Chinese court upholds ruling against single woman who sued hospital for right to freeze her eggs

BANGKOK – A court in Beijing ruled against a bachelor Chinese woman’s right to freeze her eggs, ending a fight for reproductive services which lasted six years and gained national attention.

Beijing’s Third Intermediate People’s Court upheld a ruling on Tuesday that a hospital did not violate Teresa Xu’s rights by denying her access to egg freezing services.

Xu, 36, announced the sentence on Wednesday. “This is not outside of my expectations,” she told viewers of her live stream. “All these years, we finally have an end and an answer.”

Xu first went to the hospital at age 30 in 2018, asking if she could freeze her eggs. She had an initial consultation but was told she could not have the procedure after the doctor discovered she was not married.

In China, hospital regulations require a woman to be married to freeze her eggs.

“The doctor kept trying to convince me, ‘You should have a child now,’” Xu said in 2019. “She said, ‘Your career can develop at any time, but it’s harder to have a child later.’”

The doctor was kind, she said, but the experience left her angry. “I was looking for a professional service, but instead I got this life advice.”

Xu looked at alternative routes, such as egg freezing abroad, but found the cost too high. However, it took several attempts for the court to accept his case in 2019. The process was delayed during the pandemic.

Chaoyang Intermediate People’s Court said in a 2022 trial that the hospital did not violate her rights by denying her access to freeze her eggs. Xu decided to appeal.

Xu said he knew he had little chance of success, but wanted to pursue it because of the potential social impact.

She noted that the judgment had positive language despite its verdict: “As our country’s policy on births is adjusted, relevant laws, regulations, standards of diagnosis and treatment, and standards of medical ethics may also change accordingly. ”.

___

The story has been updated to reflect that the court that issued the final verdict was the Beijing Third Intermediate People’s Court, not the Chaoyang Intermediate People’s Court.