New research, published online by the journal Nature Medicine, seems to overturn a widely-accepted biological principle governing female fertility, raising hopes for women who have trouble becoming pregnant.
For a half-century or so, women were presumed to be born with a supply of eggs that could not be replenished.
In fact, that was thought to be true of all mammals until 2004, when Massachusetts General Hospital researcher Jonathan L. Tilly, PhD, found that adult female mice could produce new eggs. And now, Tilly has extended his work to humans.
"We've isolated, essentially, the female equivalent of the stem cells that we know exist in men that actively make new sperm," said Tilly. "So having these cells now isolated, I think, opens up a lot of opportunities to consider that we simply couldn't fathom before."
Tilly and his colleagues took human ovaries and extracted the cells, by grabbing onto a particular protein on the surface, and doing laboratory tests to ensure they had the right cells.
"Once we had isolated these cells, we could place the cells in culture outside the body," he said. "And we could start with perhaps 100 cells, and over several months' time, take those 100 cells and make hundreds of thousands of cells. And interestingly, we noticed that these cells would spontaneously generate immature eggs, all on their own, in these cultures."
And to further confirm the ability of these stem cell-like cells to make eggs, the researchers placed some of the cells into human ovary tissue, which they then implanted under the skin of laboratory mice.
"And what we found when we did those types of studies, [is] these human cells, once reintroduced back into the environment we originally took them from, were more than happy to create brand new human egg cells," he explained.
Growing eggs in the lab could improve prospects for women undergoing in vitro fertilization, during which a woman's egg is fertilized in an external medium and then returned to her womb to develop.
But Tilly said his work could also lead to fertility treatments that might improve prospects for more traditional fertilization methods. "We can also think about, perhaps, targeting these cells in the ovaries with hormones that these cells like, and thereby increasing their activity and perhaps increasing the size of the egg cell reserve in the ovary, when it would be desirable to do so."
Tilly's work in the past with mice was greeted with skepticism, and independent experts are cautious about this study, too. As is often the case in science, the real proof may come when other researchers try to duplicate these findings.
Article: 28th February 2012 Voice of America www.voanews.com
Tuesday 28 February 2012
Sunday 26 February 2012
Pope Benedict XVI faces backlash after his rant about IVF
THE Pope has been attacked as archaic and out of touch after urging infertile couples to shun IVF and insisting sex between a husband and wife was the only acceptable way of conceiving.
Melinda Roberts, mother of Thomas, 3, and Matthew, 7 months, said Pope Benedict XVI's words angered her. "Both of my children were conceived through IVF, and every day my husband and I are eternally grateful for the assistance," the Glen Waverley mum said.
Is the Pope right to speak out against IVF? Join the debate below Monash IVF director Professor Gab Kovacs said the Pope was out of touch, and "most ... in his congregation take no notice of him".
Many Catholic couples sought fertility treatment, allowing themselves to be dictated by their consciences and what was right, rather than the church, Prof Kovacs said.
He said the Catholic Church had not changed its stance since the beginning of reproductive medicine in the 1970s. Speaking at a conference on infertility in Rome, the Pope said artificial methods of getting pregnant were arrogance, insisting that sex between a husband and wife was the only acceptable way of conceiving.
Matrimony was the "only place worthy of the call to existence of a new human being", he told scientists and fertility experts. "The human and Christian dignity of procreation, in fact, doesn't consist in a "product", but in its link to the conjugal act, an expression of the love of the spouses of their union, not only biological but also spiritual," he said.
Melbourne's City Fertility Centre medical director Dr David Wilkinson said most of his patients had already been trying to conceive through conjugal relations, but it had not worked.
The Pope was also critised for his recent comments stating that 'Gay marriage is one of several threats to the traditional family unit that undermines 'the future of humanity itself'.
The Vatican and Catholic officials around the world have protested against moves to legalise gay marriage in Europe and other developed parts of the world.
Fotunately many people including Roman Catholics do not agree with some of the moral teachings of this Pope, or his charismatic predecessor, Pope John Paul II, on matters such as birth control, fertility treatment, women priests or homosexuality.
