Evans v United Kingdom

Last updated

Evans v. the United Kingdom was a key case at the European Court of Human Rights. The case outcome could have had a major impact on fertility law, not only within the United Kingdom but also the other Council of Europe countries.

Contents

Professor John Harris of the University of Manchester told the BBC in September 2002:

If the woman (Natallie Evans) succeeds in this case then the whole basis upon which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has operated thus far will be overturned. Until now, it has operated on the basis that there must be continuing consent between a man and a woman in every stage of the reproductive process. If she (Ms Evans) succeeds in this case, then she will have established that the man's role ends once the egg is fertilised. [1]

On 10 April 2007 Natallie Evans lost her final appeal at the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. [2]

Facts

In June 2000, Natallie Evans (born October 1971) and Howard Johnston (born November 1976) who had met while working at Virgin Mobile in Wiltshire became engaged. In October 2001, Evans was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and was offered a cycle of IVF treatment before her cancer treatment because her fertility would be affected. On 12 November 2001 eleven of Evans' eggs were produced and fertilised using Johnston's sperm, resulting in six embryos which were frozen and placed in storage. On 26 November 2001 Evans underwent an operation to remove her ovaries. She was told she would need to wait for two years before the implantation of the embryos in her uterus. [3]

In May 2002, the couple split up. In the summer of 2002, Johnston, who lives in Cheltenham, wrote to the Bath, Somerset clinic storing the embryos and asked that they be destroyed.

On 30 July 2002 the clinic informed Evans of Johnston's request under current United Kingdom IVF law, regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which states that both parties must give their consent for IVF to continue – otherwise, the embryos must be destroyed.

Evans started her legal challenge immediately, which in agreement with her solicitor Muiris Lyons [4] was a dual challenge on the existing UK law under the Human Rights Act 1998, with Lorraine Hadley. Hadley from Baswich, Staffordshire, underwent IVF treatment but later got divorced from her husband Wayne, and wanted to use two of her stored embryos to try to get pregnant. [5]

Judgment

High Court

Lawyers for the two women submitted to the High Court of Justice in September 2002 that, as treatment was already under way, the men should not have the right to stop it. The women used the analogy that if they got pregnant naturally and the embryos were in their bodies, then their partners would have no say at all. [5] In September 2002, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, Baroness Butler-Sloss the president of the High Court's Family Division, said that a full hearing would be scheduled for the New Year, later confirmed as 30 June 2003. [6]

On 1 October 2003 Mr Justice Wall said that in ruling against the women, although he had sympathy for the women's situation, he could not overrule the law as it stood. He said it was up to Parliament, rather than the High Court, to decide whether the law in this area needed to be changed. The High Court ruled the embryos of both women should be destroyed, but that would not happen until the conclusion of the appeals process. The women could appeal to the Court of Appeal or on to the European Courts. The main secondary outcome of the ruling was that the judge ruled that fertility clinics would now have to counsel couples having IVF to consider carefully what would happen to any embryos that were created if they split up. [7]

James Grigg, solicitor for Howard Johnston, said: "Mr Johnston firmly believes that this outcome could be the only one, given the circumstances. With the conclusion of his relationship with Ms Evans, he would not now elect to start a family with her. If a child had been born, Mr Johnston would have legal, financial, emotional and moral responsibility for it. Mr Johnston hopes that Ms Evans wish to start a family can be satisfied in some other way, perhaps using donor eggs." After offering to donate the embryos to infertile couples, [8] on 24 October 2003 Mrs Hadley told the BBC Midlands Today regional news program that she was giving up her fight in light of the unlikely scenario that her ex-husband would provide consent to her using the embryos, and the withdrawal of legal aid. [9]

House of Lords

On 29 November 2004 three Law Lords dismissed Evans's application for leave to the House of Lords on the grounds that the petition "did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the House at this time, bearing in mind that the cause has already been the subject of judicial determination". [10] Ms Evans still had the right to file a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

European Court of Human Rights

On 26 January 2005 the Bath clinic informed Evans that it was under a legal obligation to destroy the embryos, and intended to do so on 23 February 2005. Although now outside the statutory five year legal limit for the retention before use of embryos, on 27 February 2005 the ECHR, to whom Evans had applied, requested, under Rule 39 (interim measures) of the Rules of Court, that the United Kingdom Government take appropriate measures to prevent the embryos being destroyed by the clinic before the Court had been able to examine the case. The embryos were not destroyed.

