Human Rights

[Tresco]

I don't see this as he is having them destroyed. He is saying he has withdrawn his permission to have them used

Hence the use of the word 'effectively' in the snip I quoted.  The effect is the same. The embyos will be destroyed.

As I said, on balance I agree with the outcome, much for the reasons you outline, but I don't see that it was as straightforward and simple as you suggest.  

Neither did the various Courts/Judges involved, and perhaps that's why it (the case) went as far as it did.

[Deimos]

I think the laws she was contesting in the UK were different from those she was "using" in the European Court of Human Rights". thus the judges were judging different things in different cases.

I suppose some of my negative consideration about this (and other things) is where people seem very quick to start the "Human Rights" reasons why they should be allowed to do/have/whatever something they want to. All for human rights but in all things in life there is a balance. Had she stopped after the UK Appeal Courts I would probably have still taken the same opinion but been a bit more sympathetic.

Whilst I feel sorry for her, I suppose I now feel more sorry for the bloke. For several years he has had to deal with loads of legal things, not known if he was going to be forced to be a father against his will, etc. Very difficult to get on with your life, particularly where courts keep telling him "you are right" but it goes on. I certainly hope he did not have to pay for his "defence" - but were I a UK tax payer I would be feeling quite annoyed that I had to contribute to paying his legal bills (because his ex did not like what she was being told by the UK courts.

Ian

[Russethouse]

Deimos, its all very well to say that the lady in question knew the law before she started, but she had recently been told she had a life threatening disease, at the time she felt she was in a stable relationship - rightly or wrongly I doubt she gave much to thought to the full ramifications of the small print.

[Tresco]

[quote user="Deimos"]

I think the laws she was contesting in the UK were different from those she was "using" in the European Court of Human Rights". thus the judges were judging different things in different cases.

[/quote]

Having re-read a couple of items on it, I think you're correct.

Do you think this is an example of Lawyers pushing a case to it's limits, with much more than the interest of their client in mind? I hope it's clear I know little or nothing about 'Law'...I'm interested in this discussion, just as I was about the very emotive (and difficult) conjoined twins 'case' I mentioned before.

 

[Deimos]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Deimos, its all very well to say that the lady in question knew the law before she started, but she had recently been told she had a life threatening disease, at the time she felt she was in a stable relationship - rightly or wrongly I doubt she gave much to thought to the full ramifications of the small print.

[/quote]

True - but the way I now see it is the fact that she might not have given much consideration to it is not a good reason to change the basis against the will of the other person involved, forcing him to become a father against his will, etc.., overturning laws, etc.

Ian

[P]

Ian you have hit what I was getting at in the first place. The UK seems to have a 'it's my human right' and it seems to me that the authorities run very scared of this.

The case of the embryos was in my mind when I originally posted. My understanding is that the reason for freezing the embryos was that she had been diagnosed with cancer of the ovaries and the treatment would destroy them. It was not something that subsequently happened.

As for the legal fees, I have not seen anything stating it but presume that Legal Aid has funded all of this.

The one-sidedness, which has not happened this time could have been that the genetic fathers rights would have been overruled. I uppose a parallel would be a woman agreeing to sex in the pub and then changing her mind when they get to the bedroom - she agreed at one time so the mans human right should be that he can have sex with her.

As for the embryos there is a five year time limit on them after which they must be destroyed - the time limit on these embryos has been exceeded.

It must be terrible for the woman but I wonder if it is now much worse due to all of the legal tussles.

Paul

[Clair]

[quote user="P"]The one-sidedness, which has not happened this time could have been that the genetic fathers rights would have been overruled. I suppose a parallel would be a woman agreeing to sex in the pub and then changing her mind when they get to the bedroom - she agreed at one time so the mans human right should be that he can have sex with her.[/quote]

Playing Devil's advocate...

By the same token, it could be argued that HE had agreed to give HIS sperm so HER eggs could be fertilised, then changed his mind.

