‘The nurse handed me a plastic jar and led me to a small room. There was a TV showing a porn film...’
Hospital workers hustle past, oblivious. They’ve seen it a thousand times. I’m standing outside the delivery room, a newborn swathed in a blanket in my arms. If there’s an amazed look on my face, it’s because the child is my first. The hitherto hypothetical being is now embodied in precise measurements: she weighs 8lb 1oz; she is 20in long; her head, which fits into my hand, has a circumference of 14in; she was born at 8.39pm; she is a girl. When she screws up her face against the hospital’s fluorescent lights, I instinctively shield her eyes.
Wind back three years to April 2007. I was a single guy living in a flat by the beach. I had just bought a motorcycle. During the day I worked at a magazine, while after hours I was writing a novel. One Sunday night, I came home, switched on the computer and received an e-mail from an old friend:
“Hi gorgeous family & friends, “For the first time in my life I can’t call, e-mail or text you individually thus the group e-mail. You may or may not have heard that I’m heading to Sydney to get treatment for breast cancer on Monday. It’s stage 1 and they have caught it early but apparently quite aggressive so seems I’m in for a bit of chemo.”
I was 11 years old when we met, on a family holiday at a ski lodge in the Snowy Mountains. Tina was 13, the second of four kids. She had thick black curls above a ready smile and sharp blue eyes. Her father was a sheep farmer who, when I was 14, slaughtered a lamb in the shed, cut out its beating heart and handed it to me. By then we were close family friends.
Tina grew up to become a trader in Hong Kong, from where she sent the e-mail.
My reply felt unequal to the situation: “What a shock. Thinking of you. Will help in any way I can.”
Two days later, Tina replied: “I have no idea how to phrase or approach this so am going to come straight out with it. Would you consider sperm donation?
“I don’t want you to feel pressure to do this just because I am sick. It would have to be something in principle you felt happy to do.”
OK, there it is – right there on the table.
“It felt like a frozen pea,” she said of the first lump she’d felt on her breast early one morning, dressing for work. We were sitting on a cliff overlooking the sea. The swell was rolling in, in long, tidy lines. The sun was out. Tina smiled a lot, though her smile seemed unnaturally fixed. She’d had a lumpectomy ten days previously, and her doctors had said that she had “clear margins”, meaning they’d found no cancer in the tissue surrounding the tumours they had removed. But it was a high-grade cancer, and they were putting her on an aggressive course of chemotherapy.
I was frightened. If my oldest friends were getting cancer, why not me? And death had been on my mind anyway: my father had died suddenly of a heart attack the previous year. But I knew my fear was irrational. Tina’s wasn’t.
“I’m worried the chemo will fry my eggs,” she said. “I want an insurance policy.” The fertility specialist had told her that freezing eggs was a waste of time. Embryos are a lot hardier. But she didn’t have time to find an anonymous donor. There was (and still is) a severe donor-sperm shortage in Australia. You can spend years waiting. Her oncologist had agreed to delay the chemo only long enough for her to have one period: as soon as she started menstruating, she needed to extract the eggs, fertilise them and freeze the embryos. Then she had to start chemo.
If I agreed, she said, the possibility of it resulting in a baby was remote. First, there was the cancer: she wasn’t in the clear yet, and she wouldn’t know more until after the chemo and radiation therapy. Then, there was the fallibility of IVF: plenty of things could go wrong, especially since we only had one shot at it.
But even with the long odds, I knew it could lead to a baby. I thought about my beachside pad, the draft of my novel, my motorcycle. I valued my bachelor life. Tina said that in the unlikely event that the baby was born, she’d ask nothing of me. I could remain anonymous if I wanted to.
I meant it when I offered to help. I tried to imagine how I would be with cancer. What would be my priorities? What would I hope for?
My decision boiled down to this: baby or no baby, I knew I could live with myself if I helped her. I didn’t want to face the feeling that would follow turning down a friend in serious trouble. Plus, I was flattered.
Not that I had reason to be. She was asking me because I was single, straight and healthy – a rare hat trick in Sydney. She planned to recover, then meet a man and have babies the old-fashioned way. But just in case, knowing the embryos would be there, frozen in nitrogen, while the cancer-killing drugs polluted her body, would give her something to hope for.
Ten days later, I was in the IVF clinic. A nurse handed me a plastic sample jar and led me to a small, windowless room in the centre of the building. There was a TV showing a porn film, a side table with porn magazines and a box of tissues on it, and, aptly, a La-Z-boy recliner. A button on the wall had a sign next to it that read, “Press here when you have produced a sample and a scientist will collect it.” I felt like the king bee in the royal cell of a gender-flipped hive.
