A British woman has lost her appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to have children using frozen embryos fertilised by her former partner, who no longer wants her to have his baby.
The case of Natallie Evans, 35, from Wiltshire, has been at the centre of an ethical debate after cancer treatment had left her infertile. She had described her appeal to the European Court as her last chance to have a baby.Reading out a statement at a news conference in London following the decision, Evans said: "I am distraught. It is very hard for me to accept that the embryos will now be destroyed and I will never become a mother."
Howard Johnston, Evans' former fiancé had asked the clinic holding the embryos to destroy them once they separated. He said: "I feel that once again, it looks like common sense has prevailed."
He said he wanted to have the choice about when and with whom he would become a parent.
In 2000 Evans and Johnston sought fertility treatment at a Bath clinic. During an examination she was diagnosed with a pre-cancerous condition of her ovaries.
Prior to her ovaries being removed, the couple sought IVF treatment - creating six embryos that were then frozen and stored.
Later the couple separated, and Johnston refused to consent to the embryos being used, arguing he did not want the financial or emotional burden of being a father to a child he would not bring up.
The Grand Chamber upheld a previous decision by a European Court that rejected Evans' argument that her human rights were being infringed by her former fiancé blocking her using the embryos. The court said that there had been no violation to the right to life and respect for private and family life, as upheld by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court said in a statement: "The Grand Chamber considered that, given the lack of European consensus, the fact that the domestic rules were clear and brought to the attention of the applicant and that they struck a fair balance between the competing interests, there had been no violation of Article 8."
