MARY Roche believes that the three embryos frozen in storage in the Sims Fertility Clinic are her children, and her husband's children, and that they have the right to life. She thinks a "child" and an "embryo" mean the same thing and that an embryo "is the start of human life".

In signing the consent form for IVF treatment four years ago, Mary Roche said that her husband irrevocably agreed to look after "any resulting child" from that treatment. She said that he used to speak of having "all the boys", and that she took this to mean that he wanted many children. It was now his joint responsibility to look after the embryos, she said.

"It's his sperm, he's the father of these embryos, " she said. "We're still legally married and they are our children and the rightful place for these three frozen embryos is back with their mother to give them the right to life." The embryos were also "the brothers and sisters" of her son and daughter, now aged eight and three years, she said.

Mary said that when her marriage broke down, both she and her husband had discussed what should be done with the embryos. Donation was one of the options considered.

"I thought long and hard about donating but I just can't give our children away to another couple, " she said.

In light of this decision, Mary Roche feels that the only other option is to have the embryos implanted in her womb. "They do have a right to life. They can't be destroyed, " she said. "It would be ethically and morally wrong. To understand how I feel, you have to go through IVF, it's how our daughter came into this world. When you see the results of IVF, it's a miracle."

Mary said that even though there was a risk of giving birth to triplets if she is implanted with all three embryos, this was the course of action she wanted to take. "Time isn't on my side, " she said. "I want to have the babies, even if they are three. I will be carrying the embryos and I'm going to leave it up to Mother Nature. If it's not meant to be, it's not meant to be. I'll leave it in the hands of God."

Whatever number of children that may result from the implantation of the embryos, Mary said that her husband would have a duty to support them financially. "He signed a contract to say he will take full responsibility for whatever outcome of our IVF treatment, " she said.

Mary agreed with her husband's solicitor that if she did become pregnant with twins or triplets she would be unable to work for a period. She said that she would expect her husband to maintain her and her children during this time. "He is their father, " she said again.

Tom's evidence

WHEN Tom Roche signed a consent form for his wife to undergo IVF treatment in November 2002, he had no idea that he would eventually be in court pleading with the judge not to make him a father.

Both parents' intention at that time was to have a brother or sister for their son, who was born naturally in 1997. However, Mary had suffered post-natal depression after the birth of their first child, and Tom said there were other difficulties involved. Eventually, they decided to give it what he believed was "one more go" and opt for IVF.

They both accepted that there was a risk of multiple births from this, and Tom made it clear that this was something he did not want.

When he signed the document at the Sims clinic headed 'Husband's Consent', Tom said he understood this meant he would be the father of a child conceived by IVF treatment.

By signing the document, he was consenting to his wife undergoing "the course of treatment outlined above" and accepting that he would be the legal father of any "resulting child". He agreed that he also signed a consent for the freezing of the embryos. He acknowledged there was nothing on the document to say he could withdraw that consent.

However, he said, he believed at the time that both he and his wife were in agreement that the three remaining embryos were only to be used if his wife did not become pregnant following the first implantation. But she did. When Mary became pregnant with their second child, Tom said "that was it". He had reached the age of 40 and he did not want any more children. Mary agreed in court that she was aware Tom wanted no more children after 40 and said she had "taken on his views". They never discussed further children, said Tom.

When Mary was around seven months into her pregnancy, Tom began having an affair with another woman. He and Mary later separated. As a result of this separation, there are ongoing family law proceedings and a battle relating to access to their existing two children, he said.

After the couple separated, Tom suggested that they donate their embryos to infertile couples and give the money to charity. Mary refused this option. Tom agreed with his wife's solicitor that the embryos were "deserving of respect" and said he believed they should be kept indefinitely in storage. He said he was unaware of the legal implications for him if the embryos were donated to others. He also accepted that if a child or children were born from the frozen embryos, his wife would be the person substantially responsible for them, and that he would be someone who would "contribute".

This did not change his view. He did not want to be a father. "I have a right to say no. It's a human right, " he said.

Dr Phil Boylan Specialist in holistic fertility treatment from the Napro Technology Medical Centre, Galway The husband in this case believes that he has the right not to have children. That right did exist right up to the point of the fertilisation of the eggs. But now he has made human entities and he is past the point of no return. He is beyond the point of withdrawing consent. So there is a question now of what to do with the embryos. There is a problem with the creation of surplus embryos.

I don't see how an embryo could be anything other than an independent living individual, and I think it should be afforded a lot of respect. It is not respectful to freeze a human individual, thereby immediately reducing its chances of survival by 50%.

