Gay fathers fear following India's surrogacy ban

Gay father Barrie Drewitt Barlow revealed how six gay couples are in a "huge panic" over India's recent ban of surrogacy to gay couples.

Mr Drewitt Barlow, who runs the British Surrogacy Centre with his partner Tony have said “embryos had been transferred to women acting as surrogate, but the men fear they will never see their children”.

The Essex father-of-five, whose children were conceived through US surrogate mothers, warned all Britons against using surrogacy in India. He claimed pimps in India are forcing prostitutes into surrogacy, and families sell their daughters into the service.

"We think ethically it's not the place to carry out surrogacy because women are being exploited," he said. "Most couples go there because it's a cheap option. We discovered the squalor some of these surrogate mothers were living in, it was disgraceful.”

"I've heard of two virgins, both 19, sold by their parents. These girls have recently given birth for two German couples. Both are now pregnant again.”

"I've had at least five emails today from clinics in Mumbai and Hyderabad wanting me to send them English couples who need surrogates. Remember, surrogacy in India is very big business."

To read more go to http://bit.ly/hdZjan

India to ban gay couples from surrogacy arrangements

India is to ban gay couples from using surrogate mothers. As part of reforms to the country’s surrogacy and fertility treatment laws, only heterosexual couples will be allowed to have children by surrogate.

The Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) Regulation Bill 2010 was sent to the law ministry for approval this week. There is apparently nothing in the bill to stop a single gay man from having a surrogate baby, as single men and women will be eligible.

Married and unmarried straight couples who live together will also be permitted to use surrogate mothers. However, women must be able to prove that they cannot have a baby naturally. According to the Evening Standard, a senior Indian official said: “We have to look after the interests of our own citizens as well as handle the tricky matter of the sensitivities of these couples who have not been able to have children in the normal way.

“But above all, we have acted to put some kind of hold on the whole surrogacy issue by banning homosexual couples from coming to India to enter into such deals. India is one of the top destinations for gay and straight couples seeking a surrogate child as it is far more cost-effective than other countries.

In the UK, single people cannot gain full legal rights over their children born by surrogate mother – a problem which affects gay single men in particular. Parental orders are used to extinguish the rights of a biological mother and her husband or partner. However, these can only be granted to couples.

India’s emergence as a surrogacy hotspot has prompted authorities to clamp down on unscrupulous practices, such as the persuading of impoverished women to rent out their wombs. This month, media attention focused on a Spanish gay couple who had twin girls born to a surrogate mother.

The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights ordered the clinic involved to explain its procedures and suggested that the transaction had not been legal. Chariman of the commission Amod Kanth said: “As the Indian laws are yet to approve of a gay marital relationship, the commission shows its grave concern over the issue as to whether the gay foreigner couple have the legal status to assign such surrogacy or having the legal status of adopting parents or otherwise.”

To read more go to http://bit.ly/fqpQFH

Gay and lesbian parenting research - can you help?

Would you like to take part in some cutting edge, exciting new research?

Emilie Garvey, an undergraduate Sociology student at Newcastle University, is interested in hearing from lesbian and gay individuals and couples to take part in an exciting project in a new and expanding area of research: Assisted Reproduction and the Alternative Family. The aim of the study is to explore the experiences of same-sex couples in their decision-making processes involved in starting a family of their own with the aid of assisted reproduction technologies. The study also welcomes participation from gay and lesbian individuals who might start a family in the future or who simply would like to offer an opinion or point of view for the research.

Why is the study being done?

Recent changes in legislation have widened the options available for same-sex couples who wish to start a family. Media portrayals of celebrity couples undergoing such processes have also recently increased public awareness of the decision making process, the social stigma that such couples might have to face and have offered a chance to ‘look inside’ the ‘Alternative Family’. This study, however, aims to research the decision making processes involved prior to, and throughout, the process. The researcher also hopes gain an in depth understanding of the obstacles and hurdles which affect same-sex couples in the UK who wish to have a family of their own.

Am I eligible to take part?