If HE can change HIS mind, why can't SHE?

From what I have read and heard about this case, her argument rested on the fact that by agreeing to fertilise her eggs, he had already agreed to be a father, so she wanted to be given the chance to be a mother.

As Gay posted earlier, I feel the right result has been achieved, as the man cannot be forced to become a father against his will. But I can't help feeling terribly saddened by the situation having arisen through lack of forethought on the part of the legal bods...

As has been commented by various news agencies, this case is technologically almost redundant: at the time when they BOTH agreed to have the embryos frozen, the only technology available was to have her eggs fertilised by his sperm and the resulting embryos frozen.

Today's technological advances, although they do not have the same success rate, allow a woman to have her eggs frozen before they are fertilised. Had today's technology been available then, this couple would not have had to endure this prolonged legal fight, as she would have been able to have her eggs fertilised by any sperm of her choosing.

[Deimos]

[quote user="Clair"]

Playing Devil's advocate...

By the same token, it could be argued that HE had agreed to give HIS sperm so HER eggs could be fertilised, then changed his mind.

If HE can change HIS mind, why can't SHE?

[/quote]

Under the law she can change her mind - just that she didn't and he did. He could under law.

[quote user="Clair"]

From what I have read and heard about this case, her argument rested on the fact that by agreeing to fertilise her eggs, he had already agreed to be a father, so she wanted to be given the chance to be a mother.

[/quote]

Not under UK (and Danish, French, Greek, Dutch Swiss, Belgium, Finish and Icelandic) law. In these (and maybe other) countries there is a right for either partner to withdraw permission up to the time of implantation. What makes her argument harder to appreciate is that she changed her argument at different times - basically whatever she thought she could use to get her way. thus, one of her arguments at the European Court of Human Rights Appeal Court was that his decision was discriminatory because he alone was determining the outcome of the embryos (exactly the same argument would have applied against her had she alone decided what happened to the embryos.

If it all was done under legal aid I am pretty disgusted. At a time when we are seeing cancer treatments delayed, hospitals not treating people, wards closing, etc., etc. because of budget constraints I think it would be disgusting and selfish of her to have had all this money spent because she wants her own child (and then no doubt more child support, etc. to help her afford it - but maybe I'm being too cynical now). To think what good could have been done to so many people with the sum that lot must have cost.

Ian

[Clair]

[quote user="Deimos"]What makes her argument harder to appreciate is that she changed her argument at different times - basically whatever she thought she could use to get her way. thus, one of her arguments at the European Court of Human Rights Appeal Court was that his decision was discriminatory because he alone was determining the outcome of the embryos (exactly the same argument would have applied against her had she alone decided what happened to the embryos.[/quote]

As this was her only chance to ever bear a child, I guess she did whatever she had to.

As it turned out, she lost. That does not make her (or him) a monster.

In my view, neither of them was wrong, but neither were they right, which is why it had to go to the highest court.

[David]

    To the best of my knowledge we adopted all of the Legislation. That's why the judges keep throwing out all sorts of  stuff that the Home Secretary keeps having people locked up for.

David[quote user="Llwyncelyn"]

David are you absolutely sure that the UK has adopted the whole of the Human Rights leglislation?

Again my best mate was until he recently retired a DC Superintendent and in charge of CID training at a large UK force and he is coming to stay on Thursday.  Again he was special branch and all of that.

I feel sure that he would say the UK did not adopt all of the legislation only certain bits or at least changed those that we did not like.

He hates the fluffies of todays world.  I challenge those who do not comply with PACE especially those who do not recognise a vulnerable person under the Act.  I say that having challenged such a matter in the Court of Appeal. 

With rights come responsibilities be you a Police Office a road sweeper or someone who stacks shelves in supermarkets.

rdgs

[/quote]

[lacote0_0]

With respect, there were reservations, see http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/reservations.pdf