Article extracts: 26th February 2012 www.heraldsun.com.au
Melinda Roberts, mother of Thomas, 3, and Matthew, 7 months, said Pope Benedict XVI's words angered her. "Both of my children were conceived through IVF, and every day my husband and I are eternally grateful for the assistance," the Glen Waverley mum said.
Is the Pope right to speak out against IVF? Join the debate below Monash IVF director Professor Gab Kovacs said the Pope was out of touch, and "most ... in his congregation take no notice of him".
Many Catholic couples sought fertility treatment, allowing themselves to be dictated by their consciences and what was right, rather than the church, Prof Kovacs said.
He said the Catholic Church had not changed its stance since the beginning of reproductive medicine in the 1970s. Speaking at a conference on infertility in Rome, the Pope said artificial methods of getting pregnant were arrogance, insisting that sex between a husband and wife was the only acceptable way of conceiving.
Matrimony was the "only place worthy of the call to existence of a new human being", he told scientists and fertility experts. "The human and Christian dignity of procreation, in fact, doesn't consist in a "product", but in its link to the conjugal act, an expression of the love of the spouses of their union, not only biological but also spiritual," he said.
Melbourne's City Fertility Centre medical director Dr David Wilkinson said most of his patients had already been trying to conceive through conjugal relations, but it had not worked.
The Pope was also critised for his recent comments stating that 'Gay marriage is one of several threats to the traditional family unit that undermines 'the future of humanity itself'.
The Vatican and Catholic officials around the world have protested against moves to legalise gay marriage in Europe and other developed parts of the world.
Fotunately many people including Roman Catholics do not agree with some of the moral teachings of this Pope, or his charismatic predecessor, Pope John Paul II, on matters such as birth control, fertility treatment, women priests or homosexuality.
Article extracts: 26th February 2012 www.heraldsun.com.au
Friday 24 February 2012
US production company looking to speak with co-parenting families
An Emmy Award-winning production company is looking for people who established unique and interesting co-parenting situations to build their family. We are looking for non-traditional pairs of people raising a child/children together.
They are NOT currently looking for divorced couples who are “co-parenting.”*
The production company are looking for individuals or couples such as:
- single, platonic friends who decide to have and raise a child together; could be gay, straight, whatever
- single parents who decide to team up with another single parent to cooperatively raise their kids and support family life
- any unique parenting situation outside of the “norm”
- Looking for families and friends to share their stories to show how the idea of family can be fulfilled in so many ways
We’d also like to hear from you if you know anyone that fits above description; we want to know what’s going on out there!
If you are interested in helping or just want more information please contact us at Pride Angel, alternatively email info@prideangel.com
They are NOT currently looking for divorced couples who are “co-parenting.”*
The production company are looking for individuals or couples such as:
- single, platonic friends who decide to have and raise a child together; could be gay, straight, whatever
- single parents who decide to team up with another single parent to cooperatively raise their kids and support family life
- any unique parenting situation outside of the “norm”
- Looking for families and friends to share their stories to show how the idea of family can be fulfilled in so many ways
We’d also like to hear from you if you know anyone that fits above description; we want to know what’s going on out there!
If you are interested in helping or just want more information please contact us at Pride Angel, alternatively email info@prideangel.com
Thursday 23 February 2012
Fertility authority has accumulated £3.4million fund - while thousands of women refused IVF treatment on the NHS
The fertility authority, the HFEA has £3.4million of unspent funds – while thousands of women are being refused IVF on the NHS because it is too expensive. Figures reveal the surplus money built up by the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority could pay for 850 women to have treatment.
The funds have been gradually accumulated from the £75 fee paid by the NHS and private clinics to the HFEA every time a woman has treatment. Campaigners have demanded the organisation gives the money back to the dozens of NHS trusts which are refusing women IVF because they are so short of money.
Last year a report by MPs found three quarters of primary care trusts are denying women treatment and not funding the three courses recommended by the health watchdog NICE.
This includes five PCTs which refuse to pay for IVF altogether while many others reject women deemed too fat, thin, old or young. As a result, couples desperate for children are having to go to private clinics and take out loans or re-mortgage their homes to cover the hefty fees.
Last year 45,000 women underwent IVF treatment, with 60 per cent having to pay for it privately. One cycle of IVF can cost between £4,000 and £8,000 as clinics charge vast fees for ‘extras’, including up to £200 for a consultation and as much as £1,000 for freezing and storing embryos.
