Widow may be allowed to use frozen sperm

A WIDOW who was refused permission to use her dead husband's semen in an attempt to have his baby may be able to go abroad for…

A WIDOW who was refused permission to use her dead husband's semen in an attempt to have his baby may be able to go abroad for treatment.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has asked Ms Diane Blood for any additional information which may support her case.

The authority, which was originally able to deny Ms Blood permission to export her dead husband's sperm in order to receive treatment, has the power to consider any further evidence.

It said in a statement yesterday: "The authority has discretion to consider any additional information with regard to export in this case. It has chosen to do so in tight of the new information available.

READ MORE

"The authority's solicitors have written to Mrs Blood's solicitors inviting then to submit any further evidence which they may wish to be considered.

"The authority expects to reach a decision before the end of the year.

Ms Blood, from Worksop, Nottinghamshire, was refused permission by the High Court for treatment because she had no written consent before her husband, Stephen, died.

The court was told, however, that he approved of the use of artificial insemination in the kind of circumstances which arose in his case.

Ms Blood was in the public gallery of the House of Commons to hear a debate yesterday about her case.

Asked afterwards about her reaction to the authority's proposal, she said: "I heard the news only two seconds before I walked into the Commons. I've got to take legal advice on that.

"But the news that they are going to reconsider the export issue has obviously given me a great deal of hope.

Later at a news conference Ms Blood said she would be submitting all the evidence she gave during her unsuccessful court case for the right to have her husband's child to the authority.

She said this will be the first time the authority had this evidence, put before it, and would constitute the "additional information" it had asked for.