Couples' embryos to be destroyed after sperm donors withdraw consent

Two same-sex couples face the destruction of their frozen embryos after their sperm donors unexpectedly withdrew consent for their use.

Samantha Beesley and Carly Estlick spent £13,000 on private IVF treatment, creating 11 embryos. Beesley is seven months pregnant following their first successful transfer, but their sperm donor has now withdrawn his consent, placing their remaining ten embryos at risk of destruction.

Beesley and Estlick described how they do not see their embryos as 'something abstract; we see the possibility of our future family and the possibility of our little boy having a full genetic sibling'.

Similarly, Nat and Nik Fraser-Edwards spent £23,000 on fertility treatment and have a one-year-old son as a result. When they contacted their fertility clinic about transferring another embryo, they were told their donor had withdrawn consent.

Both couples had taken out personal loans to afford their treatment.

Under UK law, a donor can withdraw consent in writing at any point up to the transfer of the embryo to the womb. It does not matter that an embryo has already been created. From the point when a party withdraws consent, the embryo is stored for a 12-month 'cooling-off period', at the end of which the embryo is destroyed if all parties have not revived consent.

This rule was confirmed in the 2007 European Court of Human Rights case Evans v United Kingdom. Natallie Evans fought a five-year legal battle to use six frozen embryos created with her ex-partner, Howard Johnston.

Evans had cancer and knew she would lose her fertility. At the time, egg freezing was not a reliable technology, so she and Johnston created embryos. Both knew this would be her only chance to have a biological child later. However, the couple later separated, and Johnston withdrew his consent for the embryos to be used.

Evans mounted a legal challenge to try to use the embryos, but a series of courts ultimately held that the law must uphold the principle that no person should be forced to become a parent without ongoing consent (see BioNews 349).

Beesley and Estlick said: 'The question we are now asking is whether the law should treat every withdrawal of consent in exactly the same way, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of the stage the family has reached.'

In contrast to sperm provided between partners during fertility treatment, regulated UK sperm donors hold no legal parental rights, financial duties, or ongoing responsibilities toward children conceived through their donation.

As such, both couples are calling for a change in the law, allowing third-party donors to withdraw consent for use of their sperm or eggs, but not for embryos already created using them.