Dr Gillian Lockwood
Chairwoman, British Fertility Society ethics committee

Given that UK legislation makes clear that the ongoing consent of both partners is required for a frozen embryo to be used in procreation, it was always inevitable that the judgment would go the way it has. There was an interesting ruling in the US a few years ago in a similar case where the judge ruled that if the frozen embryos represented one of the couple's sole chance of ever becoming a parent, that this made it an exception to the usual rule that consent on both sides was required. This ruling was later overturned on appeal, but I do think it's an interesting angle that might be considered when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act is redrafted (it's out of date). It's also interesting that cryo-biology has given us a completely new situation, as evidenced by this case, that simply wouldn't occur in the natural state. Usually a man has no further rights to his sperm once he has given a woman access to it: if there's a pregnancy, he has no more entitlements. This case overturns that normal state of affairs.

Diane Blood
Won the right to use her dead husband's sperm

I can completely understand Natallie Evans' point of view on this, because going through the process of producing embryos and having them removed from your body to be frozen is a huge physical upheaval. Evans feels, I think, that she has been through this really big deal, and now it matters little to her whether the embryos are in her womb or in the lab, in the sense that her body has gone through a lot to make them and now she feels it should be her right to follow the process on and allow a child to be born. The physical process a man goes through to do his bit in creating a frozen embryo is, let's face it, rather less of a deal than a woman goes through. I don't think there's a real issue here about raising a child without a father: I'm doing it, lots of women are doing it, and it's OK.

Jack O'Sullivan
Co-founder, Fathers Direct

I feel desperately for Natallie Evans - like any parent, I want everyone else to have the chance to become a parent too. But I also think we need to be a bit more open-minded about Howard Johnston's position. All the emphasis in recent years has been about women and controlling their fertility and there's a stereotype of men as being not all that bothered about controlling their fertility. In a nutshell, they are serial shaggers. So when someone like Mr Johnston puts the alternative view, our reaction is suspicious: we think he must be weird or misogynistic. But we're moving into an age when men are more likely to want to decide when they become parents - until now, it has basically been women who have decided when men become fathers, and we as a society have to start dealing with that.

Michael Nazir-Ali
Bishop of Rochester

On the one hand, it's quite clear that legally the consent of both parties is needed for an embryo to be implanted. In this case the man has withdrawn his consent, so in terms of what the law says at the moment it couldn't happen. But, on the other hand, in the normal case of events, in a natural conception, the fact that the relationship had broken down would be irrelevant. The pregnancy would not necessarily have been ended because the couple were no longer together. This prompts me to think that what we should maybe be focusing on is not the practicalities, but rather the intention of the man at the time of the conception. So the question becomes, did this man intend to become a father when he allowed his sperm to be used in the creation of the embryo? In this world of changing reproductive technology that might be an important question to keep in the front of our minds.

Oliver James
Psychologist

I don't see that this child would have anything to do with him, apart from physically resembling him. What this is about is the relationship between him and his ex-partner. I can understand him opposing her having his child if he genuinely thinks that she would not be a good mother to the child, or if there was animosity over the split, but I think he may have a mistaken belief in how much genetics play [a part] in determining who we are.

Dave Hill
Author and journalist

My gut response was that [Johnston's] real motivation for withholding permission is an enduring personal grievance. Alas, the law relating to this case seems very clear - and wrong. If it's right in these circumstances for a man who willingly played his biological part in creating an embryo to have a veto on its developing to term, then consistency demands that a man who enters willingly into conventional procreation should also have the legal right to insist on the woman concerned having an abortion if he decides subsequently it wasn't such a good idea. That, of course, would be unacceptable. The only difference is that a frozen embryo has been re-situated outside the woman's body, but that shouldn't underline the moral principle that men's rights be secondary by this stage. I wish Johnston would take this argument on board, do the forgiving thing and move on.

Prof Robert Edwards
One of the team behind the birth of the world's first test-tube baby, Louise Brown

This case has got into the public eye because it's gone to court, but clinicians in the field have cases like this quite frequently. There are some very complicated situations: I've heard of similar cases to this one where it's the male partner who has become infertile, and who has wanted the frozen embryo he produced with a former partner to be used with his new partner. The issues go very deep, and there's no easy answer. Usually the people settle their dispute without the legal system, but from time to time there's an individual who is extremely determined - I admire women like Natallie Evans and Diane Blood who go all the way with it. In my opinion, they are showing love for an unborn child. It might sound an odd thing to say, but it's what I believe.

Jenni Murray
Broadcaster

I'm really disappointed that the judgment went the way that it did. I can't imagine how it feels to enter into an arrangement with someone to give you a last attempt at having a child only to have that opportunity denied to you at a later date even if, as in this case, you have since split up with the person. I can't see why she can't be judged competent enough to make the decision to have a child on her own and to bring it up on her own. I'm sure some agreement could have been made with the CSA, so that the man concerned wouldn't be financially responsible for the child. To deny a woman her only chance to have a child is tragic.