The IVF was successful. I wondered at the scientists in their lab, orchestrating on behalf of total strangers a phenomenon that usually happens in intimacy, then going to lunch. They froze three of our embryos and five of Tina’s eggs in nitrogen.
First Tina’s hair went. Then her eyebrows. Then her eyelashes. After four months of chemo, Tina did seven weeks of radiation therapy. Then she went skiing.
Meanwhile, I had started dating a woman and was discovering consequences to what I’d done that I hadn’t anticipated. My mother had warned me that the embryos would be an issue for other women in my life, but I hadn’t believed her. I was sure they’d see the bigger picture.
In January 2008 – eight months after I’d donated – I got an e-mail from Colorado. Tina had had her first period since the clinic. She’d beaten the cancer and she was ovulating. Her hair grew back, black and curly. She came back to Sydney and met someone. In October, she found out she was pregnant. I was off the hook.
Three months later, I received another e-mail: the baby had a chromosomal disorder. Tina had been through too much; she decided to terminate. But it cost her dearly. She went into a meltdown. The boyfriend was out of the picture. She asked if she could use her insurance policy – the embryos made with the pre-chemo eggs.
My relationship with my girlfriend had deteriorated by then, and the embryos had become a bone of contention (we split not long after). And quite apart from that, I was terrified of having a baby.
I didn’t have to do it. If I said no, Tina could try thawing her pre-chemo eggs and looking for an anonymous donor. But I remembered what the fertility specialist had said. You need embryos.
My generation is smarter, freer and probably happier than my parents’. But there is one torment unique to us, or at least half of us: all those single women approaching 40 and terrified by the prospect of never having children. Think about that for a moment. By virtue of being a man, I’ve had the time to travel the world, try one profession and then another, go back to university, and remain a bachelor as long as I like, knowing that whenever I’m ready to settle down, I can. I understood why so many women in Sydney were becoming choice mothers.
I considered Tina’s situation. She had courage and determination. She had a successful career and owned a nice house where she could raise a child. She was close to her sister, who had agreed to adopt the child if the cancer returned and the worst happened. Most of all, I knew that the baby would be born into welcoming arms and excellent, if unusual, circumstances. I thought about the amity between us and went with my gut feeling. Now I had nine months to put some order into my thoughts and decide what role I wanted to play in the child’s life.
The easiest line to take was to call it her baby. I could tell myself I’d done a favour for a friend in need, get a pat on the back and step out of the picture.
Then, there was the godfather line. Tina would parent the child, but I’d be there at the periphery. That seemed the fairest deal – she got the child she wanted and I got a bit part. Friends of mine, fathers, said, only half-jokingly, that I’d have the best of both worlds: all the pride of being a father without ever having to change a nappy.
But how far out was this periphery? The “godfather” analogy falls down under scrutiny. What was I planning to do, buy the kid a subscription to National Geographic and phone on his birthday for the next 18 years? I realised that I had nothing to pattern after.
I had to work it out for myself. Three months passed. I flipped the whole thing around and tried to imagine it from the child’s perspective. On a piece of paper, I made a list of things I would want from my father, were I a child. I wrote down “loved”, “valued”, “protected”. I wrote down the word “conversation” and stared at it a while. When I was 28, I had called my father some names in anger. We didn’t speak for years. Then he died suddenly. Conversation seemed important. Tina was now in her second trimester. Friends were intensely curious. Men especially asked, “What’s the legal situation?” The legal situation was that when the child was born, Tina would leave the father’s name off the birth certificate. If I wanted to, I could put it in later. As far as the government was concerned, she was a single parent. Still, my name was all over the IVF documentation. People suggested I get something in writing from her. I told them we had done everything in the spirit of friendship. “Friendships sour,” they said.
On the web, I found cases where the relationship between a donor and a recipient had soured. And I knew from experience that we have it in us to spit poison at one another – my parents’ divorce had been one of the most toxic events of my life.
Despite that, I didn’t want a contract. We weren’t dealing with a commodity here. The media always report it when donors and recipients turn against each other, but never when things work out. Tina and I understood one another perfectly. She had assumed financial responsibility from the start, that day on the cliff. There had never been any question on that front. She was happy for me to have as much or as little engagement with the kid as I wanted. The only thing she asked was that whatever I decided to do, I do it consistently, for the child’s sake. That made sense to me. There’s an old gag: how do you make God laugh? Tell Him your plans. The baby was due in early February. In January, I fell in love.
