medically infertile. If we stop medically infertile gay women from having treatment that would be provided to medically infertile straight women, then we surely do them a grave injustice.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
Mrs T_B_S and I had our child thanks to IVF
I'm sure many people don't agree with it but you have to try in our case it was a medical reason that basically meant if we got the egg fertilised there wouldn't be no problems and there wasn't we just needed a wee push

We were lucky we could afford to go private which means that you go to the same clinic,same doctors we just skipped the queue a bit

To get IVF we had to:
Be interviewed by the consultant
He was then going to check with both of our doctors to see if their was any reason why we shouldn't have IVF i.e. history off drink and drugs etc (compare this to some of the scum you see with children )
Provide blood
Provide identity and photos so that everytime we turned up they would check ID against photo's to make sure we were who we said we were
We also had to sign a rake of forms stating that we would look after the child and in event of separation I would as the father continue to provide maintenance until the child come of age
this was all done before we even got started on our treatment
It took about 10 months from the start to her getting pregnant
After we had the child we had to fill more forms in about the birth, sex etc and the state of the parents relationship are we still together si the child wanted still
It's really quite intrusive and put's alot of pressure and strain on the relationship we could only afford 1 go (it's about 6k) so it had to be right
Luckily for us it worked out and we have a cracking little girl

I don't know how the skinhead lezzers get it but when we went it wasn't as simple as turning up with the turkey baster
P.S. THE PORN WAS RUBBISH
luckily being a grade A to$$er I struggled on :D
 
#20
Horridlittleman said:
Artemis,

No, not every child needs a father and there are plenty of children who grow up to prove that point. But they should not be brought into the world through a medical procedure when the father is not consenting to use his element!
Ordinarily (since I'm pretty keen on autonomy), I'd agree: however, I wonder whether an exception should be made in the specific case of a woman having only one chance to have her own child? A case of well-being perhaps trumping autonomy? Yes, I know that's a really slippery slope to go down - as I said, I'm really not sure what the right thing to do is in such cases.

Horridlittleman said:
As an aside a sperm donors allowed to withdraw consent for there sperm to be used at any stage or once donated do they lose any rights over when it is used?
Most trusts that I'm aware of allow withdrawal of consent at any point, for both sperm and egg donors.
 

Latest Threads