With natural conception, whether desired or not, a man cannot veto his partner’s wish to maintain her pregnancy for nine months. What is harsh to women is the fact that men can withdraw their permission to be involved even on the day her eggs are collected for IVF, or a year, or more, after embryo generation.

The significant difference that exists between natural and assisted conception is that multiple embryos are generated, some of which may have child-making potential and can be used over an extended period, during which a relationship can founder.

Perhaps, when the original legislation was being drawn up, another consideration would have been to give women the absolute right of using their embryos for one year after their creation, and is it in women’s interests for this now to be considered?

Yours faithfully,
IAN CRAFT
(Director),
London Fertility Centre.
112a Harley Street, W1G 7JH.
info@lfc.org.uk
October 2.

From Dr Robert Forman

Sir, The court ruling on the storage of frozen embryos (report, October 2) demonstrates the legal minefield through which in vitro fertilisation clinics must navigate.

When a couple wish to obtain a joint mortgage on a property they may be advised to obtain independent legal advice. When they wish to create a family using in vitro technology or store frozen embryos for ten years in a laboratory, they will be counselled about the legal implications of this by doctors, nurses, scientists or psychologists . . . anyone, in fact, except an impartial independent legal adviser.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act is technically demanding, the law relating to it constantly evolving. A new law has just been introduced (report, September 19) in relation to dead fathers being registered on the birth certificates of babies conceived posthumously. Their existing consents are no longer adequate to cover this eventuality.

As a successful IVF clinic, we treat hundreds of patients a year, but our expertise lies in the clinical and scientific arena. I believe that independent legal advice should be mandatory for all couples undergoing treatment regulated by the Act.

Or are our future children considered a less important asset than the property in which we reside?

Yours faithfully,
ROBERT FORMAN
(Medical Director),
CRM London,
Park Lorne, 111 Park Road, NW8 7JL.
October 2.

From Ms Annie Relph

Sir, In the case of non-IVF conception, consent has surely already been given prior to the union of sperm and egg. The only difference is that in IVF, initial storage happens to be extra-uterine.

After all, in cases where natural pregnancy has begun, and partners then separate, a man may not legally force a termination to take place, but then neither can he prevent it. For this reason embryos in storage surely ought not to be destroyed until such time as both partners consent to their destruction.

We must search for a better solution, perhaps one which absolves biological fathers from any legal responsibility (and therefore rights) in respect of such embryos. In such a way their legal “adoption” might be able to take place, albeit in this instance by the child’s mother and at a somewhat earlier stage than usual.

Yours faithfully,
ANNIE RELPH,
26 Newland Street, Eynsham,
Witney, Oxfordshire OX29 4JZ.
October 2.

From Dr Ralph J. Lamden

Sir, The legal judgment on the “termination” of embryos has focused on the rights of the mothers and their former partners.

Should not the discussion also include the rights of the embryos?

Yours,
RALPH J. LAMDEN,
7 Weald Rise,
Tilehurst, Reading RG30 6XB.
October 2.

Explore Letters

• Feedback