I made sure my new partner met the woman carrying my child. If it was a deal-breaker, it was better to find out now. My partner wasn’t thrilled, but to her eternal credit, she could see the bigger picture. Her first question was, of course, what role are you going to play?
The answer came on February 9, when I arrived at the hospital half an hour after Tina had given birth. Donors are less prepared than most men for what happens to you when you meet your child. I know now that what you feel when you become a father is beyond the understanding of non-fathers. It’s difficult to put into words. It feels like your being billows out from you like a womb. You become larger. All the questions that had plagued me for nine months seemed irrelevant. All the intellectual disciplines – ethics, sociology, psychology – that frame those questions seemed profane. They deal in abstractions, whereas my child was in the world. She weighed 8lb 1oz and measured 20in. She had a name: Sabine. I held her in my arms and knew that I was meeting a witness to my life and to its worth. I felt I had to examine more fully what I believe. I knew I loved her. I thought of my father and the troubles we’d had. I shielded her eyes from the light.
http://www.prideangel.com
Sunday 28 March 2010
Saturday 27 March 2010
Woman learns she CAN be a mother using google ... after 20 years
Julie Cameron was just 15 years old when doctors told her she would never have children. The distraught teenager was diagnosed with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome, an extremely rare condition that meant she was born without a womb, cervix or fallopian tubes. So imagine her surprise 20 years later when Julie learned that she actually had two healthy ovaries - by using Google.
She typed the name of her condition into the search engine one night and was stunned to find that although she could never carry a child, her ovaries could produce eggs
Doctors 'never mentioned' that modern fertility techniques meant she could, in theory, could have a biological child using a surrogate. After discovering her ovaries carry healthy eggs, Mrs Cameron has found a willing surrogate and is now rying to raise £5,000 for the first round of IVF treatment.
If that works, she will need a further £10,000 to pay for surrogacy expenses. She said: 'It was a complete revelation - I just Googled it and the article that came up was about surrogacy. 'The article mentioned that women with my condition have no womb but still have healthy ovaries. I thought, "you have got to be kidding me".
'I got myself checked out and found I too had healthy ovaries. 'I always thought having a child was impossible for me and would Unable to qualify for IVF, Mrs Cameron and her chef husband, 31, are now on a fundraising drive to make their dream of becoming parents come true.
Mrs Cameron said: 'Having spent 20 years believing I had absolutely no chance at all of having a child, to discover I have healthy ovaries and there is a chance for me is still all quite surreal.
Go to http://bit.ly/bLUwhg to read more
She typed the name of her condition into the search engine one night and was stunned to find that although she could never carry a child, her ovaries could produce eggs
Doctors 'never mentioned' that modern fertility techniques meant she could, in theory, could have a biological child using a surrogate. After discovering her ovaries carry healthy eggs, Mrs Cameron has found a willing surrogate and is now rying to raise £5,000 for the first round of IVF treatment.
If that works, she will need a further £10,000 to pay for surrogacy expenses. She said: 'It was a complete revelation - I just Googled it and the article that came up was about surrogacy. 'The article mentioned that women with my condition have no womb but still have healthy ovaries. I thought, "you have got to be kidding me".
'I got myself checked out and found I too had healthy ovaries. 'I always thought having a child was impossible for me and would Unable to qualify for IVF, Mrs Cameron and her chef husband, 31, are now on a fundraising drive to make their dream of becoming parents come true.
Mrs Cameron said: 'Having spent 20 years believing I had absolutely no chance at all of having a child, to discover I have healthy ovaries and there is a chance for me is still all quite surreal.
Go to http://bit.ly/bLUwhg to read more
Thursday 25 March 2010
Gay friendly? MPs lag behind in Britain
The equality bill, with its provisions for churches to host civil partnerships, has cracked Westminster's veneer of tolerance
Anyone would think there's an election on the horizon. Jubilant Labour activists are delighted that David Cameron has been caught on camera – in an interview broadcast on Channel 4 News last night – appearing to prevaricate evasively not only over his dodgy European allies but also over whether he should have told his MPs and peers to back amendments to the new equality bill which will permit churches to host civil partnership ceremonies if they wish.
What short memories politicians have. Just three weeks ago it was the Labour party itself that refused to whip members of the House of Lords in support of this perfectly reasonable provision. Labour peers were subject to furious arm-twisting from cabinet ministers in a bid to frustrate a modest further step towards equality.
Consequently it was a heroic quartet of backbenchers, including Lord Alli, Lady Neuberger – "Which Jewish mother wouldn't want to see their child married in a synagogue?" – and the Tory peer Lady Noakes, who shamed the Lords into adopting this perfectly fair-minded proposal supported by Stonewall and others.
