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: 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)