Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday September 22 2018, @11:23PM   Printer-friendly
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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:04AM (16 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:04AM (#738689) Journal

    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!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:37AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @12:37AM (#738702)

    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, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:29AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @01:29AM (#738722)

    The husband is not a willing partner in this impregnation, so he has no financial responsibility for the child.

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @02:11AM (#738730)

      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)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 23 2018, @03:03AM (#738749) Journal

      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)

        by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Sunday September 23 2018, @04:42AM (#738768)

        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

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 23 2018, @05:09AM (#738774) Journal

          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

        by slap (5764) on Sunday September 23 2018, @07:10PM (#738926)

        Until that court's ruling is overturned in a later trial.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @05:25AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @05:25AM (#739072)

        Have they? (I read the article)

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by cubancigar11 on Sunday September 23 2018, @10:04AM (5 children)

    by cubancigar11 (330) on Sunday September 23 2018, @10:04AM (#738801) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by dry (223) on Monday September 24 2018, @02:00AM (#739033) Journal

      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)

        by cubancigar11 (330) on Monday September 24 2018, @04:13AM (#739058) Homepage Journal

        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".

        The charter states the right of every person “to enjoy his or her human rights without discrimination”.

        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

        "invalid and inoperable"

        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

          by dry (223) on Monday September 24 2018, @05:57AM (#739078) Journal

          "Equality" is one of those loaded things that can be taken quite a few ways. And

          The charter states the right of every person “to enjoy his or her human rights without discrimination”.

          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)

        by cubancigar11 (330) on Monday September 24 2018, @04:38AM (#739064) Homepage Journal

        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

          by dry (223) on Monday September 24 2018, @06:15AM (#739081) Journal

          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

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @05:20AM (#739070)

    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.