The Tories initially put up Lord Hunt of Wirral to explain their opposition. In the end, just like the government, the Conservatives gracelessly offered their peers a free vote.
Liberal Democrats, however cuddly, aren't immune from anti-gay spite. Yesterday the Roman Catholic peer Lady Williams also sought to move an amendment in the Lords that would have given adoption agencies the right to turn away homosexual clients. Her suggestion would have driven a coach and horses through the now settled principle of adoption, that it's solely the welfare of the child and not personal prejudices that should always come first. (You might think that if Lady Williams was motivated, as suggested, by the need to "protect children", the Roman Catholic church might have other priorities at present.)
The message seems pretty clear. Whatever parties tell gay voters they've done for them in the recent and distant past, ask what they'll be doing in the future. And don't make presumptions about individual candidates on the basis of their party allegiance either.
Stonewall's analysis of MPs' votes in the current parliament shows that George Osborne and Francis Maude have better recent voting records on gay equality than one in five Lib Dem MPs. And Kate Hoey, the least gay-friendly of all Labour MPs, has a voting record worse than more than 120 Conservatives.
All of which demonstrates that, however gay-friendly they are or claim to be, most politicians still lag sadly some years behind the progressive instinct of a decent British public. But then we, of course, are the one group of people whose voices won't get heard in the next six weeks at all.
Article by Ben Summerskill from www.guardian.co.uk
Read more about gay parenting options
Anyone would think there's an election on the horizon. Jubilant Labour activists are delighted that David Cameron has been caught on camera – in an interview broadcast on Channel 4 News last night – appearing to prevaricate evasively not only over his dodgy European allies but also over whether he should have told his MPs and peers to back amendments to the new equality bill which will permit churches to host civil partnership ceremonies if they wish.
What short memories politicians have. Just three weeks ago it was the Labour party itself that refused to whip members of the House of Lords in support of this perfectly reasonable provision. Labour peers were subject to furious arm-twisting from cabinet ministers in a bid to frustrate a modest further step towards equality.
Consequently it was a heroic quartet of backbenchers, including Lord Alli, Lady Neuberger – "Which Jewish mother wouldn't want to see their child married in a synagogue?" – and the Tory peer Lady Noakes, who shamed the Lords into adopting this perfectly fair-minded proposal supported by Stonewall and others.
The Tories initially put up Lord Hunt of Wirral to explain their opposition. In the end, just like the government, the Conservatives gracelessly offered their peers a free vote.
Liberal Democrats, however cuddly, aren't immune from anti-gay spite. Yesterday the Roman Catholic peer Lady Williams also sought to move an amendment in the Lords that would have given adoption agencies the right to turn away homosexual clients. Her suggestion would have driven a coach and horses through the now settled principle of adoption, that it's solely the welfare of the child and not personal prejudices that should always come first. (You might think that if Lady Williams was motivated, as suggested, by the need to "protect children", the Roman Catholic church might have other priorities at present.)
The message seems pretty clear. Whatever parties tell gay voters they've done for them in the recent and distant past, ask what they'll be doing in the future. And don't make presumptions about individual candidates on the basis of their party allegiance either.
Stonewall's analysis of MPs' votes in the current parliament shows that George Osborne and Francis Maude have better recent voting records on gay equality than one in five Lib Dem MPs. And Kate Hoey, the least gay-friendly of all Labour MPs, has a voting record worse than more than 120 Conservatives.
All of which demonstrates that, however gay-friendly they are or claim to be, most politicians still lag sadly some years behind the progressive instinct of a decent British public. But then we, of course, are the one group of people whose voices won't get heard in the next six weeks at all.
Article by Ben Summerskill from www.guardian.co.uk
Read more about gay parenting options
Saturday 20 March 2010
Donate Sperm - "Sperm donation - Have you got the Balls?"
Sports players and fans are being targeted in a campaign to get more sperm donors to help couples struggling to conceive.
The National Gamete Donation Trust wants to increase the number of new donors in the UK to about 500, from its latest figure of 384.
Leaflets and posters are being sent to 30 sports clubs and venues in the pilot area of Greater Manchester. One in six couples in the UK struggles to conceive and some areas have waiting lists for those who need donor sperm.
In the UK there are hundreds of couples who need a sperm donor to help them conceive the child they long for so much, either because of infertility or genetic disease
Laura Witjens, from the National Gamete Donation Trust It is hoped that the sports theme of the posters will encourage more men to come forward.
