A WIDOW has won a legal battle to have IVF treatment using her late husband’s sperm after a historic ruling by a panel of Scottish judges.
The woman, who has only been identified as SB, instructed lawyers to go to the Court of Session to obtain the judgment.
The court heard how SB wanted to undergo IVF treatment using sperm taken from seven vials her husband stored approximately 10 years ago.
Her partner – JB – had become ill with cancer when he stored the sperm in the hope he may one day start a family.
The pair met, married and decided to have a family. But JB became sick from cancer for a second time. He unfortunately lost his life to the disease in 2019 after he and his wife consulted doctors about starting a family.
The court heard that when JB stored his sperm, he had given written consent to his sperm being used for intrauterine insemination – a method of conception where semen are introduced directly into the uterus.
However, he did not sign the necessary forms needed for his reproductive material to be used
for IVF.
It was deemed this document was suited to men who had partners.
Following his marriage, JB made a will that stated his donated sperm should be donated to his wife for as long as possible and for as long as she may wish.
Doctors, however, wanted JB to follow the process laid down by the law and sign the forms giving permission for his semen to be used in IVF treatment.
However, by the time an appointment was made, he was receiving palliative care and unable to attend.
Medics discovered the day before he died – when he was unconscious – he had only completed forms that provided consent to intrauterine insemination.
Doctors told SB her best chance for conceiving children was with IVF.
This prompted her legal team to go to Scotland’s highest civil court to obtain an order that would allow JB’s sperm to be used for IVF. They argued JB had given permission in his will for his semen to be used for IVF.
Lawyers for NHS Grampian did not oppose the move. They were not represented in the action.
But the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was unable to conclude that JB gave effective consent for the purposes of the legislation governing the matter.
Its lawyers stated the will did not make reference to the creation of embryos or to the purpose to which
sex cells were to be used.
However, HFEA’s legal team argued that if the court should find the necessary legal requirements were met, the authority considered there would be no impediment for SB to begin IVF treatment.
Judges Lady Dorrian, Lord Glennie and Lord Woolman ruled in favour yesterday of SB.
Lady Dorrian, who gave the judgment, ruled the man’s statement in the will meant he intended his sperm to be used in IVF treatment.
The court ruled the terms of the dead man’s will amounted to effective consent to the use of his sperm for IVF treatment.
Lady Dorrian wrote: “The remaining issue relates to the construction of the clause in the will. It is axiomatic that we should start by examining the plain meaning of the words in the context in which they occur.
“We regard the following features as important. First, it is a testamentary document in which JB was not only making disposition of his estate but, by this clause, expressing his
wish for the future use of his stored gametes.
“Second, he and his wife had sought and been referred for treatment to enable them to have a child.
“Third, although it is expressed as a direction to his executors, in reality it is an expression of his wishes.”
“In our view there is no doubt it can. It is the sort of provision that would only sensibly be made by a man contemplating his death in the near future, and seeking to make his wishes clear.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel