SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Sudden-outbreak-of-common-sense dept.
Woman can use donor sperm in IVF without estranged husband's consent, court rules
A Victorian woman will not need her estranged husband's permission to undergo IVF using donor sperm following a ruling by the federal court in Melbourne. The court heard that the woman, who cannot be named, has been separated and living apart from her husband since late 2017. The woman wanted to try to conceive through IVF using donor sperm, but was told by a Melbourne reproductive clinic that under Victoria's Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act she first needed her husband's consent.
The matter was urgent because the woman is 45 and patients are generally only able to use their own eggs in an IVF procedure when they are younger than 46. The woman said she recently underwent a procedure to collect her eggs and freeze them for later use after she was divorced, but was told the prospect of a successful pregnancy using frozen eggs was lower than IVF using fresh eggs. The clinic told her that with her husband's consent, she could begin a round of treatment later in September.
[...] Under the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act, there is a guiding principle that "the welfare and interests of persons born or to be born as a result of treatment procedures are paramount". But the court heard that this should not justify requiring the consent of a former partner who, without such consent, would have no responsibility for the child anyway.
Federal court Justice John Griffiths ordered that the woman could undergo IVF without consent and that the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act discriminated against her on the basis of her marital status. He declared that part of the law "invalid and inoperable". In his judgment published on Friday, Griffiths said nothing in his ruling was intended to harm the reputation of the woman's estranged husband and that the decision would not directly affect his legal rights, and that he would not be imputed with any parental rights, obligations or responsibilities.
See also: Parents likely to block girlfriend's attempt to access sperm from dead son (2016)
Related: Bioethicist Recommends Freezing Sperm to Lessen Genetic Risks
Divorced Couple Fighting in Court over Frozen Embryos
Medical Ethics of Multiples, Surrogacy, and Abortion
Deceased Dutch Fertility Clinic Doctor's Belongings to be DNA Tested
Japanese Man Granted Paternity Rights to 13 Children Born to Surrogate Mothers
(Score: 3, Informative) by NateMich on Saturday September 22 2018, @11:26PM (17 children)
It seems that men have no rights.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:04AM (16 children)
Most of "men's rights" seem to be addressed by the court. The husband is not a willing partner in this impregnation, so he has no financial responsibility for the child. The only question not answered for certain, is the source of the donor sperm. If she plans on using HIS sperm, and DNA, then he should retain some legal interest in the child. If not his sperm, then what rights would you expect him to have? With no financial obligations, he can walk away, free and clear. Surely you're not suggesting that he somehow "owns" the woman he hasn't even slept with this year? FFS, she's history to him. It's time to move on!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:37AM (1 child)
A person owns their genetic information. That information is intimately private, and they have the right to control how that information is used.
(The police and intelligence services should not ever be allowed to collect and store this information on a permanent basis, perhaps only being allows to store it for the purposes of a specific, current investigation of specific crimes or of a trial. Afterwards, it must be destroyed. The same right to privacy should extend to relationships. However, perhaps this is a case where we need a license (or contract... *wards against Mr. Vim*) that stipulates destruction upon termination of the relationship. Unless, I suppose, I fail to understand masculine psychology once again, and most men would want to give their genetic information a BSD license.)
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday September 23 2018, @02:56AM
And it seems the cost of DNA sequencing has come down far enough that it won't be long before I post my genome on my website.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:29AM (6 children)
Lol, yeah, right. Lets follow up with the court case surrounding this IVF in a couple years, where the separated-not-divorced father finds himself in court for not supporting "his" child.
Kinda like how if a kid is born to a woman when a man is together with her, but it turns out later that it's not the man's, the man is still financially responsible until that kid is 18.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @02:11AM
The 'For the Children, At All Costs' ideology leads to some truly horrific results. Why some people ever started thinking it was okay to sacrifice basic rights and legal principles for children, I don't know.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 23 2018, @03:03AM (4 children)
RTFA and/or RTFS - the court has already absolved the man of financial responsibility for the proposed pregnancy and/or child.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by LVDOVICVS on Sunday September 23 2018, @04:42AM (1 child)
Being the father of a child comes with more than just financial obligations.
Additionally, many believe a woman shouldn't be forced to have a child should she impregnated against her will. So how can it be justifiable to force a man to be a father against his will?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 23 2018, @05:09AM
It is not clear that the woman would be using the husband's sperm for the artificial insemination here. There may be no attachment at all between the husband and the baby.
The whole story centers around their marriage. Being married, if the woman has a baby, it is PRESUMED that the husband is the father, and therefore financially responsible - as well as responsible in all other ways that count. I think that in all English speaking countries, if not all countries, it is presumed that the husband is the father of any child born to the mother.
In this story, the court has recognized several things: their separation, the husband's reluctance to father a child with the woman, and financial, as well as other responsibilities. The court has ruled, "Well, it's not his kid, lady, do whatever you want to do with your own life."
It seems pretty obvious that she can find a sperm donor almost anywhere. They actually have sperm banks for that purpose, so she needn't beg the husband for a sperm sample.