One says: "Strong swimmers wanted" and another encourages volunteers with "Whatever your shape and size, couples need your help".
The number of new sperm donors dipped in the UK in 2004 to 224. The law changed in 2005, meaning egg and sperm donors did not have the right to anonymity.
But since then the number of new donors has increased with 384 registering in 2008.
The children of donors can trace their biological parents when they reach 18.
Donors are not paid, but can claim expenses.
Laura Witjens, chairwoman of the National Gamete Donation Trust, said: "In the UK there are hundreds of couples who need a sperm donor to help them conceive the child they long for so much, either because of infertility or genetic disease.
"These couples rely on men stepping forward as sperm donors."
In the latest figures from 2006, there were 5,000 cycles of fertility treatment in the UK which used donor sperm.
Pride Angel parenting website connection service aims as helping lesbian couples, single women and infertile couples achieve parenthood. Sperm donors and co-parents are able to donate directly to the woman or couple of their choice.
Members communicate safely by means of an internal messaging system to find their suitable match. Pride Angel also provides information on health screening, artificial insemination and legal rights with fertility law specialists giving advice through the Pride Angel Forum.
Read more about helping women and donating sperm directly at www.prideangel.com
The National Gamete Donation Trust wants to increase the number of new donors in the UK to about 500, from its latest figure of 384.
Leaflets and posters are being sent to 30 sports clubs and venues in the pilot area of Greater Manchester. One in six couples in the UK struggles to conceive and some areas have waiting lists for those who need donor sperm.
In the UK there are hundreds of couples who need a sperm donor to help them conceive the child they long for so much, either because of infertility or genetic disease
Laura Witjens, from the National Gamete Donation Trust It is hoped that the sports theme of the posters will encourage more men to come forward.
One says: "Strong swimmers wanted" and another encourages volunteers with "Whatever your shape and size, couples need your help".
The number of new sperm donors dipped in the UK in 2004 to 224. The law changed in 2005, meaning egg and sperm donors did not have the right to anonymity.
But since then the number of new donors has increased with 384 registering in 2008.
The children of donors can trace their biological parents when they reach 18.
Donors are not paid, but can claim expenses.
Laura Witjens, chairwoman of the National Gamete Donation Trust, said: "In the UK there are hundreds of couples who need a sperm donor to help them conceive the child they long for so much, either because of infertility or genetic disease.
"These couples rely on men stepping forward as sperm donors."
In the latest figures from 2006, there were 5,000 cycles of fertility treatment in the UK which used donor sperm.
Pride Angel parenting website connection service aims as helping lesbian couples, single women and infertile couples achieve parenthood. Sperm donors and co-parents are able to donate directly to the woman or couple of their choice.
Members communicate safely by means of an internal messaging system to find their suitable match. Pride Angel also provides information on health screening, artificial insemination and legal rights with fertility law specialists giving advice through the Pride Angel Forum.
Read more about helping women and donating sperm directly at www.prideangel.com
Sunday 7 March 2010
Assisted Reproduction and its Effect on the babys outcome
Whether a women gets pregnant the "traditional" way or by assisted reproduction has no effect on the birthing process itself or the baby, researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) have found.
Gynaecologist and medical researcher Liv Bente Romundstad and colleagues from NTNU and St Olav's University Hospital in Trondheim looked at the pregnancies of more than 1.2 million Norwegian women whose births were listed in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway between 1984 and 2006. Of these, 8229 were pregnancies that resulted from assisted reproduction technology.
In a series of articles published in The Lancet and Human Reproduction, the researchers reported finding no difference between infants of women who had conceived spontaneously and after assisted fertilization in birth weight, gestational age, risks of being small for gestational age, and preterm delivery. Researchers found a higher risk of breech births in pregnancies from assisted fertilization, but their findings suggest the difference is due not to the technology itself, but to the gestational age of the baby and the number of previous deliveries that the mother had had.
Breech births
Romundstad found that five percent of the children from assisted reproduction are born in a breech presentation, compared with three percent of the average. She says this has a straightforward explanation: Mothers who have children by assisted reproduction, are in fact slightly older than average, tend to have shorter pregnancies, and fewer previous births.
When Romundstad adjusted for these differences, she found out that the difference in the proportion of breech births disappeared completely.
"We also believe that some of the frequency of breech births can be explained by the fact that children often are in the breech position early in the pregnancy," she said. "The children turned several times during the pregnancy, and assumed the head-down position when the normal gestation period ended."
"If a child is born before the end of the gestation period, it is not clear that the child has time to assume the head-down position," Romundstad says.