On 7 March 2006 a panel of seven judges of the ECHR delivered a majority 5–2 ruling against Ms Evans, which read: "The Court, like the national courts, had great sympathy for the plight of the applicant who, if implantation did not take place, would be deprived of the ability to give birth to her own child." [11] [12] However, the panel majority found that, even in such exceptional circumstances as Ms Evans', the right to a family life – enshrined in article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights – could not override Johnston's withdrawal of consent. The panel also ruled, this time unanimously, that the issue of when the right to life begins "comes within the margin of appreciation which the Court generally considers that States should enjoy in this sphere", and thus rejected the claim that embryo's right to life was being threatened. [13] [14]

Michael Wilks, of the British Medical Association ethics committee, said: "It's the right verdict, but a terrible situation." Dr Wilks called for a change to the five year limit for embryos to be stored after one partner withdraws consent should be extended so there was less of a "ticking clock". Ms Evans decided to appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court, but commented that she still wanted her ex-fiancé to change his mind to allow the embryos to be used. [13]

On 10 April 2007 the Grand Chamber of the ECHR ruled against Evans' appeal under three articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, which represented her last chance to save the embryos. The court ruled unanimously that there had been no breach of the right to life; but on the right to respect for private and family life and on the prohibition of discrimination the 17 judges ruled 13 to 4 (Judges Türmen, Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Spielmann and Ziemele dissented the judgment). [15] Dr Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society, said: "I think it was the only sensible decision which the Grand Chamber could come to. UK law is clear. It is a principle of shared responsibility." [2]

Timeline

The timeline of the case is as follows: [16]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ BBC NEWS | Health | IVF wrangle cases go to court
  2. 1 2 3 "Woman loses final embryo appeal". 10 April 2007. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  3. ↑ http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=3&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=12179832&skin=hudoc-pr-en [ dead link ]
  4. ↑ "London to Paris 2018: My journey to fit after 50". London to Paris 2018: My journey to fit after 50. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  5. 1 2 "Embryo fight couples in court". 19 September 2002. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  6. ↑ "Embryo fight couples get court date". 16 January 2003. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  7. ↑ "Women lose embryo battle". 1 October 2003. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  8. ↑ "Embryo row woman's donation plan". 3 October 2003. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  9. ↑ "Embryo row woman admits defeat". 24 October 2003. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  10. ↑ "Law Lords reject woman's IVF plea". 29 November 2004. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  11. ↑ "CASE OF EVANS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM" . Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  12. ↑ "CASE OF EVANS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 6339/05)" (PDF). Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  13. 1 2 "Woman loses frozen embryos fight". 7 March 2006. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  14. ↑ "Family Law Week: Evans v The United Kingdom (Application no. 6339/05)". www.familylawweek.co.uk. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  15. 1 2 "HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights". hudoc.echr.coe.int. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  16. ↑ "Timeline: Frozen embryos". 7 March 2006. Retrieved 10 July 2019.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In vitro fertilisation</span> Assisted reproductive technology procedure

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a process of fertilisation where an egg is combined with sperm in vitro. The process involves monitoring and stimulating a woman's ovulatory process, removing an ovum or ova from her ovaries and letting sperm fertilise them in a culture medium in a laboratory. After the fertilised egg (zygote) undergoes embryo culture for 2–6 days, it is transferred by catheter into the uterus, with the intention of establishing a successful pregnancy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority</span>

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) is an executive non-departmental public body of the Department of Health and Social Care in the United Kingdom. It is a statutory body that regulates and inspects all clinics in the United Kingdom providing in vitro fertilisation (IVF), artificial insemination and the storage of human eggs, sperm or embryos. It also regulates human embryo research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assisted reproductive technology</span> Methods to achieve pregnancy by artificial or partially artificial means

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) includes medical procedures used primarily to address infertility. This subject involves procedures such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), cryopreservation of gametes or embryos, and/or the use of fertility medication. When used to address infertility, ART may also be referred to as fertility treatment. ART mainly belongs to the field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility. Some forms of ART may be used with regard to fertile couples for genetic purpose. ART may also be used in surrogacy arrangements, although not all surrogacy arrangements involve ART. The existence of sterility will not always require ART to be the first option to consider, as there are occasions when its cause is a mild disorder that can be solved with more conventional treatments or with behaviors based on promoting health and reproductive habits.

Embryo donation is one disposition option for users of in vitro fertilisation with remaining fresh or frozen embryos. It is defined as the giving—generally without compensation—of embryos remaining after in vitro fertilization procedures to recipients for procreative implantation or research. Most IVF users with supernumerary embryos make embryo donation decisions after completing their families or discontinuing use of in vitro fertilization. Recipients of embryos donated for procreative implantation typically plan to transfer fresh or frozen embryos into a prepared uterus in order to facilitate pregnancy and childbirth. Recipients of embryos donated for research typically use them for clinical training, quality improvement research, or human embryonic stem cell research.