If you are a lesbian woman or gay man, single, in a relationship or in a civil partnership, who have experience of assisted reproduction in starting a family, or who would simply like to offer the researcher an opinion on the issues involved, you are eligible to take part in this study.

To read more go to http://bit.ly/hlKLTU

Surrogate mother gives birth to her own grandchild

A 61-year-old woman gave birth to her grandson in February because her daughter couldn't maintain a pregnancy. Kristine Casey, who may be the oldest woman to give birth to her grandson, volunteered to act as a surrogate after her daughter, Sara Connell, failed to bring two IVF pregnancies to term. Mrs Connell and her husband had also tried to conceive naturally for years without success. Mrs Connell said: 'The idea of having a family member being open to doing this for us was so extraordinary'.

Mrs Casey gave birth 10 years after menopause using the Connells' eggs and sperm thanks to hormone treatments that prepared her uterus for pregnancy. With them, the pregnancy success rate is independent of the surrogate's age. She became pregnant after the second course of IVF and gave birth by caesarean section 39 weeks later. Dr Susan Gerber, the doctor who delivered baby Finnean Connell in Chicago, said: 'The surgery itself was uncomplicated, and the emotional context of this delivery was so profound'.


Media reaction has varied with some finding story unsettling while others have welcomed the birth. Margaret Somerville in the Globe and Mail wrote an article titled 'When granny gives birth to her grandson, there's something wrong' in which she says 'my gut reaction was that this was ethically wrong'. Josephine Johnston, a bioethics researcher at The Hastings Centre, New York, however, said: 'It seems like an unquestionably loving and generous thing for a family member to do. It's one of those situations where outsiders might wonder if it's OK or healthy. But the experience of that child and his family will be that it's good'.

To read more go to http://bit.ly/hBanFM

Sperm shortage in Australia calls to lift ban on imports

VICTORIA Australia is so short of sperm donors that some women are flying interstate for IVF treatment, prompting calls to ease restrictions on importing sperm.
Fertility doctors say demand for sperm has surged since laws giving single women and lesbians access to IVF were brought in last year, with some patients waiting up to nine months.

The removal of anonymity has also made some men reluctant to donate, and restrictions that mean they can only give sperm to 10 families have also increased the need for more donors.

With just 184 registered sperm donors left in Victoria, fertility doctors say some patients are resorting to DIY inseminations using unscreened sperm, which carries the risk of infection.

Importing sperm is prohibited in Victoria unless approved by the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority, which last year granted permission in just three cases. But states without specific reproductive legislation such as Queensland are routinely importing sperm, often from American sperm banks.

Melbourne IVF director John McBain said the regulator was being too strict with the rules.

''The shortage is as bad as it's ever been and when the wait is so long to get access to a donor it just pushes it underground again and people seek their own remedy using uncounselled, unconsented donors and unquarantined sperm,'' he said.

''The worrying risk of that is chronic viral illness infection with either hepatitis B or HIV because a lot of single women tend to source gay men as their donors.

''One of the main things … is that we have minorities here in Australia who would quite like the child to look like its parents but no one has any Indian, Asian or Arabic sperm donors.''

Melbourne mother Lee, who did not want to use her real name, went to the City Fertility Centre but was told there would be a six to nine-month wait for sperm.

The clinic, which has only six donors on its books and has launched a website to attract more, referred the couple to a sister clinic in Brisbane, which uses samples from the US. Lee became pregnant on her first attempt with donor sperm and now has twin two-year-old girls.

''It was so simple. We could look at all their profiles on the internet and see baby pictures of them or in some cases what they look like as adults,'' she said. ''We wanted someone who had blond hair and blue eyes because my husband has Dutch in his background and it was important that the girls look like him.

''We were fortunate we had the finances to fly to Queensland, but it would be great if they could get more donors in Victoria by importing sperm.''

To read more go to http://bit.ly/hga5rX

Sperm donors online: Are there emotional and physical risks?

