Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…
It’s worrying to read their backgrounds. Too many of the kids in my school share them, and are already desperately ill educated, ill disciplined and have no motivation or aspirations. There will be more of this.
Gelert, I’m afraid I agree with you. I really don’t know what the answer is.
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.
Mind you Geoff, so much ‘public furniture’ (don’t you love that euphemism?) is hideous and dull, that I don’t actually mind this so much. I could sit here and…… well, not sure exactly what, but I could. More happily than upon the average traffic island anyway.
Gelert, yes, this particular example did at least make me smile. And talking of traffic islands, there’s a particular roundabout just outside of Gouda where some artist (again, I have no idea who) made me smile.
Here are the images from the traffic island
My garden has everything out at once as well. I’ve mused this weekend at how I like global warming as I was watering the droopy annuals until I wondered what I was doing watering the garden in April. I am beau et bronzé this morning but any hobby gardener can tell you, there have been great changes in the passing of seasons in recent years. Worrying, especially water supplies.
It is the same in the UK. April is the new May, as they would say in the fashion world. The hawthorn bushes (aka "the May bush"
0 are even in flower. I could get used to this climate change stuff 🙂
Geoff,
You link to the Skinner’s Company site. When we left the Hague, we moved to Pembury, near Tunbridge Wells. It is very hard to avoid the influence of the Skinners (if you should want to do so) living where we do – Sir Andrew Judde left a phenomenal fortune to be administered by the Skinners in support of Tonbridge School (which he founded), which is why they have so many bursaries and scholarships. They also founded the Skinner’s School (formally Sir Andrew Judde’s Commercial School) and the Judde School, the top state boys’ grammar schools in Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge respectively. Judde’s gift over 450 years ago still keeps on giving.
(there is also a note about the origin of the phrase "at sixes and sevens" on the site, which may even be true!).
Robert D.
Hi, Robert – good to hear from you. Thanks for the additional info on the Skinners Company… clearly, the furriers’ Guild was not short of a bob or two once it go into its stride…
Its quite clear you have missed the seminal, intra-feminist ubershitze of the piece, not to mention the transdisposition of the post-modern dialectic altogether Geoff. What can I say?
Nah, I could smell the ubershitze from a mile off. It quite turns my stomach…
Geoff Coupe's Blog 
Leave a comment