Ruling expected soon on frozen embryos consent

The High Court will rule within days on the question of whether documents signed by a husband four years ago consenting to fertility treatment for his estranged wife constitute a consent by him to have three frozen embryos taken out of storage and implanted in her uterus.

However, the main case is expected to continue at least until the end of the month.

If he finds there was such a consent, Mr Justice Brian McGovern will also rule whether the 44-year-old man is entitled to revoke it in light of the couple's separation in 2005 and the man's wish not to have more children with his 41-year-old wife.

The court has heard the couple had a son who was conceived naturally in 1997 and also had a daughter, conceived after IVF treatment at the Sims fertility clinic in Rathgar, Dublin, in early February 2002. Their marriage broke down later in 2002 and the man is opposed to his wife's application for the release of the frozen embryos to her for implantation purposes.

Submissions by John Rogers SC, for the husband, concluded yesterday on the issue of whether documents signed by the husband at the Sims clinic in early 2002 constitute a consent or an irrevocable consent to the frozen embryos being implanted in her uterus. Mr Justice McGovern said he will give judgment on that issue within days.

The case will be mentioned to the judge again this morning to decide when it may resume to deal with other issues, including constitutional issues.

The judge yesterday indicated he was anxious the case conclude in this legal term, which ends July 31st, but Mr Rogers said he may have difficulties as another complex family law case in which he is involved is due to resume on July 18th.

Earlier yesterday, Mr Rogers said the Constitution requires that the family be protected in "its constitution and authority". The husband's existing family unit was himself, his wife and their two children but the wife sought to bring in another child and to force her husband to be its father.

This, counsel argued, was an unconstitutional attack on the husband's family rights. In evidence, the wife had clearly perceived any mutual decision on a third pregnancy would be in the context of the couple remaining happily married, he said.

There was no equivalence between sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy and IVF, counsel also argued. IVF was "not mother nature" but "the hand of man and woman intervening to secure what would hopefully be viable embryos in a uterus".