The Sun newspaper, at least, is clear on the subject. It's "hard and callous" for a man to destroy frozen embryos he's created with a partner and put in storage. Howard Johnston, the man with joint shares in six frozen embryos, has a "moral obligation" to let his ex-fiancée, Natalie Evans, become a mother. These moral stakes are heightened because treatment for cancer removed her ovaries and any future chance of conceiving. But the human fertilisation and embryology authority (HFEA) works to a different moral code. Which is why Ms Evans and another woman in a similar situation, Lorraine Hadley, have started legal action to prevent their partners from destroying their embryos.
Tragic though their situations are, they may well not succeed. The HFEA has clear guidelines on what it takes to make a baby in a test tube. These standards are, as society expects, higher than for people who conceive without assistance. It is the privilege of the fertile to be thoughtless and irresponsible. Therefore, once an egg sticks in a woman's womb, the law is clear that her rights are paramount. Attempts in the US to stop women having abortions have failed, even if they have managed to stop them drinking and smoking.
For a man and woman to embark on a staggered form of IVF, however, joint written consent is needed for each step. There must be consent for taking the eggs (an invasive and unpleasant procedure) and mixing them with sperm to make the embryos, which are then frozen for use at a convenient date. Consent is needed from both parties to use the embryos and to continue storing them - hence the rush to the courtroom. Should Mr Johnston or Mr Hadley (who shares two frozen embryos with his ex-wife) insist on withdrawing their consent, the law is clear that the embryos die.
As in other cases where the law is clear but cruel, the women are having to cite the Human Rights Act, claiming discrimination. They may argue that their infertility, should their potential babies (as they see them) be defrosted, denies them the right to a family life. Right-to-life campaigners will argue that the law will be killing babies. Those who support a woman's right to choose may find they feel oddly the same. These women have defined their embryos as babies. Their loss will be profound.
It is for courts to be just and logical. Many women will react to this predicament emotionally. They will feel that by giving their sperm these men agreed to fertilise an egg and a fertilised egg is women's property. Since when have men been precious about their sperm or even their offspring? In Britain there are 1.7 million one-parent families, and the great majority of lone parents are women.
But we can't exhort men to be more responsible about their sperm and tell them it's not theirs once it's in a test tube; that something they agreed to four years ago is still binding, although their lives may have changed. Suppose a woman no longer wanted to store her and her ex-partner's embryos. There would be uproar if a man tried to use a surrogate, perhaps his new partner, to carry one. The same rules have to apply to men and women.
A woman's feelings cannot be more relevant than a man's in deciding what happens to an embryo created through technology. The process that couples go through makes this clear, however shocked one partner may be when the shared vision breaks down. Perhaps storing eggs and sperm separately should, technology willing, be the norm, however sure couples are that they'll stay together. But it is only recently that eggs that have been stored unfertilised have been deemed safe to be used in IVF.
If there was a baby, the court would see a custody battle. But a court is unlikely to decide that one person has more rights to a frozen embryo than another. In one of the cases, the issue is around the man not wanting financial responsibility for a child. By changing his consent to that of a donor, he could negate that. But by doing so he will promote the feeling that men are irrelevant in reproduction. And women will be left asking: "when will some men stop feeling that having a child is such a terrible thing?"
· Dr Luisa Dillner works for the British Medical Journal
