Woman tells court frozen embryos have right to life

A woman in the midst of a legal battle with her estranged husband over the use of their three frozen embryos today told the High Court they have a right to life.

The 41-year-old broke down in tears as she described how the embryos are her and her husband’s children, and brothers and sisters to their son and daughter.

She said IVF was a miracle and although their marital circumstances have changed, the embryos should still be used.

“The rightful place for those three embryos is back with their mother to give them the right to life,” she said.

Giving evidence at the second day of the hearing the childcare worker admitted they had never properly discussed what would be done with the embryos when they separated in 2002.

The couple met in 1985 and married in 1992. They celebrated the birth of a baby boy in 1997. Five weeks later the new mum had a cyst removed from her ovary, and lost two thirds of her right ovary.

When difficulties arose in her becoming pregnant in 2001 they underwent IVF treatment at a Dublin fertility clinic.

She said they were both committed to the treatment, fully understood the procedure and risks, and both signed the relevant consent forms, including one to give permission to freeze the unused embryos.

But she told the court only she had to sign a form allowing for the first three embryos to be implanted.

Within two weeks, a pregnancy test proved positive.

“We were delighted, he was over the moon,” she said, adding they had even bought a €40,000 mobile home for family holidays.

She said at the time they never discussed what to do with the unused eggs as she just wanted to bring the baby safely into the world.

Before the birth of their daughter in October 2002, the woman discovered her husband was having an affair. He remained in the family home for a short time, but moved out. He returned and they attempted a reconciliation, but he left for good in December 2002.

“Before he left I said what will we do with the frozen embryos?” the woman continued.

“His initial reaction was to destroy then. I said we can’t do that. The clinic does not allow it.”

He told her he was 40 and didn’t want any more children.

She said her husband later suggested selling the embryos and donating the cash to charity.

“They are our children,” she said. “They are our children’s brothers and sisters, just in the beginning of their life. The right place for them is to be back inside their mother who’s me.”

“I believed we would use the embryos. If we were still happily married we would have used them.

“You have to go through IVF to understand it. That’s how our daughter came into the world.

“When you see the end result of IVF it’s a miracle.”

The woman is taking legal action against her husband, two named doctors and the clinic.

The outcome of the case, which is currently focusing on the consent aspect of their agreement, could have serious implications on the Constitution.

Her legal teams argues the embryos are covered by Article 40.3.3, which protects the right of the unborn.

They also maintain her husband consented to the embryos being created in the first place with a view to them one day becoming their children.

The man’s lawyers claim as heir marriage is over, he has the right to withdraw his consent.

The Sims Clinic has so far refused to implant the embryos, but has stated it will abide by any orders given by the court.

The court has ruled to deal with the private issue of consent before adressing any constitutional issues.

Under cross-examination the woman broke down in tears and admitted having IVF for her husband.

“My world fell apart,” she cried over their break-up.

“I gave him my heart. I was broken hearted. I went through IVF because he wanted children and I had the problem. You would do anything for the husband you loved.”

Acting for the 44-year-old man, John Rogers SC, argued it was the couple’s plan to have only one child from the treatment and accused the woman and forcing his client into having more children he didn’t want.

He said talk of destroying the embryos was raised in anger, while they were having difficulties arranging access to their children.

The mother accepted claims her husband had been willing to donate the embryos before the case came became before the court.

“I have thought long and hard about donating them but I can’t give our children to another couple,” she said. “I can’t destroy them. It’s morally wrong.”

She maintained when her husband consented to IVF, he consented to becoming a father and said she was horrified when he talked about destroying them.

“He is responsible for these embryos because he is the father to these embryos,” she said.

“He signed a consent form to father any resulting child.”

She admitted time isn’t on her side – or that of the embryos which can’t be frozen for longer than seven years – adding it was for the court to decide if they had a right to life.

The case continues.