Loizidou v. Turkey is a landmark legal case regarding the rights of refugees wishing to return to their former homes and properties.

Egg donation is the process by which a woman donates eggs to enable another woman to conceive as part of an assisted reproduction treatment or for biomedical research. For assisted reproduction purposes, egg donation typically involves in vitro fertilization technology, with the eggs being fertilized in the laboratory; more rarely, unfertilized eggs may be frozen and stored for later use. Egg donation is a third-party reproduction as part of assisted reproductive technology.

<i>Eweida v United Kingdom</i>

Eweida v United Kingdom[2013] ECHR 37 is a UK labour law decision of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the duty of the government of the United Kingdom to protect the religious rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court found that the British government had failed to protect the complainant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. For failing to protect her rights, the British government was found liable to pay non-pecuniary damages of €2,000, along with a costs award of €30,000.

Barbora Bukovská is a Czech-Slovak human rights attorney and activist, known for her work on racial discrimination of Romani people in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Before anti-discrimination laws were adopted, she initiated the first Czech strategic litigation cases concerning discrimination against Romani people in access to public services, housing, employment and within the criminal justice system, and used the courts to bring a change in the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bourn Hall Clinic</span> Hospital in Cambridgeshire, England

Bourn Hall Clinic in Bourn, Cambridgeshire, England, is a centre for the treatment of infertility. The original building, Bourn Hall, is about 400 years old. Since becoming a medical centre, it has been greatly extended.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It created the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which is in charge of human embryo research, along with monitoring and licensing fertility clinics in the United Kingdom.

Sperm donation is the provision by a man of his sperm with the intention that it be used in the artificial insemination or other "fertility treatment" of one or more women who are not his sexual partners in order that they may become pregnant by him. Where pregnancies go to full term, the sperm donor will be the biological father of every baby born from his donations. The man is known as a sperm donor and the sperm he provides is known as "donor sperm" because the intention is that the man will give up all legal rights to any child produced from his sperm, and will not be the legal father. Sperm donation may also be known as "semen donation".

Von Hannover v Germany [2004] was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 2004. The Court ruled that German law breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Cryopreservation of embryos is the process of preserving an embryo at sub-zero temperatures, generally at an embryogenesis stage corresponding to pre-implantation, that is, from fertilisation to the blastocyst stage.

Natural Cycle In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is an assisted reproductive technique designed to closely mimic a woman's natural menstrual cycle. In traditional IVF, a woman's ovaries are stimulated with fertility medications to produce multiple eggs, which are then retrieved and fertilized outside the body. A natural cycle IVF, on the other hand, works with the woman's natural hormonal fluctuations and ovulation cycle.

The history of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) goes back more than half a century. In 1959 the first birth in a nonhuman mammal resulting from IVF occurred, and in 1978 the world's first baby conceived by IVF was born. As medicine advanced, IVF was transformed from natural research to a stimulated clinical treatment. There have been many refinements in the IVF process, and today millions of births have occurred with the help of IVF all over the world.

Sperm theft, also known as unauthorized use of sperm, forced fatherhood, spermjacking or spurgling, occurs when a man's semen is used, against his will or without his knowledge or consent, to inseminate a woman. It can also include deception by a partner about their ability to get pregnant or use of contraceptives, birth control sabotage, and sexual assaults of males that result in pregnancy. Although the term uses the word "theft", it more closely falls under a state of fraud or breach of contract. Sperm theft is not illegal and is difficult to prove. It usually has no bearing on issues like child support. It is considered an issue in the men's rights movement.

E.S v. Austria was a case held before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case where the court upheld a domestic court's fine on an Austrian woman who had called Mohammed a pedophile.

<i>Roche v Roche</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Roche v Roche [2010] 2 IR 321: [2009] IESC 82 is an Irish Supreme Court case which affirmed the High Court decision that frozen embryos did not constitute the “unborn” within the meaning of Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution. The spirit of the Supreme Court's judgement was that frozen embryos were not extended the same right to life as given to embryos protected in the womb. With an increase in IVF among couples, legal issues arise when the couple decide to separate or divorce. This is a landmark case as it gave a judgement on such a circumstance where a couple has separated but there are surplus embryos frozen at a clinic. The Court made its decision by ultimately taking into account the right to reproduce.

Fedotova and Others v. Russia was a case submitted by six Russian nationals to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.