Although the judge did not find the company liable for damages, he did state concerns about the way consent was obtained by clinics during this period. The fact the clinic had changed the way it obtained consent demonstrated “that more robust procedures were not beyond the bounds of practical possibility”. The case has significant ramifications for parents seeking IVF and the clinics they turn to, setting a precedent in terms of the circumstances under which parents of “unwanted” children can claim damages. A six-day trial in July was told the father’s signature on the “consent to thaw” form had been forged after someone “traced” his real signature. Jude Fleming, the chief operating officer for IVF Hammersmith, said the clinic was pleased the judge had ruled in its favour and dismissed the claim for damages.

Source: The Guardian October 06, 2017 10:24 UTC