Sunday - March 01, 2009

Warning on new IVF laws as single women told they can ‘name anyone’ as father on birth certificate.

Be interesting to see how this plays out in the future.  Not sure I understand it though.  What I mean is, are they serious?

Warning on new IVF laws as single women told they can ‘name anyone’ as father on birth certificate
By FIONA MACRAE
Last updated at 6:38 PM on 01st March 2009

Single women undergoing IVF will be able to name anyone they like as their baby’s father on the birth certificate from next month.

The regulations - which were last night branded ‘absurd’ - mean that women could nominate another woman to be her child’s ‘father’.

The ‘father’ does not need to be genetically related to the baby, nor be in any sort of romantic relationship with the mother.

Critics have sounded a warning about the ability of single women who have successful IVF treatment to nominate a person as the ‘father’

Critics said it meant a woman could list her best friend on the birth certificate.

The second parent, who will have to consent to being named, will take on the legal and moral responsibilities of parenthood.

This would give them the right to launch a custody battle if their tenuous relationship with the mother broke down - and to be pursued for child support payments.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) said that the regulations, part of the controversial embryology bill passed by parliament last year, will give lesbian couples in civil partnerships who undergo IVF the same rights as married heterosexual couples.

An unmarried man whose girlfriend undergoes fertility treatment will also find it easier to claim full parental rights.

But the changes, due to come in on April 6th, mean that the 2,000 women a year who have IVF using donated sperm could name almost anyone they like as the child’s father.

Critics said that the change that the lead to the role of father being downgraded to the one of godfather and warned that the child would be the one to lose out.

Baroness Ruth Deech, a former chair of the HFEA, said the practice would lead to the ‘falsification of the birth certificate’.

She said: ‘This is putting the rights of the parents way above those of the child. It is absurd that anyone can be named as the father or the second parent.’

Dr Trevor Stammers, a GP and lecturer in healthcare ethics, said questioned the strength of the relationships or friendships between the mother and ‘father’.

He said: ‘There is no doubt from sociological evidence accumulated over the past few years that children do best in a two-parent married family with heterosexual couples being the married parents.

‘It probably will be the child that is the loser but by the time we find that out, in 15 or 16 years, a huge amount of damage will have been done.’

Geraldine Smith, Labour MP for Morecambe, said a birth certificate should be a true record of a child’s genetic heritage.

She added: ‘I don’t think the State should collude with parents to conceal the true genetic identity.’

David Jones, a professor of bioethics, liked the role of second parent to that of godparent.

He added: ‘This sounds like social engineering on the hoof.  This is now arbitrary.’

The HFEA said it was unlikely for the actual sperm donor to be named on the birth certificate because the sample is normally obtained from a sperm bank.

A spokesman said the welfare of the child would always come first and any person nominated as a second parent would undergo counselling to ensure they understood the implications.

Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the new embryology laws, said: ‘This is a big step and is unlikely to be taken by someone who does not take their responsibilities seriously.’

DAILY MAIL

Posted by peiper     on 03/01/2009 at 02:48 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Health-Medicine • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner