InternationalRead Next
International
Leaked document: Scottish lawmakers considering allowing abortion up to birth for any reason
Right to Life UK
·Spotlight Articles
Forced destruction of embryos in the UK to protect sperm donor's autonomy
Two couples in the United Kingdom (UK) are calling for a law change after their sperm donors withdrew consent for further use, meaning the embryos they had already created will be destroyed.
Nat and Nik Fraser-Edwards used a sperm donor to undergo in vitro fertilization, and gave birth to a son, who turned one last month. They have five remaining embryos frozen.
Samantha Beesley and Carly Estlick are expecting their first child using a sperm donor, and had 10 embryos remaining.
The sperm donors they used have now withdrawn consent for future use, meaning the embryos who already exist will be destroyed.
The couples are calling for the law to be changed.
Nik and Nat Fraser-Edwards used Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), a specialized kind of in vitro fertilization (IVF), and created at least six embryos. They gave birth to a son, Jude, who turned one this summer. Their remaining five embryos were frozen in storage for potential future use.
Sam Beesley and Carly Estlick also used a sperm donor to do IVF, and are expecting their first child. They have 10 embryos currently frozen.
Both couples were given notices that the sperm donors they used to father their children had withdrawn consent. This means the sperm can no longer be used and any embryos created will be destroyed. Nat said they were blindsided.
"It was very much, 'unfortunately your donor has withdrawn his consent to use your embryos,'" she explained. "They said, 'we keep them for a cooling off period of a year and' - I think the hardest word for us was - 'we then allow them to perish.' We were absolutely floored. Yes, we'd signed something. But we didn't ever recall it being verbally said."
The same happened to Sam and Carly, with the embryos they created slated to be destroyed next year.
"When we got the letter saying he had withdrawn consent, it felt like the wind was taken out of our sails," Sam said. "We had been so focussed on the pregnancy and something going wrong, I don't think it's really sunk in yet. Carly is already grieving. In her head, they've already been destroyed. Whereas until that day in 2027, I will not stop fighting."
In the meantime, Sam said she worries the stress will affect her current pregnancy.
"I did have some reduced movements the other day and had to go to hospital. You can't help thinking, is this going to be ripped away from us as well?" she said. "This is probably our only shot at being parents. I don't know how we could afford to go through it again financially, emotionally, physically."
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the UK regulatory agency which oversees the fertility industry, said the issue is one of respect for a donor's autonomy, but that the government must change the law to prevent such situations from happening.
"It's about each person who provides an egg or sperm having that autonomy to consent and make that decision to whether they're happy for a child to be born in treatment," Rachel Cutting, HFEA's director of compliance, said. "Once the embryos in the uterus, in the woman's womb, there can't be a withdrawal of consent for that. The way that the law is written is that consent can be withdrawn from up to that point. We can look at it further, but it is for the law to be changed and that's not something within the power that the HFEA has. We can't change the law. But we are sympathetic to cases like this."
The issue of frozen embryos is widespread in the fertility industry. An estimated one million embryos are frozen in the United States alone. Each frozen embryo is a unique and distinct human person in the earliest stages of development. Yet countless embryos are left frozen in storage indefinitely until the would-be parent decides to use them, as if they are a product to be taken off a store shelf. This is one of the many moral and ethical issues related to IVF.
There are 15 embryos slated to be destroyed between these two couples alone. While they are rightly upset that the embryos are being destroyed against their will, the question remains as to whether or not they planned to welcome six to 11 children respectively. Most of the embryos created in an IVF cycle will not survive to birth, and those considered to be extras will be destroyed, frozen, or donated as if they are products.
Even when speaking about the baby they are currently expecting, Sam said, "..[I]s this going to be ripped away from us as well?" The focus appears to be on the adults' loss rather than the disrespectful dehumanizing of human embryos and preborn children.
These children were created in a lab to be intentionally kept from and raised without a father in order to fulfill the desires of adults. But then when the fathers decided they no longer 'happy for their children to be born,' the law allows those embryos to be destroyed to protect his autonomy. No thought is given to the bodily autonomy or rights of the children.
According to a report released by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), "The total number of lives lost as a result of IVF is now surpassing the number of lives lost to induced, elective abortion each year."
And while this may be ignored by the fertility industry, the scientific data is clear: from the earliest moment of development, even before reaching the embryonic stage, these are human beings. The new baby's sex, hair color, eye color, and countless other traits are already determined at fertilization, and her DNA makes her unique from every other human being who has ever existed or will ever come into existence.
And yet she will being treated like a product that can be designed, created, bought, sold, and thrown away at will.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Right to Life UK
·
International
Cassy Cooke
·
BREAKINGInternational
Cassy Cooke
·
Guest Column
Anna Hanemann
·
Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·
Guest Column
Right to Life UK
·
Politics
Cassy Cooke
·International
Cassy Cooke
·BREAKINGInternational
Cassy Cooke
·
Fact Checks
Cassy Cooke
·
Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·Forced destruction of embryos in the UK to protect sperm donor's autonomy
Two couples in the United Kingdom (UK) are calling for a law change after their sperm donors withdrew consent for further use, meaning the embryos they had already created will be destroyed.
