Like It Is

Each time I think I’ve heard it all, I come across something to remind me, that no, I most certainly have not heard it all. Far from it.

This story for example.

A convicted murderer, who is serving a life sentence is arguing that he has the right to father a child by artificial insemination. He and his wife got married in 2001. Wife is now 48 and free, having been in prison along with her husband.

But husband will be in jail until at least 2009. By which time wife will be 51 and, as far as the couple are concerned, she will be too old to conceive naturally. The prisoner himself is now 34. Apparently it has been argued that as the likelihood of natural conception for her will be low, she should be given access to IVF facilities. Immediately.

What is wrong with this picture?

Is it the fact that this is a murderer, someone who has no respect for another’s life (such that he felt he had the right to take it away from them) wanting access to IVF to create his own new life? Or is the fact that once again, selfishly inclined “rights” are all that matter here. I thought that being in prison was supposed to be punishment for crimes committed. In this case, murder. Killing another.

That entails that you give up certain freedoms and I would have thought that using IVF to play catch up because you’re in the slammer and won’t get out in time to produce your own progeny with your wife is far, far removed from a right to jump on the IVF list. If you are inside and can’t get out in time to do “ au natural conception”, then too bad. That’s your problem, why should it be rewarded by IVF?

Neither the prisoner nor his wife seems to be thinking of the future welfare of the child – who would not only be minus a parent for most of its life, but would also have to contend with the news, that “hey, Dad’s a murderer! And still inside paying for his crime…” The only thing that appears to matter to the pair is that their “rights” have been violated. Their rights… I wonder how the relations of the victim whose life he took must feel about that. Not that they would have any say in the decision.

The UK government have refused to allow Dickson to make use of IVF facilities (which unless I am mistaken would be paid for at least in part by the tax payer since the prisoner is unlikely to have the money to pay for the expensive treatment). This alone makes me want to heave.

Human rights judges have backed the UK government’s refusal.

When the application was rejected in the UK, the Dicksons went to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming a violation of their “right to respect for private and family life” and “right to marry and found a family”, both guaranteed by the Human Rights Convention.

The human rights judges rejected the case by a narrow 4-3 majority decision. Thank goodness for that, although even that seemed too close to call.
The judgement said the home secretary at the time had concluded that such factors were outweighed by “the nature and gravity of Mr Dickson’s crime and the welfare of any child who might be conceived, in the light of the prolonged absence of the father for an important part of its childhood years.”

The pair are now taking their case to be heard by 17 judges sitting in the court’s Grand Chamber.

I fervently hope their case is thrown out of court. Finally.

Story: Lifer appeals over right to IVF from BBC News