The following recent article by the Daily Mail highlights the risks both physically and emotionally of sleeping with a sperm donor met online. As a single woman any donor would be classed as the child’s legal father and could be held financially responsible. For this reason many donors may try to conceal their true identity, which adds a greater risk for the recipient, of not having adequate identification for CRB checks and health screening tests. Not to mention the importance of any child not being able to trace their biological routes when they are older.

Erika from Pride Angel states ‘ There are many advantages for personally meeting a sperm donor and having them involved in their child’s life’ ‘Making sure that both parties have the same views regarding their parenting and level of involvement is imperative to any successful arrangement’

‘It is also important to consider the risks, getting legal advice and full health screening tests before attempting to conceive’ ‘Using a regulated clinic is the only real way of being certain about any health risks and gaining fertility treatment through a clinic also clarifies the legal position for both the donor and the recipient’ .

For these reasons Pride Angel unlike many other websites, has strict terms and conditions regarding donors not donating by natural insemination, no payments being offered and anonymous donation is strongly discouraged. Profiles are monitored constantly and users are able to ‘Report’ any concerns they have regarding other members.

Article: Frances Benning, 29 has chosen to conceive with a sperm donor. She has scheduled the event meticulously; planned every detail with military precision — for her sole purpose is to become pregnant. But the man she has chosen to be the father of her baby is neither her husband, nor her partner nor, even, a long-term friend. In fact, he is Toby, a sperm donor she met for the first time just a few hours ago.

Toby, 30, who is affluent and handsome with a glamorous job in the film industry, and Frances — attractive, articulate and privately-educated — were introduced via a website that matches potential sperm donors with would-be mothers. After she singled him out as a prospective father, they corresponded before arranging to meet.

No money would change hands but, at the end of their brief encounter, Frances fervently hoped, Toby would have bestowed on her the priceless gift of life.

After that, she planned to embark on life as a single mum. She figured she could manage perfectly alone: she is resourceful, financially secure and owns her own house outright. But as is often the case with even the best-laid schemes, Frances’ went awry. For a start, she failed to factor emotions into her plan, and had not reckoned on the impact of seeing the father of her future child face-to-face.

‘When I first met Toby I thought, “Wow!”,’ she recalls. ‘He is 6ft 5in, dark-haired and blue-eyed with lovely broad muscular shoulders. He looked even better than he did in his photos. Under different circumstances Frances, a legal secretary, and Toby, whose job as a researcher takes him round the world, could have been made for each other.

To read more go to http://bit.ly/fGXZOg

Surrogacy, parenthood and disputes: are there any lessons to be learned

Surrogacy has been around for many years and disputes rarely arise. There have only been a handful of published cases in the English courts where a surrogacy arrangement has gone wrong. However, the recently published case of TT (a Minor) [1] received national press and radio coverage, focusing on Mr Justice Baker's warning about the inherent risks of surrogacy, awarding care of the baby to the surrogate mother and yet again putting surrogacy in the media spotlight.
The case of TT (a minor) involved a woman who met a married couple over the internet and agreed informally to become a surrogate mother for them, conceiving by private arrangement using her own egg and the intended father's sperm. The agreement was not set up by one of the UK's not for profit surrogacy agencies and so the parties did not have the benefit of advice, counselling and support that such agencies routinely provide. The arrangement also followed a history of dealings with several internet surrogacy sites, the facts of which were disputed by the parties. The parties' relationship broke down during the pregnancy and the surrogate mother had a change of heart and decided to keep the baby. The intended parents then applied to court for a residence order. The baby girl was five months old when the court gave judgment and the intended parents had had only limited contact with her since birth
To read more go to http://blogs.prideangel.com/post/2011/02/surrogacy2c-parenthood-and-disputes

in reference to:

"surrogacy, surrogacy disputes, parenthood, partenthood disputes, fertility law, parenting law, surrogacy law"
- Surrogacy, parenthood and disputes: are there any lessons to be learned? (view on Google Sidewiki)

Surrogacy, parenthood and disputes: are there any lessons to be learned?

