close
close

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

BANGKOK — A Beijing court has ruled that an unmarried Chinese woman has no right to freeze her eggs, ending a six-year battle over reproductive services that drew nationwide attention.

On Tuesday, the Chaoyang Intermediate People’s Court upheld a ruling that the hospital did not violate Teresa Xu’s rights by denying her access to egg-freezing services.

Xu, 36, announced the verdict on Wednesday. “It’s beyond my expectations,” she told those watching the live broadcast. “After all these years, we finally have an end and an answer.”

Xu first went to the hospital in 2018, at age 30, asking if she could freeze her eggs. She had an initial consultation but was told she couldn’t have the procedure because the doctor had learned she was unmarried.

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 baby now,’” Xu said in 2019. “She said, ‘Your career can take off at any time, but it will be harder to have a baby later.’”

The doctor was nice, she said, but the experience angered her. “I was looking for professional service, but I got this life advice.”

Teresa Xu, a single woman, files a lawsuit seeking the right to...

Teresa Xu, an unmarried woman seeking the right to freeze her eggs, talks to reporters after a court hearing at the Chaoyang People’s Court in Beijing, September 17, 2021. Source: AP/Ng Han Guan

Xu considered alternatives, such as freezing her eggs abroad, but found the costs too high. Meanwhile, it took multiple attempts for the court to accept her case in 2019, a process that was delayed by the pandemic.

The Chaoyang Intermediate People’s Court in 2022 ruled that the hospital did not violate her rights by denying her access to egg freezing. Xu decided to appeal.

Xu said she knew her chances of success were slim, but she wanted to pursue the project because of the potential impact on society.

She noted that the ruling included positive language despite the verdict: “As our country’s birth policies change, relevant medical and health laws, regulations, standards of diagnosis and treatment, and standards of medical ethics may also change.”