Science and Technology Committee - Who owns an embryo?

Who owns an embryo?

The law states that for the IVF process (including storage and the use of embryos) to continue, the consent of both partners is required. Recent cases have highlighted disagreements when the potential father withdraws consent after embryos have been created and frozen. Should there be a shift to storing gametes rather than embryos? Should the consent laws be changed to allow the woman to implant the embryo? Should the law be changed to allow the father to use the embryo without the woman’s consent (for example with a different partner)?

Legal status: HFE Act states that effective consent – continuing consent in writing – is required from both partners until implantation.

Scientific status: Technology currently available

Links:
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/PressOffice/Archive/1064934879
http://www.bionews.org.uk/new.lasso?storyid=1530

Neither partner should be abl

posted 27/01/2004 - 21:05 by Sleepy

Neither partner should be able to implant an embryo without the consent of the other. Therefore, either irrevocable consent should be given at the time of the IVF, or there should be shift towards storing gametes rather than embryos.

In the event that either partner lost their fertility in the future, frozen gametes would enable them to attempt IVF with their current partner/a donor even if their circumstances had changed since they froze their eggs/sperm.

Consent and embryo storage

posted 28/01/2004 - 11:09 by Richard Fleming

Actually, the storage of human eggs is not a fully tested and accepted procedure yet. That notwithstanding, the law has it about right here. The embryos were formed by mutual consent, and they should only be used with mutual consent.

Egg storage

posted 10/02/2004 - 11:27 by Josephine Quint...

Sorry, Richard, but egg storage is an accepted procedure and is resulting in healthy babies. In 1997 Dr Eleonora Porcu from Bologna published the birth of the first baby resulting from a cryopreserved oocyte (egg). She had been working on oocyte preservation since the early nineties and pioneered the technique in one of the first clinical trials using human oocytes frozen-thawed. Since then successful pregnancies have been achieved world-wide.

The harvesting and freezing of human eggs is of immense interest to the scientific world involved in embryonic stem cell research, as they need to obtain as many healthy eggs as possible, and these are not readily available through IVF clinics. This aspect of the technology does not get my approval but it is convincing proof that egg freezing is indeed a reality.

Message from the committee secretariat

posted 09/02/2004 - 11:45 by robertsa

Perhaps we could turn this round. Could you not argue that once fertilisation has started, it should require the consent of both partners to prevent further development of that embryo?

If fertilisation had taken place naturally, the father would have little say if the mother wished to terminate. Is there an anomaly here? Should an embryo be treated in law differently if it is implanted in the womb or is stored in a freezer?

Should any review of the law seek to address the status of gametes, embryos, fetuses and newly-borns and ensure consistency?

Turning things around

posted 12/02/2004 - 12:54 by smcginnessuk

I guess there is a problem here in that there is a difference in capabilities.

If the man wants to continue the development of the babies then he needs to find an available womb (not usually the problem for the woman).

You would also be in contradiction of current legal practice where the woman has the ability to prevent further development of an embryo that she is carrying. The father would have no say in that why should it be extended to an embryo that was generated through IVF??

Consent for the future develo

posted 13/02/2004 - 09:54 by Spacedust

Consent for the future development of the embryo should be moved forward to fertilisation rather than implantation. Once fertilisation has started, it should require the consent of both partners to discard the embryo.

consent for development or termination

posted 09/03/2004 - 20:50 by mikeJ

I agree that once fertilisation has taken place and an embryo created, both partners should have to consent to its destruction - although better that this scenario should not arise in the first place. And in response to another comment about the anomaly that only the mother has to consent to a termination, perhaps this should also require consent of both partners (except perhaps in exceptional circumstances)? Or is that too controversial!

consent for development or termination

posted 12/03/2004 - 15:03 by keith

It would certainly mean that the choice to abort the foetus would be taken by both parties to the cause, as it were. This can only be a step in the right direction.

Embryo Property Rights

posted 14/02/2004 - 16:04 by Dr Neville Cobbe

I agree with "Spacedust". A shift to storing gametes rather than embryos would definitely be preferable, if this could avoid much of the ethical minefield associated with the intentional destruction of embryos. In addition, this offers greater flexibility to both the woman and man if their relationship breaks down and they later wish to bring up a child with a different partner.

At the very least, I believe the consent of both parents should be required in all decisions to terminate a new life once it has been created. I agree that the law at present is inconsistent in requiring the consent of both parents for the storage, use and disposal of frozen embryos, yet denying the father much say if a pregnant mother wants an abortion (notwithstanding cases of proven rape, where there was never any mutual consent to begin with). However, I also find it deeply disturbing that any potential rights of the little ones themselves are completely ignored in many of these discussions. The current discrepancy seems to arise from a misguided view that a genetically distinct embryo or foetus inside the womb is somehow just part of the woman’s body to do with as she pleases, whilst an embryo outside the womb is the property of both parents. If we must view another human life as mere property, I feel we are regressing towards an acceptance of some of the worst horrors previously associated with slavery…

Nevertheless, I don’t feel the continuing consent of both partners should necessarily be required for a pregnancy if consent was initially given to create an embryo. At present, a man has no legal power to deprive a woman of the child she is carrying if he fertilised her ovum through coitus. Why then, should he have any legal right to prevent her from carrying their child just because it was created through IVF? As far as I am aware, no continuing consent is required for the IVF process on the part of an anonymous sperm donor. Why then, should a past or present partner be allowed to prevent a new life from developing, just because he later changes his mind about what he has already done of his own free will?

who owns an embryo?

posted 05/03/2004 - 16:59 by Philippa Taylor

Both parents should provide written consent as both are equally parents. Written consent provides the best control over clinical practice, it is not arbitrary, it should involve prior counselling and it is more easily proven, unlike verbal consent. A shift to storing gametes rather than embryos would help in this kind of scenario and would hopefully reduce the numbers of stored, and then destroyed, embryos.
This does highlight the need for effective counselling before the creation of embryos and the need to ensure that couples really are in a committed long-term relationship - not the way we seem to be going at the moment.
It was a shame that during the recent court cases there was no mention and coverage of what might be best for the child to be born. The focus in these debates is always is over the rights of parents, not the rights and needs of a child.