On November 12, 2015, the appellant and the respondent arrived together at the fertility unit at Soroka Hospital. At the hospital, the director of the fertility unit (hereinafter: The Doctor) a conversation with the appellant and the respondent, during which he explained to them about the fertility preservation procedure. There is no dispute that in this conversation the doctor explained to the parties that in the framework of the proceeding it is possible to freeze the eggs that will be extracted from the appellant as they are, or to fertilize them with the respondent's sperm and freeze the fertilized eggs. In addition, it was explained to the parties that from a medical point of view, there is an advantage to freezing fertilized eggs, since the ability of a fertilized egg to survive freezing and thawing is higher than the chance that an unfertilized egg will survive such a process. Hence, the chances of success of the entire fertility preservation process are significantly higher if some of the eggs that will be extracted from the appellant are fertilized to be frozen. Against this background, the doctor recommended that the parties freeze half of the eggs that will be extracted from the appellant as they are, and the other half to freeze after fertilization.
At the end of the conversation, the doctor gave the couple the affidavit mentioned in my friends' opinion, and instructed them to sign it in front of a lawyer. After the parties signed the affidavit, the appellant began hormone therapy for the purpose of egg retrieval, and the respondent delivered sperm to the hospital. Subsequently, on November 23, 2015, a round of egg retrieval was performed from the appellant's body. To everyone's surprise, at the end of the round it turned out that only three normal eggs had been extracted from the appellant's body. Therefore, on the recommendation of the medical staff and with the consent of the parties, on November 25, 2015, the three eggs extracted from the appellant were fertilized with the respondent's sperm.