Compiled from: Wuxi Daily, Lychee News
 
In May 2017, a couple in Wuxi, Jiangsu, due to infertility, planned to undergo embryo transfer surgery when the wife's physical condition allowed. Tragically, the husband died unexpectedly before the surgery. The wife requested to proceed with the embryo transfer, but the hospital refused due to the lack of the husband's signature. Subsequently, the wife, surnamed Chen, sued the hospital. On June 23, the case was ruled in the Liangxi District People's Court of Wuxi.

 

 
Case review
In August 2016, Chen and her husband sought treatment for infertility at a hospital in Wuxi. Following the doctor's advice, the couple decided to opt for assisted reproduction and underwent an embryo transfer procedure, but unfortunately, they were not successful on their first attempt.
 
In May 2017, Chen and her husband went to the hospital again, hoping for another assisted reproduction attempt. The hospital retrieved eggs from Chen and sperm from her husband, successfully cultivating four embryos. Due to ovarian hyperstimulation after egg retrieval, Chen developed pleural and abdominal effusion and was immediately hospitalized. Regarding the embryos, the couple requested the hospital to preserve them using cryopreservation technology and signed the "Informed Consent for Embryo Freezing, Thawing, and Transfer," declaring that they would undergo in vitro fertilization at the hospital.
 
In July 2019, Chen's husband died in an accident. Supported by her father and her in-laws, Chen decided to proceed with the embryo transfer at the hospital. However, unexpectedly, the hospital refused Chen's request. To protect her legal rights, Chen filed a lawsuit against the hospital.
 
 
Hospital's Position
1. The document signed by the husband has expired.
The hospital argued that it could not perform the frozen embryo thawing and transfer for Chen because the "Technical Standards for Human Assisted Reproduction" and "Ethical Principles for Human Assisted Reproduction" stipulate that assisted reproductive technology must strictly adhere to the voluntary principles of informed consent and informed choice. Chen's husband had not visited the hospital for embryo transfer in the two years before his death, and the validity of the informed consent he signed during his lifetime could not extend beyond his death. Moreover, he could no longer sign the embryo thawing and consent form.
 
[1] The "Informed Consent for Embryo Freezing, Thawing, and Transfer" previously signed by Chen and her husband explicitly states that the initial embryo freezing fee covers only a three-month storage period. The couple never paid the embryo freezing fees for the past two years, so the hospital believes they have abandoned the embryos.
 
[2] 2. Chen is currently a single woman.
[3] The hospital believes that since Chen's husband has passed away, Chen is now a single woman.
 
[4] On one hand, according to the principles of protecting offspring and public welfare in the Ministry of Health's "Technical Standards for Human Assisted Reproduction," the hospital cannot provide assisted reproductive technology to single women.
 
[5] On the other hand, based on the principle of benefiting the offspring, consideration must be given to whether a child raised in a single-parent environment would be affected physically, psychologically, or in terms of personality.

 

 
[1] Court Opinion
[6] 1. The contract signed by both parties is legal and valid.
The court held that initially, the Chen couple sought assisted reproductive treatment at a hospital approved and registered by the health administrative department to conduct human assisted reproductive technology due to infertility. The hospital performed a series of medical procedures and froze embryos, establishing a medical service contract relationship between the Chen couple and the hospital. This contract did not violate mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations and was lawful and valid.
 
The judge stated that Chen and her husband entered into the medical service contract with the hospital for the purpose of having children. Although the husband passed away, the fact that the Chen couple jointly underwent two assisted reproductive treatments at the hospital, signed multiple informed consent forms during the treatment, and had embryos cultivated and frozen all indicated the husband's clear intention to have children through human assisted reproductive technology. It could be inferred that continuing the embryo transfer procedure did not contradict the husband's wishes before his death. The reason the embryo transfer was not immediately performed was solely due to the wife's physical condition, and the existing medical service contract had not been completed. Chen's request for the hospital to continue fulfilling the contract previously established with the couple did not violate the true intentions of the parties involved.
 
2. Does not violate the principle of protecting offspring or the principle of public interest.
First, the court found that Chen had not given birth to or adopted any children, and undergoing assisted reproduction did not violate relevant reproductive laws and regulations. Notably, Chen is a "widowed woman," which should be distinguished from ordinary single women seeking human assisted reproductive technology. Therefore, in this case, it did not violate the principle of social public interest.
 
Second, although the child would be born without a biological father and might grow up in a single-parent family, this does not necessarily mean it would have a significant impact on the child's physical, psychological, or personality development. Currently, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that implementing human assisted reproductive technology would be detrimental to the offspring in terms of medical, parental rights, or other aspects. The hospital continuing to provide human assisted reproductive technology for Chen did not violate the principle of protecting offspring.
 
Ultimately, on the morning of June 23, the Wuxi Liangxi District People's Court issued a first-instance judgment in this case, ruling that the hospital must continue to fulfill the in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer medical service contract with Chen and perform the embryo transfer procedure for her.

 

 
[1] The author's perspective
The author believes that this is a typical case where human sentiment and ethics have prevailed.
 
First, in this case, Mr. and Mrs. Chen entered into a medical contract with the hospital and signed an informed consent form. At the time of signing, both parties had the corresponding civil capacity and legal capacity, expressed their true intentions, and there were no grounds for invalidity under the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, the contract was legally established and took effect.
 
Second, after the contract was established, the parties should fully and actively fulfill their obligations in accordance with the terms agreed upon. In this case, Mr. and Mrs. Chen repeatedly expressed their willingness to undergo embryo transfer and underwent multiple embryo transfer procedures, which can confirm that Mrs. Chen's husband fully consented to the embryo transfer surgery. Additionally, after her husband's death, Mrs. Chen was able to independently accept and complete the procedure. In summary, there were no circumstances in this case that prevented the continued performance of the contract between Mr. and Mrs. Chen and the hospital.
 
Finally, the right to reproduction is a fundamental human right, but assisted reproductive technology should comply with the principles of safety, effectiveness, and reasonableness, as well as legal and ethical standards, fully safeguarding the health and interests of individuals, families, and offspring, and protecting social public interests. From this perspective, Mrs. Chen is a widowed woman, different from an ordinary single woman, and her husband clearly expressed through his actions before his death that he wished to complete reproduction through the transplant surgery. Therefore, continuing the embryo transfer procedure does not violate the principle of social public interests or social ethics; instead, it truly maximizes the value of the embryo transfer procedure.