THE modern day practice of throwing confetti at weddings is a throwback to Ancient Rome and Egypt when food was thrown at young couples to grant them fertility, abundance and a fruitful union.

When they married 14 years ago, probably showered with confetti, Mary and Thomas Roche shared all the hopes and dreams of newlyweds: a happy life together with the gift of children to cement their union.

But two years later, the Dubliners, who had met in the mid 1980s, were childless and sought fertility advice from their GP who referred them to Holles Street Maternity Hospital.

Standard

In 1995, Mary underwent a laparoscopy, the "golden standard" method of checking women's Fallopian tubes, a procedure performed to identify problems such as endometriosis, fibroids, ovarian cysts and adhesions.

The procedure did not indicate any particular fertility problem but a year later, after experiencing some pain in her abdomen, Mary was checked for a possible cyst on her ovary.

In December 1996, she underwent a medical procedure at Holles Street involving a HCG injection in mid-cycle.

HCG, an ovulation inducing injection, helps the leading follicles to burst and release eggs. As a result, Mary became pregnant in January 1997 and gave birth to a son that October.

But the Roches' joy at conceiving a son was short-lived. Shortly after the birth of her son, Mary underwent surgery and lost two thirds of her right ovary.

In 1999, she was once again referred back to Holles Street and the following year had another laparoscopy. The couple underwent fertility treatment at Holles Street but that proved to be unsuccessful.

In July 2001, the Roches were referred to have IVF treatment and elected to have the treatment at the Sims clinic in Dublin, Ireland's leading fertility clinic.

They had their first appointment in October 2001 and several months later they jointly signed a document entitled: 'Consent to Embryo Freezing'.

In the document, the couple agreed to "consent to the cryo preservation (freezing) of our embryos and take full responsibility on an ongoing basis for these cryo preserved embryos."

Thomas, a project manager, signed a separate form in which he acknowledged that he was Mary's husband and consented to the fertilisation of her eggs and the implantation of three embryos.

Thomas also acknowledged that he would become the legal father of any resulting child and signed a semen collection form confirming that the sample produced was his.

For her part Mary, a childcare worker, signed a form entitled: 'Consent to Embryo Transfer'. In this, she agreed to the placing in her uterus of three embryos and the administration of drugs or anaesthetics that might be found necessary in the course of the procedure.

Inserted

As a result of the IVF treatment, six viable embryos were created. Three were inserted into Mary's uterus and the remaining three were frozen.

Luck and science bestowed its good fortune on the Roches after Mary became pregnant as a result of the transfer of the three embryos.

But before Mary gave birth to a daughter on October 26, 2002, the couple's marriage ran into difficulties. Thomas, who is now in a new relationship, had had an affair and left the marital home.

The Roches reconciled briefly, but that failed and their marriage ended in December 2002.

They eventually entered into a judicial separation but still legally remain as husband and wife.

It was not only the couple's marriage that had been placed on ice. There was still the outstanding of their three embryos frozen in storage at the Sims fertility clinic.

Despite the breakdown of her marriage, Mary wanted to have the three frozen embryos implanted in her uterus. Thomas refused, stating that he did not want to become the father of any child that might be born as a result of any implantation. When they signed up to invest in technology that might yield them children, Thomas and Mary Roche had made no agreement as to what would happen the frozen embryos if the implantation of the initial three embryos had resulted in a successful pregnancy.

They hadn't anticipated the collapse of the marriage.

Their difference led them to the Four Courts.

Mary now wanted to use the remaining embryos to have more children and claimed that the constitutional ban on abortion - which guarantees the right to life of the (undefined) unborn - should include the right to life of the stored embryos.

But Thomas asserted the right to withdraw his consent. He said it was his human right not to be forced to father another child with a woman from whom he had separated.

Last July, High Court Judge Brian McGovern denied Mary the right to implant the embryos, stating that there had been no agreement between the couple about the fate of the leftover embryos.

But the court still had to rule on whether the embryos could be destroyed or whether they were protected by the constitution.

Judge McGovern decided yesterday that the frozen embryos are not "unborn" as defined under the Constitution.

It is a matter, he said, for the Oireachtas and the people to decide on their legal status.

The prospect of another right-to-life referendum will provide little consolation for Mary and Thomas Roche.