Woman ‘distraught’ at losing embryo case

A WOMAN left infertile after cancer therapy said she felt “distraught” yesterday after losing a five-year legal battle to try to become a mother using her own embryos.

Natallie Evans had mounted a “last chance” appeal to keep the six frozen embryos, which were fertilised by her ex-partner.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that her rights to become a mother did not outweigh the rights of her ex- boyfriend, Howard Johnston, not to become the father of her children.

Ms Evans, aged 34, from Melksham, Wiltshire, and Mr Johnston, 30, from Cheltenham, embarked on IVF in 2001 after she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

He withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after the couple split up in 2002.

Ms Evans broke down in tears yesterday as she heard the court’s verdict — which is likely to mean the embryos will be destroyed within 28 days.

She said: “I am distraught at the court’s decision today. It is very hard for me to accept that the embryos will now be destroyed and I will never become a mother.

“Whilst a lot has been said about the rights of Mr Johnston, what I was fighting for was my right to be a mother and the rights of the embryos.

“I would ask Howard to consider whether he could ever permit me to have the children I so dearly long for, and which he was happy to consent to when the procedure took place to create these embryos.”

Asked if she would make a last-ditch appeal to Mr Johnston, she added: “I have pleaded with him before and it has not worked, now there is nothing I can say to him any more.

“Last time I pleaded with him and asked him ‘please rethink’ and he didn’t. He said nothing is going to change his mind.”

Mr Johnston, who is currently single, said the ruling was the most important of his life.

“I want to be able to choose when and with who I become a parent,” he said. “It’s the most important thing ... We were really trying to prove a commonsense scenario.”

He added that he felt relief at the verdict and he would not rule out having children in the future.

He said the couple had discussed other ways Ms Evans might become a mother when they were undergoing IVF in 2001.

He said: “Being a mother is still an option to her that does not involve me.”

If yesterday’s verdict had gone against him, Mr Johnston said he would have taken legal advice on the steps he needed to take.

His lawyer James Grigg added: “If the requirement for joint consent had been scrapped as Miss Evans wanted, it would mean Mr Johnston would have been forced into parenthood with the inevitable and consequential moral, legal and financial responsibilities.”

The human rights judges in the case said the central dilemma was an “entirely irreconcilable” conflict between Ms Evans and her ex-boyfriend.

The judgment declared: “The Grand Chamber, in common with every other court which had examined the case, had great sympathy for the applicant, who clearly desired a genetically-related child above all else.

“However, given the above considerations, including the lack of any European consensus on that point, it did not consider that the applicant’s right to respect for the decision to become a parent in the genetic sense should be accorded greater weight than (Mr Johnston’s) right to respect for his decision not to have a genetically-related child with her.”

In March 2006, a seven- judge panel at the human rights court rejected Ms Evans’s case 5-2.

Her case was also dismissed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The House of Lords, the last legal resort in Britain, would not consider the case.

Current British law — the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 — requires consent from both man and woman at every stage of the IVF process.