Clinic sued for unauthorised use of sperm
The London Gynaecology and
Fertility Centre, run by the
infertility specialist Ian Craft,
last week settled a unique High
Court claim by an Austrian
businessman that the clinic
used his semen without his
consent.
Michael von Schonburg sued
the clinic for unauthorised use
of his semen after learning that
his former girlfriend had given
birth to a daughter using his
frozen semen without telling
him.
Last week, shortly before a
five day hearing was due to start
in the High Court, the wealthy
company director, aged 40,
accepted a settlement on confidential terms. The clinic's solicitors, Withers, refused to
comment at all on the settlement. Unusually, they were not
even willing to name Mr von
Schonburg's solicitors.
In his writ, claiming damages for breach of contract and
breach of duty, he claimed that
he had suffered distress, indignation, and anxiety as a result
of the clinic's actions. He
claimed that he was never told
his semen would be frozen and
preserved. He also asked the
clinic to indemnify him against
any claim for child maintenance.
Mr von Schonburg claimed
that his relationship with
Andrea Sladek, the child's mother, began in Switzerland in 1988,
after her marriage had broken
up, and lasted until 1994, when
she moved to Paris and he
moved to Vienna.
They met in London the
following year, when she
allegedly asked him to provide
blood and semen samples for
testing at the London Gynaecology and Fertility Centre
because she was having fertility
problems. He claims the clinic
assured him that his semen
would be used only for testing,
not for in vitro fertilization treatment.
Later that year, he alleged,
Mrs Sladek began fertility treatment using his semen, and in
June 1996 she gave birth to a
daughter, Eve. The clinic
claimed in its defence to the
action that Mr von Schonburg
signed a consent form allowing
his sperm to be frozen and
stored.
But last week Mr Justice
Buckley was told at a brief hearing that the case had now been
settled. As part of the deal, both
sides have been banned from
revealing the terms of the settlement. The case is unique in the
English courts, although similar
claims have been brought in the
United States.
Clare Dyer legal correspondent, BMJ
studentBMJ 2000;08:45-88 March ISSN 0966-6494
