Some people make me want to scream out loud. A case in point is Anne Atkins. Fortunately there are folks such as Tom Hamilton on hand to point out exactly why Mrs. Atkins makes me want to scream long and loud. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
Some People…
Categories:
4 responses to “Some People…”
-
It seems to me that both Atkins and Hamilton had a bone to chew in this argument, but I do think there is a valid issue to be raised as did one of the judges in this case when she opined that it seemed unfair that the mother had no say in implantation while the father had, de facto, the last word on the destruction of the embryos. Without the subject being unduly freighted with moralising, I think there could have been a resolution to this sad affair, that would have satisfied both parties.
-
I’m not sure that the phrase "the last word" is the correct one. It seems to me that the law in such a case as this is set up such that both parties must give their assent, and if either one does not, then that is sufficient to stop the the process of bringing an embryo to full term and producing a child. Now, we can have opinions on whether this way of setting up the law is correct or not, but that is something different. Personally, I can never understand the overwhelming desire to need to have a child carrying 50% of my genes. If I wanted the challenge of bringing up a child, I would be very happy to adopt, but that clearly wasn’t an option for the would-be mother in this case.
-
You may well not understand bringing one’s own child into the world but clearly this was an imperative for this woman. It would have cost Johnson nothing if, by signing away any responsibility he would have for the child, to allow implantation to proceed. The law as it stands is unjust precisely because of the biological dynamic. Though it would be outrageous to force a woman to carry a child because the father would not agree to a termination (though I think the father should have right of consultation), that is not the case here. For Johnson it was a question of principle; for his partner it was a greater compulsion that we do not understand but is no less valid for that. Compounded as it was by this woman’s lack of biological choices, I think an example could have been made of the law acceding to compassion.
-
Unfortunately, there is no provision in the HFEA for "signing away one’s responsibilities for the child" as I understand it. Perhaps that might have been a way forward in this case, although hasn’t there recently been a change in law that is making anonymous donors somewhat reluctant to step forward, because of fears of becoming legally responsible for their children? If that’s true for anonymous donors, it’s possible that a similar thought played a role in Johnson’s decision. I’m not even sure whether it was a "right of principle" versus a "biological imperative" as you put it, it’s possible that biological imperatives played an equal role in the stances of both parties.
Geoff Coupe's Blog 
Leave a comment