It is great that the government set up the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction. It is good that they produced a report, but there was a disappointing slant on it. There must be regulation in this area, but it is a very thorny issue to grasp.

Dr Deirdre Madden Legal expert in area of assisted human reproduction, Law lecturer in UCC My opinion would be informed by the precedent set in other courts, where a man has never been forced to become a father against his will.

There is a very strong argument that the man should be able to withdraw his consent in the event of a change in personal circumstances, such as what has occured in this case.

This case was just waiting to happen, and unfortunately these kinds of cases will always occur, even if legislation was to be put in place.

Still, I would obviously be in favour of the recommendations of the report of the Commision on Assisted Human Reproduction being enacted as soon as possible and I think it's regrettable that that hasn't happened.

I don't think the government are likely to put this before the people before the next general election.

Fr Kevin Doran Secretary of Irish Bishops' Committee for Bioethics Implantation is only about location. It doesn't change the fundamentally human nature of the embryo. It could be compared to immigrants in Ireland . . .they're still human, no matter where they're living.

Embryos don't smile or talk or laugh, but they are still human life. I believe that you cannot abandon your children. In relation to the court case, I could understand if you had a woman who didn't want to accept the embryos, because I couldn't envisage a society where women could be forced into pregnancy. But here we're talking about a woman who does want to accept the embryos back into her womb. They should be given that chance of life. Life-giving and responsibility go hand in hand, and when the embryos were created, they were given life. I would have concern over the the creation of surplus embryos through IVF. You have to balance the invasive nature of IVF, and the need to repeat that procedure if implantation is not successful, with human life. I would like to see the government legislate for the right to life from the time of fertilisation.

Helen Browne Co-founder and chairwoman of the National Infertility Support and Information Group An embryo is so small you cannot see it with the human eye. We believe that life begins at implantation, because a woman cannot get a positive pregnancy test until after implantation. There can be fertilised eggs in her womb, but unless they become implanted, they will not result in human life.

The government is shirking its responsibility by not legislating in this area. The report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction has to be acted upon. There will very soon be a situation where a lot of couples have frozen embryos in storage that they do not want to use, and there will be no options for them.

At the moment, Medical Council guidelines forbid the disposal of embryos. But we believe that parents who choose to undergo IVF are adults, and as such they should have choices as to what happens to their frozen embryos. We would like for there to be three choices available. Parents should be allowed decide to let the embryos perish, they should have the option of donating the embryos, and they should be able to submit them for scientific research under very strict guidelines.

Dr Dev Kumar Fertility doctor at the Merrion Fertility Clinic Every fertility clinic has different consent forms, and many clinics look to other jurisdictions when drafting those forms. Generally, it will go into issues such as what would happen in the event of a separation of the couple, or a death of one partner.

The Merrion Clinic's consent form insists on bi-lateral consent from both parties, and says that consent can be withdrawn at any stage. The embryos would not be released by the clinic if consent was withdrawn.

The current case highlights the importance of discussion about these issues, and the importance of ensuring that the couple are aware of their rights. We would strongly recommend that couples consider counselling before embarking on IVF, and I'm a firm believer that counselling should be continued throughout the process. One session may not be enough. It would help both clinics and clients if the government set down specific boundaries within which to work.

Main recommendations from report of Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction
>> The definition of the 'unborn' would be an embryo that has been implanted in the womb
>> There should be a new regulatory body to deal with all issues arising from human infertility treatment
>> Research should be permitted on surplus embryos
>> Embryos should not be generated solely for the purpose of research
>> People availing of IVF should have the option not to produce any surplus embryos
>> There should be guidelines governing the freezing and storage of sperm as well as embryos
>> Research on sperm and ova should be permitted, but regulated
>> Guidelines should be laid down for the disposal of surplus embryos, including their voluntary donation, donation for research, or allowing them to perish
>> The manipulation of sperm for preconception sex selection should only be permitted for the prevention of serious sex-linked genetic disorders, not for social reasons
>> Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis should be permitted, under licence, if no other treatment is available
>> There should be a system in place to deal with situations where the couple cannot agree on what to do with their embryos, where one of the couple dies or is incapacitated, where the couple separate, or where the embryos are abandoned
>> There should be no discrimination in availing of fertility treatment . . . lesbian, gay and unmarried couples should have equal access to the services
>> The donation of sperm, eggs and embryos should be permitted
>> Donors should not be paid
>> Children born with the help of a donor should, on maturity, know the identity of the donor
>> The use of surrogate mothers by infertile couples should be permitted