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) 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?