Frozen embryos must be destroyed

Two women lost their fight to save their frozen embryos from destruction in a landmark ruling today.

Both had hoped to use them to have children without the consent of their former partners. But the High Court ruled today that to do so would be a clear breach of the law as it stands.

Mr Justice Wall ruled that if the law was to be changed regarding frozen embryos then it was a matter for Parliament and not the courts. Today's decision is a bitter blow for Natallie Evans, 31, from Trowbridge in Wiltshire and Lorraine Hadley, 38, from Sandwell, West Midlands.

Both underwent IVF treatment with their partners and each have a number of embryos in storage.

Although it now seems certain those embryos will be destroyed, Mr Justice Wall granted a "stay" on that happening-until the appeal process has been exhausted.

Today's decision was particularly hard for Ms Evans as it represents her last chance to have children. Her ovaries were removed after they were found to contain pre-cancerous cells.

She had claimed her former partner, Howard Johnston, had told her he would never stop her using the embryos but he has since changed his mind. Mrs Hadley's husband Wayne had agreed her embryos should remain in storage after he left her for another woman in 2000 but later changed his mind.

Ms Evans was said to be "devastated" by the ruling. Mrs Hadley's solicitor, Muiris Lyons, said: "Lorraine is very upset at the decision. We will now consider the merits of an appeal on her behalf."

Mr Hadley said: "I am absolutely delighted. I have never wanted the matter to come to court and have been overwhelmed by the media coverage.

"My legal team presented a very compelling and persuasive case on my behalf and I am delighted that those arguments prevailed.

"At the same time I cannot dismiss the anguish that is likely to be caused to Lorraine as a result of the ruling of Mr Justice Wall. I have no ill feelings towards Lorraine and no desire to cause her further distress. I hope the matter is now concluded."

Both women sat subdued in court as they learned of today's ruling.

Mr Justice Wall said the claims to use their embryos had failed for "the simple reason" that Mr Johnston and Mr Hadley had withdrawn consent and that by doing so the two men were "lawfully exercising the clear and unconditional right which Parliament has given them to take that course".

He said that the original consent to treatment, for both couples, was for "treatment together" and was no longer valid now that the men had withdrawn their consent. Mr Justice Wall said he had great sympathy for everyone involved.

"Ms Evans's case is particularly poignant and she is most deserving of sympathy because she has had to have an operation for the removal of her ovaries immediately following the harvesting of her eggs and the frozen embryos represent her only chance of giving birth to a child which is genetically hers," he said.

"She was also faced with a dilemma of having to make decisions about IVF within minutes of hearing the devastating news that she required radical surgery. However, I cannot allow my sympathy for Ms Evans to take precedent over the clear terms of the Act."

Both women have been bitterly critical of their partners' respectivedecisions to withdraw consent for the eggs to be used.

However, today the judge said: "It would be easy to criticise men in the position of Mr Johnston and Mr Hadley but such criticisms would, in my judgment, be unfair.

"Mr Johnston and Mr Hadley would be the biological fathers of children for whom they would be financially responsible but with whom they could not enjoy any form of natural paternal relationship."

Lawyers had argued that the women's human rights had been infringed. But the judge said the claim had no foundation in law.