Surrogacy has been around for many years and disputes rarely arise. There have only been a handful of published cases in the English courts where a surrogacy arrangement has gone wrong. However, the recently published case of TT (a Minor) [1] received national press and radio coverage, focusing on Mr Justice Baker's warning about the inherent risks of surrogacy, awarding care of the baby to the surrogate mother and yet again putting surrogacy in the media spotlight.
The case of TT (a minor) involved a woman who met a married couple over the internet and agreed informally to become a surrogate mother for them, conceiving by private arrangement using her own egg and the intended father's sperm. The agreement was not set up by one of the UK's not for profit surrogacy agencies and so the parties did not have the benefit of advice, counselling and support that such agencies routinely provide. The arrangement also followed a history of dealings with several internet surrogacy sites, the facts of which were disputed by the parties. The parties' relationship broke down during the pregnancy and the surrogate mother had a change of heart and decided to keep the baby. The intended parents then applied to court for a residence order. The baby girl was five months old when the court gave judgment and the intended parents had had only limited contact with her since birth.

The court's decision to award care to the surrogate mother was guided by the paramount consideration of the baby's welfare. This decision was based on the close attachment formed between the surrogate (and biological) mother and the baby, the ongoing breastfeeding and the risk of emotional harm if the baby was moved into the care of the intended parents in the stark manner the intended parents proposed. In particular, the court expressed concern about the intended parents' ability to meet the baby's emotional needs longer term and their lack of insight as to the importance of the baby girl's relationship and close attachment with the surrogate mother. Mr Justice Baker went on to highlight the risk that the '...natural process of carrying and giving birth to a baby creates an attachment which may be so strong that the surrogate mother finds herself unable to give up the child'. It was therefore a fact based decision and does not set a binding precedent, although it will inevitably strike an uncomfortable note amongst prospective intended parents.

The case of TT (a minor) highlights the advent of internet surrogacy sites that make informal surrogacy agreements possible, which leads to the question whether there would have been a different outcome if the parties had received support and advice from a surrogacy agency, together with counselling or some form of regulation earlier in the process. However, the fact that there have been so few published cases of surrogacy arrangements which have gone wrong in the UK is testament to the care and attention with which these arrangements are usually set up and approached by intended parents, surrogates, surrogacy agencies and, where conception takes place at a licensed clinic, by counsellors and medical professionals who have a duty to consider the best interests of any future born child.

To read more go to http://bit.ly/fubXbY

Select your baby's sex for £14,000

A leading NHS fertility doctor is making money by sending couples abroad to choose the sex of their unborn baby – a procedure that is illegal in Britain.
Gynaecologist Charles Kingsland, clinical director of Britain’s largest NHS fertility unit and a former inspector for the fertility watchdog, refers at least one woman a week to a clinic in Northern Cyprus to be implanted with a selected embryo.

Last night a leading cross-bench peer demanded an urgent inquiry into the ‘enormous moral issues’ after a Mail on Sunday investigation revealed that:

Mr Kingsland uses NHS premises and staff to organise for profit a medical procedure that is illegal in Britain. Couples are paying up to £14,000 for the controversial service – more than four times the cost of standard private fertility treatment. Mr Kingsland tells patients he must cover up his involvement by claiming to be ‘ignorant’ of their reasons for travelling to Cyprus. Mr Kingsland agreed to make the arrangements for an undercover Mail on Sunday investigator to undergo the procedure – even though there was no evidence that she could not conceive naturally.

Normally such a young, healthy woman with no known fertility problems would not qualify for IVF treatment on the NHS until she had spent at least a year trying to get pregnant by natural means.

Mr Kingsland also told her it was ‘better your GP doesn’t know anything’ about the treatment.

Sex selection was made illegal in Britain by the Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act 2008 except on very narrow medical grounds. However, the UK Cypriot Fertility Association (UKCFA), in which Mr Kingsland is a shareholder, is offering it to women who want to choose the gender of their child for purely social reasons.

