A British woman has lost a four-year legal battle to use frozen embryos fertilised by her former partner to help her have a child.
In its judgment, the European Court of Human Rights ruled yesterday that Natallie Evans did not have the right to use the embryos against the will of her former fiance, Howard Johnston.
The judgment may have implications here for "Mrs R", who last November lost her legal action in the High Court to have three embryos implanted, against the wishes of her estranged husband.
In a landmark judgment, the High Court declared that frozen embryos do not have the same constitutional right to life as those carried in the womb.
Mrs R is understood to be appealing her case to the Supreme Court. In the interim, the spare embryos created after IVF treatment undertaken by the woman in 2002 will remain in frozen storage at the Sims Fertility Clinic in Dublin until the legal process is exhausted.
The decision by the grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights is the final legal appeals procedure open to Ms Evans (35), who said she was "distraught" at the decision.
Ms Evans began fertility treatment in 2000 but was diagnosed with ovarian cancer during the treatment. Her fertility clinic later froze six of the couples' embryos for future use before she underwent an operation to remove her ovaries.
However, in May 2002 the couple split up and Mr Johnston wrote to the fertility clinic to withdraw consent for the use of the fertilised embryos by Ms Evans. He also objected to the continued storage of the embryos, which will now be destroyed.
"I am distraught at the court's decision. It is very hard for me to accept the embryos will be destroyed," Ms Evans said at a news conference yesterday.
"I would ask Howard to consider whether he could ever permit me to have the children I so dearly long for, and which he was happy to consent to when the procedure took place to create these embryos."
But at a rival news conference Mr Johnston said that "common sense had prevailed" and he wanted to choose when he started a family.
The grand chamber found unanimously that there was no violation of the right to life in the European Convention on Human Rights. By a majority of 14 judges in favour and four against, it found that there was no violation of Ms Evans' right to respect for private and family life.
"The grand chamber considered that, given the lack of European consensus, the fact that the domestic rules were clear and brought to the attention of the applicant, and that they struck a fair balance between the competing interests, there had been no violation of article 8," the court said in a statement.