(Score: 1, Troll) by slap on Sunday September 23 2018, @07:10PM
Until that court's ruling is overturned in a later trial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @05:25AM
Have they? (I read the article)
(Score: 1, Troll) by cubancigar11 on Sunday September 23 2018, @10:04AM (5 children)
You meant "husband's rights" have been addressed by the court. Surely you didn't use double quotes around men's rights as sarcasm, right? That would be fucking stupid.
And I wonder why is he 'estranged' and not divorced. Could it be that he is still going to pay for the woman? The poor single mother won't be able to work :(
Australia is a shit country for a reason to be a man.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday September 24 2018, @02:00AM (4 children)
Probably like many places, the route to a simple divorce includes being separated for a period of time. There's also things like how much support the woman has to pay the ex-husband on divorce as she seems wealthy to be paying for IVF and supporting the child until retirement age.
Sounds like Australia is a pretty good place to be a man with a court ruling that he is not responsible.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday September 24 2018, @04:13AM (1 child)
Nope. The question isn't who is paying whom, the answer to which should be nobody should pay anybody anything because "a right to equality" under "Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act".
Nope. The question is what is more important - a mandatory period of time of separation, or husband's consent before wife goes through IVF. Apparently trampling over husband's right to have an equal say into pregnancy of wife is
but having a mandatory period of time of separation before mutual consent divorce isn't.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday September 24 2018, @05:57AM
"Equality" is one of those loaded things that can be taken quite a few ways. And
can also be taken multiple ways, including both neither paying or the bread winner paying. Questions like this make me glad not to be a judge.
But if as it sounds, the couple is on the way to a divorce, why should the man have much of a say? If my wife unilaterally decided on IVF, it would be the end of the relationship, but then I couldn't imagine that happening, which is why we've been married for half our lives. I don't see this as trampling on either ones rights.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday September 24 2018, @04:38AM (1 child)
I would go and further claim that the "separated woman" might very well have been bankrolled by vested interests who want to establish a precedent. An "equal rights" angle would also claim that a separated man should have the right to impregnate another woman as long as his wife is not held accountable for the child. It is most definitely not so. The only catch here is that the ruling brings rights of a divorced woman one step closer to a married woman - "separated" - a status created by the law with the stated goal of saving a marriage.
Furthermore, there is a movement that claims that it should be illegal for a husband to ask about the biological father of a child. That would open a new can of worms now, wouldn't it?
I would say it is very telling that Australia decided to open that can of worms.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday September 24 2018, @06:15AM
Are wives ever held accountable when a man, whether separated or not, impregnate another woman?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @05:20AM
It depends. Where i live (Europe) if a child is born and the husband (estranged or not) does not dispute through court that the child is not his within 6 months, then he is responsible for the childf for ever.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 22 2018, @11:46PM (2 children)
And the poor husband is going to pay for the rest of his life for a kid he will never see who will probably turn out to be transgendered because of DNA damage caused by IVF.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:04AM (1 child)
According to TFS, part of the reason for the ruling is that the man would only be responsible for whatever costs he'd already incurred, not any of the ones related to raising the kids.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:01AM
Until in 10 years radical feminists have a conniption fit and change the part about financial responsibility. With the decline of livings standards of the working class, I could see that as something a hysterical campaign could ram through, accusing all opposed of sexual misconduct of some kind.
Example: "I have a right to have the child I wanted before my boyfriend raeped me and make him pay for it! He shouldn't have raeped me if he didn't want me to leave him!"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 22 2018, @11:59PM (10 children)
She's married, so Australian law naturally requires consent from her husband.
She doesn't have a good reason to be married to him. She isn't even living with him, and hasn't been for nearly a year.
She doesn't actually need a kid. If she had wanted one, she should have gotten on the matter at a more appropriate time. She's old now. Will she take her future teenager to the retirement home with her?
She won't be providing a 2-parent home for the kid. The law should discourage this due to the numerous problems associated with it: poverty, teen pregnancy, criminality, dropping out of school, drug abuse, etc.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:05AM (1 child)
Dropping out of the horrendous school system is inherently bad. Why, people might even learn that it's possible to educate themselves rather than depending on a top-down authoritarian one-size-fits-all system. We can't have that.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:40PM
Amen to that, brother.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:07AM (7 children)
I agree with that bit of your post. The rest of it seems pretty meaningless. It's her life, and the life of her baby. If baby grows up hating mom for being so damned old she falls apart before his eyes, so be it. The kid will get over it, or not, and the world will move on.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:45AM (2 children)
It's Australia. Statistically speaking, the kid will be bitten, stung, impaled or poisoned by something before it gets old enough to hate it's mother.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:28AM
Calm down. The African gang problem is a myth. [abc.net.au]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:13PM
Yeah, but it will be an aussie kid. They learn to deal with that shit. Why do you think aussies are so fucking tough.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday September 23 2018, @10:17AM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 24 2018, @03:07AM (2 children)
Easy, there, cowboy.