Go to http://bit.ly/ddN0A9
www.prideangel.com
Gynaecologist and medical researcher Liv Bente Romundstad and colleagues from NTNU and St Olav's University Hospital in Trondheim looked at the pregnancies of more than 1.2 million Norwegian women whose births were listed in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway between 1984 and 2006. Of these, 8229 were pregnancies that resulted from assisted reproduction technology.
In a series of articles published in The Lancet and Human Reproduction, the researchers reported finding no difference between infants of women who had conceived spontaneously and after assisted fertilization in birth weight, gestational age, risks of being small for gestational age, and preterm delivery. Researchers found a higher risk of breech births in pregnancies from assisted fertilization, but their findings suggest the difference is due not to the technology itself, but to the gestational age of the baby and the number of previous deliveries that the mother had had.
Breech births
Romundstad found that five percent of the children from assisted reproduction are born in a breech presentation, compared with three percent of the average. She says this has a straightforward explanation: Mothers who have children by assisted reproduction, are in fact slightly older than average, tend to have shorter pregnancies, and fewer previous births.
When Romundstad adjusted for these differences, she found out that the difference in the proportion of breech births disappeared completely.
"We also believe that some of the frequency of breech births can be explained by the fact that children often are in the breech position early in the pregnancy," she said. "The children turned several times during the pregnancy, and assumed the head-down position when the normal gestation period ended."
"If a child is born before the end of the gestation period, it is not clear that the child has time to assume the head-down position," Romundstad says.
Go to http://bit.ly/ddN0A9
www.prideangel.com
Friday 5 March 2010
IVF Drugs cheaper at ASDA
Women undergoing private IVF treatment will be able to buy the drugs involved for bargain prices at Asda, the supermarket announced yesterday.
Its pharmacies will be the first to sell the drugs without profit - meaning that IVF patients will save up to £820 on each treatment, compared to prices charged by other chains such as Boots or Superdrug.
More and more women are being forced to go private for treatment because the NHS is cutting back on the number of IVF cycles it provides free to those with fertility problems.
Although primary care trusts are supposed to provide three free cycles, a post-code lottery means 71 per cent of primary care trusts fund only one or two, leaving women to pick up the cost of further treatment.
When women have private infertility treatment, they also have to pay for the drugs they need, such as medications which shut down the woman's hormonal cycle, stimulate the production of eggs, or mature them before they are extracted and added to sperm. They are given a prescription by the clinic they attend, which they can have made up at the store of their choice.
But a survey for Asda found that 63 per cent of people were unaware that prescription prices varied between chemists.
Asda's pharmacies will charge £1,171.41 - the supermarket's cost price - for drugs to accompany one IVF cycle. This will offer a saving of up to £820 compared with other high street pharmacies.
Asda superintendent pharmacist John Evans said: 'We know that an IVF postcode lottery means a considerable number of women will have to pay for additional cycles of treatment and lots of customers have spoken to us about the issue.
IVF - or in vitro fertilisation - is one of the fastest and most profitable branches of medicine. But the NHS usually only offers patients up to three cycles if a woman is under 40.
This is due to the huge costs involved as around 3.5million people in Britain suffer infertility at some point in their lives - putting huge financial pressures on the system.
A single cycle of IVF treatment at a private clinic is believed to cost about £5,000.
Infertility is the most common reason for women aged 20 to 45 to see their GP after pregnancy.
The failure to conceive during the three NHS cycles has led to the boom in private clinics in the UK offering the service for thousands of pounds. There are currently 115 private clinics licensed to carry out fertility treatment.
The fertility industry is worth aroound £500 million and last year produced more than 13,000 babies in the UK. The huge demand and competition from cheaper clinics abroad has pushed supermarkets to enter the market and push prices down. More than three million babies worldwide have been born from IVF.
'IVF is extremely expensive and around 40,000 women go through it every year. More than 80 per cent of our customers are women and so, naturally, we want to help to reduce the cost of IVF by offering the medication on a notforprofit basis.'
Patient organisation Infertility Network UK welcomed the announcement. Its chief executive, Clare Lewis- Jones, added: 'Many patients who should be eligible for NHS treatment are being forced to pay for private treatment due to the appalling lack of full implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence fertility guidelines plus the incredibly restrictive eligibility criteria being applied by many PCTs.
'Infertility is an illness and patients deserve fair and equitable treatment for it. Infertility Network UK, in its role as lead of the National Infertility Awareness Campaign, will continue to campaign for an end to the 'postcode lottery', but in the meantime this announcement by Asda means that the cost of the drugs will be reduced, which is good news for those patients who are forced to pay for private treatment.'
