- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
December 2015 Moms
ChiccoBeanz
member
Custody Battle for Embryos
ChiccoBeanz
member
This is interesting....
ETR my dumb question. Pregnancy brain is a killer.
I strongly advise against reading the article comment section. They were a bit rude, disgusting and a little racist and prejudice.
Re: Custody Battle for Embryos
Having been through the ivf process and having one embryo still frozen, I can understand the emotional and mental bond she may have for her embryos. And I understand that they are her only chance at "biological" children, however that fact has never changed. It has always been her last chance, and that's why she went through with the process to begin with. Yet, she still signed off on them being destroyed if this situation occurred.
DH and I have discussed if we decided not to use our frozen embryo, if we would have it destroyed or donated; we have yet to come to a decision. But the fact is we haven't made the decision so there is no documentation stating one way or the other.
I think that there is a major lack of laws that accommodate the new possibilities, like this one. My mom and I joked the other day that one of my twins could have been switched and I could be pregnant with another couples' embryo. Then I got serious and worried. I don't know if there are any laws that would say if that happened, if I would be able to keep this child that grew inside of me or of I'd have to give the child up. I think that the legislation needs to step it up.
It's not like she was in her 20s or 30s when she signed it, knowing there could still be a good chance of still conceiving with someone else. She was in her mid-40s when she signed it.
Yes, plenty of women conceive into their 40s, but given her age and her breast cancer at the time of the contract, it would have been wise to write in some type of agreement which said in the event of a divorce, she would receive custody of the embryos and the husband word not be on the hook for child support.
It's the contract, man -- them signing it to begin with seems so short-sighted.
But, if an embryo is in a lab and not in the womb is it still considered 'on its way to being a baby'? In other words, by destroying an embryo that's not implanted, is it the same as an abortion?
I think if the courts decide in her favor, it may have negative consequences to the pro-choice cause.
If the courts rule that destroying these embryos against her will is essentially a termination of a pregnancy, we're on our way to a new definition of "life". Extreme pro-lifers can turn to this case and say "well, if the courts set precedent for an un-implanted embryo being a life, then ending a pregnancy at any stage is murder."
In terms of ownership, it's truly 50/50 at this point. Because it's outside of her body, he has no less right than she does.
Then to @ChiccoBeanz point, at that point it's a custody battle.
This case is two sided. It's an ethical and legal dilemma.
This is her only chance to have a biological child, and I sort of see this as his revenge. I could be wrong. I don't know him, but if she was willing to sign a binding contract- as opposed to an agreement with no mention of irrevocability- I just don't see his argument. Yes, it's his sperm, but he still has is ability to have children. She's lost hers.
Unfortunately, I suspect the court is going to enforce the agreement. Which maybe it legally should, but ethically- I think it just sucks.
This sort of paperwork did not come about by accident, it came about out of necessity. There was a lawsuit against my doctor where a woman had used frozen embryos to get pregnant after separating from her husband. They did not know that she was separated as they did not ask and she did not offer up the information. The husband filed suit and pursued the issue for years. In the end, he did prevail in his lawsuit but the amount of money that he was given was so small that I think it was about $10,000 after they deducted child support. If DH and I were to ever separate and we have frozen embryos, we need to notify them within two weeks of separation.
I think that it's very difficult to force the husband to relinquish custody of the embryos because of the fact that if he doesn't want to have a child with this woman now, that should be his choice. They don't necessarily need to destroy the embryos, they can donate them with embryo adoption.
It's extremely complicated and difficult situation. There's a huge attachment to embryos but there's also no guarantee that they would survive the thaw. It's not very clear-cut whether or not they would become babies if implanted.
Needless to say, we don't have any frozen embryos.
* edited for clarity
I would think, and hope, that maybe they would make that the national standard within the next few years. Now that I think back, it is strange we didn't need to answer any questions like that.
*ETA- I just wanted to add that embryo adoption is in my opinion, an amazing thing. Usually the people that are adopting the embryos have dealt with infertility for some time and the people donating them have as well. It's a beautiful gift that can be given to another couple that can't conceive.
But now, knowing all of this stuff that can happen with divorces or death, it's odd. I'm guessing after this lawsuit becomes bigger, more fertility specialists will vamp up their paperwork to reflect these types of issues.
In my opinion, it's actually a fantastic idea. These are embryos from people who have struggled with infertility and don't want to destroy them. The people that are adopting them also are struggling with infertility and often times the parents get to meet one another.
*typo
It's sad because I empathize with the fact that these embryos are her only chance at a biological child, and many of us who have struggled with infertility will tell you that telling an infertile person to just adopt is really unfair, and cruel. Yes many of us consider adoption it's on the plate, but in doing so you have to mourn the loss of the biological child you will never have. This doesn't make them selfish people, it makes them people who have to let go of one hope in order to embrace another. There are deep psychological impacts of infertility, many couples do not survive this journey, it's emotionally, physically and mentally draining.
While I see the ethical conundrum here I fully understand the legal ramifications as well. Her argument that she never thought she would be held to the standards of the contract she signed doesn't really hold water. And if the embryos are deemed 'live' and given their own rights, well that is a very large and scary can of worms to open. It's a difficult situation to be in for all, I imagine the court will uphold the signed contract and the embryos will be thawed and destroyed.