Morals are all relative - justified or not, the same can be easily said about you too (e.g. there's no warranty the kid will turn out as dismissive of an unborn child as you showed in your post).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday September 24 2018, @06:57AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 24 2018, @09:44AM
Even more inexcusable, I'm sorry to have to say that.
I have a good number of friends that grew in a what is called now a dysfunctional family**, friends who managed to get over and turned people I'm proud to call friends.
** late 1950-ies, country side in East Europe, a father mostly drunk and beating the crap out of kids and wife wasn't that unusual. Most cases, farmers who were expropriated of their land, assets and even homes by communists in the name of collectivism
Read what I wrote once again and, hand on heart, tell me that there is something which can literally be constructed as me considering normal a dysfunctional family.
What I saw in your message and called out is the apriori dismissal of a child potential. You aren't any kind of God to know how that kid will turn out and I refuse to believe you are entitled to cast any kind of value judgement on a child's future based on the traits of her/his parents.
My suggestion: life is a strange beast, respect it in whatever forms it presents itself to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by dwilson on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:53AM (10 children)
Then why is this an issue? Sounds like a non-story to me.
- D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:00AM (7 children)
Unless he's a psychopath it will because the child will want answers. Ever wonder why sperm donations dropped when courts ruled children had a right to know who their biological father was?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:05AM (4 children)
That could shed light on masculine psychology. The desire to spread one's genetic information willy-nilly as long as it's completely consequence-free. Knowing that it's out there is less of a drive than being responsible for any particular child.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:13AM (3 children)
WTF? The biological urge to reproduce has nothing to do with child rearing. The latter is a social contract, one that is so frequently violated (usually at financial expense of the male party) that it's something men are actively avoiding.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @02:12AM (2 children)
Yes, that is true of men.
This is something that should be corrected. There was an interesting video on MGTOW about how society is organized to transfer wealth from men to women. Not sure I'm able to find it again, but here's their video feed thing [mgtow.com]. Their argument is that this is caused by capitalism. Women make more purchases than men. I think that sounds only slightly far fetched. It could be a happy consequence (for capitalists specifically with higher sales) of traditional stereotypes.
(Score: 3, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday September 23 2018, @04:40AM (1 child)
... Wikipedia.
I learn so much there, for example that the moon really _is_ made of green cheese, but even so there is something about the quality of my experience when I spent time reading wikipedia that leads me to wonder whether my time would be better spent were I to tear out my own spleen with a rusty entrenching tool.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @06:20AM
[citation needed]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @02:54AM
What does psychopathy have to do with anything? Not everyone likes children or has some sort of paternal instinct, and they aren't psychopaths just because they don't.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday September 24 2018, @02:02AM
Did the Australian courts really rule that kids have a right to know who the donor was?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:36AM (1 child)
Aside from the lies of this statement, at least with regards to the American court system...
it's not a technical story. However as most of the viewership is presumed to be male, lets consider. What are the odds that a single male would be allowed to adopt a child?
How would you reconsile this, given the non-Austrailian 14th amendment of the constitution of the _United States_, with this single woman's effort to obtain a child?
Social issues do show up on SN not infrequently.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday September 24 2018, @07:38PM
Being gay would greatly increase the odds.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by suburbanitemediocrity on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:19AM (4 children)
spouse?
Say he remarried, but his new wife was unable to produce her own eggs. Or if he hired a surrogate mother.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:25AM
It's a good question. Better read that contract carefully when you engage with a reproductive clinic.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @02:21AM
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:02PM (1 child)
um. she wants to use DONOR sperm. not former husband's.
read the words, then think about the words, and only afterwards reply.
(Score: 2) by everdred on Monday September 24 2018, @08:05PM
I modded your comment up for clarifying the story... but I don't think the tone is necessary, since the title and summary are especially easily misread.
The husband is completely extraneous in the eyes of everything but this backwards, antiquated law, so it's easy to think that the point of this story is that it's his donor sperm, not somebody else's, that are to be used without his consent.
Which is not the case — he's not a party to this, as it should have always been.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Nuke on Sunday September 23 2018, @09:46AM (3 children)
A Victorian woman - but going on 45? This must be some kind of record.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @10:06AM (1 child)
45 and a few months.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:54PM
12,000 is not "a few."
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:10PM
She's been 45 for quite a while, and before that she was 39 for a hell of a long time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @09:27PM (1 child)
It's amazing how many soylentils have had their nuts rip off by women that they're threatened by this ruling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @04:41AM
Yeah it is funny - just like rape.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday September 23 2018, @09:53PM (1 child)
Shouldn't she just sort out a divorce first? Unless she tried and the husband was holding it up. If they're still married, I'd say this is the husband's business. Is "estranged" a legal term?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday September 24 2018, @02:08AM
They're separated according to the fine summary, for less then a year. Where I am, it is much simpler to get a divorce after being separated for a period of time (I think 2 years) and Australia is likely similar. So in other words, they're on the path to divorce. Possibly they're arguing about how much support the woman has to pay her husband as well as she seems fairly wealthy to pay for IVF and support a child till retirement age. Possibly an executive, which is why she didn't have a child at a more sane age.