There must be a fair balance between the rights of parties to IVF treatment. Seamus Burns reports
The applicant, Natallie Evans, and her partner, Howard Johnston, had commenced in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment in July 2000. In October 2000, the couple were informed that she had tumours in both ovaries. They were told that some of her eggs could be retrieved for IVF.
A nurse explained that they would each have to sign consent forms under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (HFEA 1990), and that it would be possible for either party to withdraw their consent at any time before the embryos were implanted in the applicant’s uterus. Johnston reassured the applicant that he wished to father her child. Evans would argue she had acted to her detriment in reliance on these assurances and that Johnston should be estopped from reneging on a categorical undertaking, whereas Johnston would argue this was never meant to be a binding
irrevocable agreement.
They signed separate consent forms. The embryos were to be used for treatment by Johnston