Nat and Nik Fraser-Edwards used a sperm donor to undergo in vitro fertilization, and gave birth to a son, who turned one last month. They have five remaining embryos frozen.
Samantha Beesley and Carly Estlick are expecting their first child using a sperm donor, and had 10 embryos remaining.
The sperm donors they used have now withdrawn consent for future use, meaning the embryos who already exist will be destroyed.
The couples are calling for the law to be changed.
Nik and Nat Fraser-Edwards used Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), a specialized kind of in vitro fertilization (IVF), and created at least six embryos. They gave birth to a son, Jude, who turned one this summer. Their remaining five embryos were frozen in storage for potential future use.
Sam Beesley and Carly Estlick also used a sperm donor to do IVF, and are expecting their first child. They have 10 embryos currently frozen.
Both couples were given notices that the sperm donors they used to father their children had withdrawn consent. This means the sperm can no longer be used and any embryos created will be destroyed. Nat said they were blindsided.
"It was very much, 'unfortunately your donor has withdrawn his consent to use your embryos,'" she explained. "They said, 'we keep them for a cooling off period of a year and' - I think the hardest word for us was - 'we then allow them to perish.' We were absolutely floored. Yes, we'd signed something. But we didn't ever recall it being verbally said."
The same happened to Sam and Carly, with the embryos they created slated to be destroyed next year.
"When we got the letter saying he had withdrawn consent, it felt like the wind was taken out of our sails," Sam said. "We had been so focussed on the pregnancy and something going wrong, I don't think it's really sunk in yet. Carly is already grieving. In her head, they've already been destroyed. Whereas until that day in 2027, I will not stop fighting."
In the meantime, Sam said she worries the stress will affect her current pregnancy.
"I did have some reduced movements the other day and had to go to hospital. You can't help thinking, is this going to be ripped away from us as well?" she said. "This is probably our only shot at being parents. I don't know how we could afford to go through it again financially, emotionally, physically."
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the UK regulatory agency which oversees the fertility industry, said the issue is one of respect for a donor's autonomy, but that the government must change the law to prevent such situations from happening.
"It's about each person who provides an egg or sperm having that autonomy to consent and make that decision to whether they're happy for a child to be born in treatment," Rachel Cutting, HFEA's director of compliance, said. "Once the embryos in the uterus, in the woman's womb, there can't be a withdrawal of consent for that. The way that the law is written is that consent can be withdrawn from up to that point. We can look at it further, but it is for the law to be changed and that's not something within the power that the HFEA has. We can't change the law. But we are sympathetic to cases like this."
The issue of frozen embryos is widespread in the fertility industry. An estimated one million embryos are frozen in the United States alone. Each frozen embryo is a unique and distinct human person in the earliest stages of development. Yet countless embryos are left frozen in storage indefinitely until the would-be parent decides to use them, as if they are a product to be taken off a store shelf. This is one of the many moral and ethical issues related to IVF.
There are 15 embryos slated to be destroyed between these two couples alone. While they are rightly upset that the embryos are being destroyed against their will, the question remains as to whether or not they planned to welcome six to 11 children respectively. Most of the embryos created in an IVF cycle will not survive to birth, and those considered to be extras will be destroyed, frozen, or donated as if they are products.
Even when speaking about the baby they are currently expecting, Sam said, "..[I]s this going to be ripped away from us as well?" The focus appears to be on the adults' loss rather than the disrespectful dehumanizing of human embryos and preborn children.
These children were created in a lab to be intentionally kept from and raised without a father in order to fulfill the desires of adults. But then when the fathers decided they no longer 'happy for their children to be born,' the law allows those embryos to be destroyed to protect his autonomy. No thought is given to the bodily autonomy or rights of the children.
According to a report released by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), "The total number of lives lost as a result of IVF is now surpassing the number of lives lost to induced, elective abortion each year."
And while this may be ignored by the fertility industry, the scientific data is clear: from the earliest moment of development, even before reaching the embryonic stage, these are human beings. The new baby's sex, hair color, eye color, and countless other traits are already determined at fertilization, and her DNA makes her unique from every other human being who has ever existed or will ever come into existence.
And yet she will being treated like a product that can be designed, created, bought, sold, and thrown away at will.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Right to Life UK
·International
Cassy Cooke
·BREAKINGInternational
Cassy Cooke
·Guest Column
Anna Hanemann
·Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·Guest Column
Right to Life UK
·Politics
Cassy Cooke
·International
Cassy Cooke
·BREAKINGInternational
Cassy Cooke
·Fact Checks
Cassy Cooke
·Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·