12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
The Factual Basis
- The parties to this proceeding are a man and a woman, born in 1984, who had a marital relationship between the years 2013-2016, without marrying. They began the process of IVF, but later, in the post-embryo freezing stage, the two separated. To complete the picture, it should be noted that the Applicant is currently single and has no children, while the Respondent is married and a father of two. Respondent No. 2 is Soroka University Medical Center (hereinafter: Soroka Medical Center), in which the fertility treatments of the two were conducted, while Respondent 3 is the State of Israel - the Ministry of Health (hereinafter: The country). It should be noted that the state's position in the litigation was submitted to the Attorney General. Accordingly, this is sometimes the position of the Attorney General, as the case may be.
Copied from Nevo5. In April 2015, the Applicant began to suffer from pain, and subsequently underwent a medical examination that led to the discovery of a malignant tumor in her ovary. As a result, on November 4, 2015, the Applicant underwent surgery to remove her left ovary. During the operation, it became clear that the tumor had spread and taken root in her uterus, and therefore the applicant had to undergo aggressive chemotherapy treatments. Due to the implications of these treatments on fertility, the applicant was recommended to undergo a fertility preservation procedure beforehand.
- On November 12, 2015, the Applicant and the Respondent held a consultation meeting with a senior gynecologist from the Fertility Unit at Soroka Medical Center (hereinafter: The Doctor). During the meeting, the two were explained in detail about the process that was offered to them for fertility preservation. In this context, the parties were presented with two options - freezing only eggs or freezing embryos, after fertilization of the eggs. From a medical point of view, it was explained, freezing eggs after fertilization improves the chances of survival of the genetic material compared to freezing eggs alone and performing fertilization separately after thawing. Against this background, the medical recommendation was to combine the two options: fertilize half of the eggs in order to freeze the embryos that will be formed, and leave half of them unfertilized (subject to the number of follicles received). Shortly thereafter, the Applicant began the treatments required for egg retrieval, while the Respondent was referred for a sperm test, with the intention that it would be used to fertilize the eggs to be extracted. It should be clarified that at this stage, according to the Applicant, the possibility of a hysterectomy did not arise, so that the chances that she would carry a fetus in her womb after she recovered were not ruled out.
- At the time of the said meeting, the doctor gave the applicant and the respondent a document titled "affidavit", and they were asked to return it after they signed it in the presence of an attorney (hereinafter: The Affidavit). It should be emphasized that at that time, Soroka Medical Center referred the requirement to sign the affidavit only to unmarried couples who wished to undergo a fertility preservation procedure. For the purpose of continuing the discussion, the full text of the affidavit will be presented here:
"Affidavit