On its website, the company advertises that the ‘family balancing’ treatment will be carried out at its affiliated clinic, the Cyprus IVF Centre in Famagusta, in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The state – which is not recognised diplomatically by any nation other than Turkey – is the only place in Europe where sex selection is legal.

To read more go to http://bit.ly/hjsvsY

Zack Wahls defends gay marriage and being raised by lesbian mums

Zach Wahls a 19-year-old University of Iowa engineering student defended gay marriage in a rousing testimony in front of the Iowa House of Representatives this month. Zack Wahls spoke out against a resolution which would end civil unions in Iowa by describing his own experience as the son of two lesbian partners.
"Our family really isn't so different from any other Iowa family," said Wahls. "When I am home, we go to church together, we eat dinner, we go on vacations."

Wahls emphasized the typical nature of his upbringing, as well as his own success. He is an Eagle Scout and a small business owner. He also scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT. "If I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I would make you very proud," he said.

A sixth-generation Iowan, Wahls finished his testimony on an impassioned note. "In my 19 years not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple," he said. "And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character."

Wahls had previously written about the issue in the University of Iowa's student newspaper:

Last fall, I had the opportunity, courtesy of Iowa Public Radio's "The Exchange," to talk with a Tea Partier about this very topic. When I mentioned that two lesbian women raised me, her face turned to shock and then concern. She asked if I ever had yearning to meet my father — an anonymous sperm donor.

My answer was — and remains — "no." And no, I don't feel damaged or that my childhood was somehow scarred. Maybe I have, in some way undetectable to me, been permanently harmed by having two moms. I guess I can't be sure.

Watch Zach Wahls's inspirational speach on youtube

Article: 11th February 2011 huffingtonpost.com

Read more about gay and lesbian parenting at www.prideangel.com

To read more go to http://bit.ly/fvin5T

Surrogacy law in the UK - Is change overdue?

International and UK regulations have simply not kept up with the reality of surrogacy
Determining parenthood is a complex business. When paternity tests revealed that the child Stephen Quinn had raised as his own was in fact the biological offspring of David Blunkett, Quinn attracted palpable sympathy with his declaration: "I will not draw a distinction between biological and non-biological – we are not buying Persil or Daz."

But the complexity of determining paternity pales in comparison to the question of maternity. In the rapidly expanding world of surrogacy births, up to three women can have competing claims to be mother of a newborn child: the birth mother, the egg donor, and the intended parent (or "commissioning mother", as she is prosaically called). The one thing upon which the wildly opposed different groups agree is the fact that the courts – increasingly called on when surrogacy agreements break down – do not have the right tools to resolve them.

The most recent example came in a surrogacy dispute that was decided last month in Birmingham county court. A couple who could not have children had met a surrogate mother in an internet chatroom. She was inseminated with the man's sperm and agreed to hand over the child after birth. In a not uncommon outcome for informal surrogacy agreements, she changed her mind during the course of the pregnancy as her attachment to the child grew.

And in another fact not unrepresentative of wider trends, the case was complicated by the fact that both the would-be parents and the surrogate were avid users of surrogacy websites and chat-rooms. The would-be parents had met another woman, alleged to be a prostitute, on a surrogacy website and allowed her to stay in their home. On her part, the surrogate had adopted a false persona online and deceived the couple to elicit information about them. Both incidents, the judge said, raised questions about the sound judgment of each side, a particular matter of concern for a court trying to determine which side would be more likely to provide the atmosphere of safety, love and guidance needed to raise a child.

It's hard to criticise the findings of the judge, Sir Jonathan Baker, in this case: he allowed the child to stay with the surrogate, finding separation from the woman who was still breastfeeding her to be the greater measure of harm. His view reflects the legal position in the UK, that "mother" is the label given to any woman who gives birth to a child, whether or not she is a genetic relation.

To read more go to http://bit.ly/gWhAAd

Fertility World Show - Olympia London 15-16 April 2011

The first 'Fertility World Show' will be held at Olympia in London 15-16 April and is supported by Fertility Road the first and only Lifestyle Magazine aimed at helping women and men on their path to parenthood.

