Finally someone has posted a news article clarifying some things about that couple who is suing their RE. Specifically this paragraph:
“Dr Armellin’s barrister Kim Burke said the birth mother only told her client she wanted one embryo minutes before she was sedated on November 12, 2003, after previously signing a form consenting for up to two to be implanted.”

So yes, she did verbally request that only one be transferred…. minutes before the procedure. Now granted it should have been followed. But does her verbal last-minute request override her signed consent form that stated two? At the end of the article it says this:

“The risk of multiple births when two embryos are implanted into the uterus is 20 per cent, which drops dramatically to 0.1 per cent when only one embryo is used, the court was told. ‘Point one per cent – that is the risk to which she consented,’ Mr Marshall said. The risk she did not consent to was the 20 per cent increase that two embryos implanted would bring.”

But actually? Yes she did. She DID consent to that risk by signing that consent form that stated 2 embryos were to be transferred. If she was honestly THAT concerned about twins – as obviously she was/is – why didn’t she state only one right from the beginning?

So I don’t know. This is a much better article in terms of less sensationalized and more actual information. But I still don’t know if I sympathise much for her. Do I sympathise for her that she asked for one and they followed her previous request instead? Well yes, that would be a little frustrating. But is it really worth the $400k she is suing for? Is it really worth all this media attention? And is it even going to stand up? Most of the time a written document trumps a verbal request, even a verbal agreement.

This article also reveals that this is a same-sex couple, which the other one didn’t mention. To me that doesn’t change a thing though.