A Department of Health spokesman declined to comment on the cost of private drugs, but said: 'A recent survey of every PCT in England shows the NHS is making good progress in implementing NICE guidelines and in providing fair and consistent access to IVF. 'Our figures show that 30 per cent of PCTs are providing three cycles of IVF, 23 per cent two cycles and 47 per cent one cycle. This shows significant improvements, with only two trusts out of 150 not routinely providing infertility treatment in England. 'The option to become a parent is something most of us expect to have. People who cannot conceive naturally should have access to NHS treatment, just as they would for any other clinical need.'
Go to http://bit.ly/bha8lc, for more information
www.prideangel.com
Its pharmacies will be the first to sell the drugs without profit - meaning that IVF patients will save up to £820 on each treatment, compared to prices charged by other chains such as Boots or Superdrug.
More and more women are being forced to go private for treatment because the NHS is cutting back on the number of IVF cycles it provides free to those with fertility problems.
Although primary care trusts are supposed to provide three free cycles, a post-code lottery means 71 per cent of primary care trusts fund only one or two, leaving women to pick up the cost of further treatment.
When women have private infertility treatment, they also have to pay for the drugs they need, such as medications which shut down the woman's hormonal cycle, stimulate the production of eggs, or mature them before they are extracted and added to sperm. They are given a prescription by the clinic they attend, which they can have made up at the store of their choice.
But a survey for Asda found that 63 per cent of people were unaware that prescription prices varied between chemists.
Asda's pharmacies will charge £1,171.41 - the supermarket's cost price - for drugs to accompany one IVF cycle. This will offer a saving of up to £820 compared with other high street pharmacies.
Asda superintendent pharmacist John Evans said: 'We know that an IVF postcode lottery means a considerable number of women will have to pay for additional cycles of treatment and lots of customers have spoken to us about the issue.
IVF - or in vitro fertilisation - is one of the fastest and most profitable branches of medicine. But the NHS usually only offers patients up to three cycles if a woman is under 40.
This is due to the huge costs involved as around 3.5million people in Britain suffer infertility at some point in their lives - putting huge financial pressures on the system.
A single cycle of IVF treatment at a private clinic is believed to cost about £5,000.
Infertility is the most common reason for women aged 20 to 45 to see their GP after pregnancy.
The failure to conceive during the three NHS cycles has led to the boom in private clinics in the UK offering the service for thousands of pounds. There are currently 115 private clinics licensed to carry out fertility treatment.
The fertility industry is worth aroound £500 million and last year produced more than 13,000 babies in the UK. The huge demand and competition from cheaper clinics abroad has pushed supermarkets to enter the market and push prices down. More than three million babies worldwide have been born from IVF.
'IVF is extremely expensive and around 40,000 women go through it every year. More than 80 per cent of our customers are women and so, naturally, we want to help to reduce the cost of IVF by offering the medication on a notforprofit basis.'
Patient organisation Infertility Network UK welcomed the announcement. Its chief executive, Clare Lewis- Jones, added: 'Many patients who should be eligible for NHS treatment are being forced to pay for private treatment due to the appalling lack of full implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence fertility guidelines plus the incredibly restrictive eligibility criteria being applied by many PCTs.
'Infertility is an illness and patients deserve fair and equitable treatment for it. Infertility Network UK, in its role as lead of the National Infertility Awareness Campaign, will continue to campaign for an end to the 'postcode lottery', but in the meantime this announcement by Asda means that the cost of the drugs will be reduced, which is good news for those patients who are forced to pay for private treatment.'
A Department of Health spokesman declined to comment on the cost of private drugs, but said: 'A recent survey of every PCT in England shows the NHS is making good progress in implementing NICE guidelines and in providing fair and consistent access to IVF. 'Our figures show that 30 per cent of PCTs are providing three cycles of IVF, 23 per cent two cycles and 47 per cent one cycle. This shows significant improvements, with only two trusts out of 150 not routinely providing infertility treatment in England. 'The option to become a parent is something most of us expect to have. People who cannot conceive naturally should have access to NHS treatment, just as they would for any other clinical need.'
Go to http://bit.ly/bha8lc, for more information
www.prideangel.com
Tuesday 2 March 2010
Male fertility test for Home use
Male Fertility Test: Why do I need this test?
The male must produce a sufficient number of normal, actively moving sperm in order to achieve conception and according to he World Health Organisation a man needs 20 million sperm per mL to be considered fertile. The Babystart™ Home Test is a unique home test that will identify whether a mans sperm concentration is greater or less than 20 million per mL.