If you are planning to start a family and having problems getting pregnant, then a visit to the Fertility World Show will provide you with all the help, information and advice you need to get you on the road to having your baby.

The Fertility World Show will provide you with an excellent opportunity to meet and discuss your requirements with a host of hospitals, clinics and consultants specialising in fertility issues.

You wil also have a chance to attend a programme of FREE SEMINARS covering a host of fertility issues and topics that will include:

- Maximising your chances of getting pregnant
- Choosing a fertility clinic
- Going overseas for fertility treatment
- How the NHS can help with fertility costs
- Same sex fertility treatment
- The donor and surrogacy route
- Natural methods to boost your fertility
- Fertility information resources


We are pleased to announce that Pride Angel will holding a seminar at the Fertility World Show, about the option of using known donors.

To read more about the Fertility World Show and book your tickets visit www.fertility-world.co.uk

To read more go to http://bit.ly/fSZH2X

Thirty years of IVF fertility treatment

The birth of the world's test tube baby heralded a new era of fertility treatment, and thirty years on 12,000 IVF babies are born every year in Britain alone.
The development of In Vitro Fertilisation, or IVF as it is commonly known, meant doctors could fertilise a woman's egg in a laboratory, before placing it in her womb to develop.

Since Doctors Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards artificially orchestrated the birth of Louise Brown, IVF has undergone a substantial amount of progress.

Along with steadily raising the rate of success in IVF treatment from their earliest ventures, scientists used the contraceptive pill to more conveniently schedule IVF cycles, making the process easier for doctors and patients.

They also perfected the technique of freezing and thawing embryos, making the technique significantly more effective.

In 1992, researchers developed a method of injecting a single sperm cell directly into an egg, greatly increasing the chances of fertilisation for men with low sperm production.

Increasing effectiveness of the treatment has also meant doctors can implant fewer embryos into the womb – reducing the chance of multiple pregnancies.

And the latest development is a screening process which screens embryos for genetic faults, checking the baby's chromosomes against those of the parents to give it a greater chance of survival and good health.

But these advancements have gone hand in hand with criticism of IVF on both moral and clinical grounds.

Opponents of research into IVF included Enoch Powell, who in 1985 submitted a bill to Parliament which would have prohibited any further embryo research if it had been passed.

Questions have been raised over the ethics of being able to ‘screen’ embryos for potential genetic traits, either good or bad, before they are implanted – the so-called “designer baby” argument.

To read more go to http://bit.ly/gGJq89

Women should be given more information about fertility

A recent review paper emphasises the need for improved provision of fertility information, especially regarding age-associated risks, as the trend for women having children later in life continues.
Dr David Utting, Specialty Registrar in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Kingston Hospital NHS Trust who co-authored the review, said: 'Clear facts on fertility be made available to women of all ages to remind them that the most secure age for childbearing remains 20 to 35. However women and doctors should remain vigilant to prevent unplanned and unwanted pregnancies'.

The review says basic information about pregnancy including contraception, normal cycles, the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and age-related risks should be reinforced through schools, family planning and sexual health clinics and the media, so the general public can be better informed.

The age of first-time mothers has risen from 23 in 1968 to 29.3 in 2008 and women aged 30 to 34 are more likely to enter into motherhood than any other age group, based on data from the Office for National Statistics. The authors propose a wider choice of reliable contraception as a possible reason and refer to the results of a 2006 survey in which most women described career and money, with a number also highlighting the need to find a suitable partner, as delaying motherhood.

According to the review, 'at the age of 25 just five percent of women take longer than a year to conceive with regular intercourse, rising to 30 percent in those aged 35'. An increased risk with age of miscarriage and other pregnancy related complications including premature births and stillbirths was also identified.

Interestingly the authors discuss the male 'biological clock' and said a man's fertility similarly declines with age. They estimate that the average 40-year-old male takes two years to get his partner pregnant, even if she is in her twenties.

To read more go to http://bit.ly/g1vr4Q