Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
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: 2) by acid andy on Sunday September 23 2018, @09:53PM (1 child)

    by acid andy (1683) on Sunday September 23 2018, @09:53PM (#738970) Homepage Journal

    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?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday September 24 2018, @02:08AM

    by dry (223) on Monday September 24 2018, @02:08AM (#739037) Journal

    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.