The legal battle over the fate of three embryos frozen in a Dublin fertility clinic could not happen in Britain because of the nature of its laws governing the practice of IVF, a clinical embryologist has told the High Court.
Dr Maybeth Jamieson, attached to Glasgow Royal Infirmary in Scotland, said that laws introduced by the British parliament, which licensed and regulated IVF treatment, required the consent of both members of a couple before they can proceed with any stage of the treatment.
Dr Jamieson was giving evidence yesterday for the estranged husband of a mother of two who has brought proceedings aimed at having returned to her three embryos in frozen storage at the Sims fertility clinic, Rathgar, Dublin.
The embryos were produced when the couple underwent IVF treatment at the clinic in 2002, which resulted in the birth of their second child. Three unused embryos were frozen. The husband is opposed to the embryos being returned to his wife and has told the court he wants no more children.
Mr Justice Brian McGovern earlier ruled that documents signed by the husband did not amount to a consent to have the embryos implanted in his wife and is now hearing evidence to decide public law issues relating to whether an embryo constitutes human life and attracts constitutional protection.
The case was yesterday adjourned for the purpose of fixing a date in October so that an expert witness, Prof Gunter Rager from Switzerland, can conclude giving his evidence. Prof Rager gave evidence earlier this week but there was insufficient time available for his cross-examination before he had to return to Switzerland.
Dr Jamieson yesterday told John Rogers SC, for the husband, that consent was a "very important part" of the legislation governing IVF in Britain. Couples there could have their embryos frozen for up to five years with 10 years allowed in certain exceptional cases.
At the end of the five years, the couple effectively had four choices. They could use the embryos, donate them for medical research, put them up for adoption for other couples or allow them to perish. Most couples chose to let the embryos perish with only a few choosing to donate, Dr Jamieson said.
Dr Jamieson agreed with Mr Rogers that the rules governing IVF in Britain are "very rigorous and thorough". Research on embryos was permitted only up to 14 days after they formation. Such research must be in areas deemed necessary to treat serious illnesses and where it was impossible to use animal embryos.
Asked for her view on when individual human life began, she said she could not pin-point it. "Life is continuous," she said, people inherited their genes in characteristics from their parents and beyond; it was not some random process. Her scientific opinion was that individual life did not begin until 14 days after an embryo was formed - the "primitive streak" stage - and seven days after the embryo has been implanted in the uterus.
Cross-examined by counsel for the woman, Gerard Hogan SC, Dr Jamieson agreed that British regulations regarding consent meant that one member of a couple had an effective veto on whether to proceed should one or the other no longer wish to continue with IVF. She agreed that a problem like that in this case could not arise because of Britain's regulated regime.
Dr Jamieson also said Britain's IVF laws were designed not to give "false hope" to couples seeking IVF.
She was critical of IVF practices in Italy where laws stipulated that a maximum of three embryos could be produced and, if they were, all must be implanted. This led to a significantly higher number of triplet births which carried significant health risks, she said.
Such restrictions led to "IVF tourism" - couples going to other countries to seek treatment, she said.
In Britain, three embryos could only be transferred in extreme circumstances and the usual practice there was to implant two embryos. It would be unethical to deliberately implant an embryo that had no chance of survival, she said. A failure for those to become pregnant following IVF had been compared to mourning. It would be wrong to force a woman to go through that again.