A positive result is going to be good news although its not proof of fertility. There are many reasons why a man may be infertile, that is unable to father a child. One important reason is a low amount of sperm in semen. Other reasons could be inactive or incompletely formed sperm cells, high levels of other cells in the semen that interfere with fertilization, or other factors. Medical or physical conditions including stress, high fever, experienced within 2 months prior to testing, exercise, traveling and changes in diet can all have an effect. Your doctor can explain all this to you.
A negative result is not all bad news because it saves you months of trying to have a baby - in this case we suggest you get along to the doctor for professional help and advice.
This test can help to identify the potential of male fertility in the privacy of your home.
Male Sperm Count : How Does it Work?
The Babystart™ Home Diagnostic Screening Test Kit is a rapid test of sperm concentration in semen. It will measure sperm either as being above or below the recognised cut-off level of 20 million sperm cells per milliLitre (ml) recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Two test results of less than 20 million per ml are an indicator of male infertility.
The Test kit works by staining the sperm cells in the semen sample to produce a blue colour.
The Fertilcount Sperm Count Test is available to purchase from Pride Angel's Shop for one of the lowest prices available.
Read more about Pride Angel's Male Fertility Tests
The male must produce a sufficient number of normal, actively moving sperm in order to achieve conception and according to he World Health Organisation a man needs 20 million sperm per mL to be considered fertile. The Babystart™ Home Test is a unique home test that will identify whether a mans sperm concentration is greater or less than 20 million per mL.
A positive result is going to be good news although its not proof of fertility. There are many reasons why a man may be infertile, that is unable to father a child. One important reason is a low amount of sperm in semen. Other reasons could be inactive or incompletely formed sperm cells, high levels of other cells in the semen that interfere with fertilization, or other factors. Medical or physical conditions including stress, high fever, experienced within 2 months prior to testing, exercise, traveling and changes in diet can all have an effect. Your doctor can explain all this to you.
A negative result is not all bad news because it saves you months of trying to have a baby - in this case we suggest you get along to the doctor for professional help and advice.
This test can help to identify the potential of male fertility in the privacy of your home.
Male Sperm Count : How Does it Work?
The Babystart™ Home Diagnostic Screening Test Kit is a rapid test of sperm concentration in semen. It will measure sperm either as being above or below the recognised cut-off level of 20 million sperm cells per milliLitre (ml) recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Two test results of less than 20 million per ml are an indicator of male infertility.
The Test kit works by staining the sperm cells in the semen sample to produce a blue colour.
The Fertilcount Sperm Count Test is available to purchase from Pride Angel's Shop for one of the lowest prices available.
Read more about Pride Angel's Male Fertility Tests
Sperm donor connection site update
You may have noticed that today we have launched some new changes to the site which will enhance your experience with Pride Angel.
What are the new changes, I hear you ask?
We have updated the search facility to enable you to now search members profiles Worldwide, within Europe and within your specific chosen country. This is especially useful for members who are willing to travel to find their perfect match.
You are now able to search for a specific member by their ‘first name’, this is really useful if you previously saw a profile you where interested in, but forgot to add them to your favourite list.
Now when you send or receive messages within our internal mail, you even get to see an image of the person sending the message, and the county/state and country they are from.
We have also separated the co-parents into co-parents (male) and co-parents (female) this will make it far easier to find your ideal co-parent match.
If you’re new to Pride Angel you will now be asked to verify your email after registering, before you can login to Pride Angel. This change will benefit users using our internal messaging system. By spending a minute verifying your email address we can make sure that you are contactable by other members who may wish to send you a message.
We hope you enjoy our new updates
Pride Angel
Visit http://bit.ly/9Jwr9R for more information
What are the new changes, I hear you ask?
We have updated the search facility to enable you to now search members profiles Worldwide, within Europe and within your specific chosen country. This is especially useful for members who are willing to travel to find their perfect match.
You are now able to search for a specific member by their ‘first name’, this is really useful if you previously saw a profile you where interested in, but forgot to add them to your favourite list.
Now when you send or receive messages within our internal mail, you even get to see an image of the person sending the message, and the county/state and country they are from.
We have also separated the co-parents into co-parents (male) and co-parents (female) this will make it far easier to find your ideal co-parent match.
If you’re new to Pride Angel you will now be asked to verify your email after registering, before you can login to Pride Angel. This change will benefit users using our internal messaging system. By spending a minute verifying your email address we can make sure that you are contactable by other members who may wish to send you a message.
We hope you enjoy our new updates
Pride Angel
Visit http://bit.ly/9Jwr9R for more information
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