The surplus, the equivalent to half of the organisation’s annual budget, could pay for about 850 women to have IVF at a cost of £4,000 a treatment. Clare Lewis-Jones of the charity Infertility UK, said: ‘We believe the funds built up by the HFEA should be re-invested back into the area which they regulate and that infertility patients should in some way benefit from this excess.’
The HFEA has insisted that the money was accumulated through ‘prudent’ budgeting, and said it would be too ‘complex’ to try to give the money back to cash-strapped NHS trusts. The figures were obtained by the Health Service Journal.
A poll in December revealed that a quarter of women having IVF said that they have to take out high-interest loans, reach their credit card limit and even re-mortgage their homes for a chance to realise their dream of motherhood.
A third of the 2,500 British women questioned by Red Magazine for its annual fertility report had spent more than £20,000. Success rates are just 32 per cent for women under 35, falling rapidly with age to just 1.5 per cent for those over 45. This means that many are being forced to fork out for three or more cycles of treatment.
Dr Allan Pacey, of the British Fertility Society, said: ‘This comes at a time when NHS funding for infertility treatment such as IVF has been cut in many parts of the country as a cost cutting measure, and both hospital and household budgets are feeling the squeeze.
‘The £3.4million is a significant sum of money and by a conservative estimate would fund over 850 cycles of IVF treatment. ‘The BFS believes it is inappropriate for the regulator to amass such a sum, which by its own admission is “unusually large”. ‘We will be writing to the HFEA chief executive to ask for an explanation.’
A spokesman from the HFEA said: ‘Previously, we have agreed with the department not to pursue the possibility of returning the money to clinics due to the complex principles and practicalities that would entail.
‘We developed proposals to enhance our capabilities in three ways, to spend the surplus money “wisely”, over three years. ‘The Department of Health have told us that they cannot agree to this for the next financial year, and so we await the department’s alternative suggestions.’
Article: February 2012 www.dailymail.co.uk
The funds have been gradually accumulated from the £75 fee paid by the NHS and private clinics to the HFEA every time a woman has treatment. Campaigners have demanded the organisation gives the money back to the dozens of NHS trusts which are refusing women IVF because they are so short of money.
Last year a report by MPs found three quarters of primary care trusts are denying women treatment and not funding the three courses recommended by the health watchdog NICE.
This includes five PCTs which refuse to pay for IVF altogether while many others reject women deemed too fat, thin, old or young. As a result, couples desperate for children are having to go to private clinics and take out loans or re-mortgage their homes to cover the hefty fees.
Last year 45,000 women underwent IVF treatment, with 60 per cent having to pay for it privately. One cycle of IVF can cost between £4,000 and £8,000 as clinics charge vast fees for ‘extras’, including up to £200 for a consultation and as much as £1,000 for freezing and storing embryos.
The surplus, the equivalent to half of the organisation’s annual budget, could pay for about 850 women to have IVF at a cost of £4,000 a treatment. Clare Lewis-Jones of the charity Infertility UK, said: ‘We believe the funds built up by the HFEA should be re-invested back into the area which they regulate and that infertility patients should in some way benefit from this excess.’
The HFEA has insisted that the money was accumulated through ‘prudent’ budgeting, and said it would be too ‘complex’ to try to give the money back to cash-strapped NHS trusts. The figures were obtained by the Health Service Journal.
A poll in December revealed that a quarter of women having IVF said that they have to take out high-interest loans, reach their credit card limit and even re-mortgage their homes for a chance to realise their dream of motherhood.
A third of the 2,500 British women questioned by Red Magazine for its annual fertility report had spent more than £20,000. Success rates are just 32 per cent for women under 35, falling rapidly with age to just 1.5 per cent for those over 45. This means that many are being forced to fork out for three or more cycles of treatment.
Dr Allan Pacey, of the British Fertility Society, said: ‘This comes at a time when NHS funding for infertility treatment such as IVF has been cut in many parts of the country as a cost cutting measure, and both hospital and household budgets are feeling the squeeze.
‘The £3.4million is a significant sum of money and by a conservative estimate would fund over 850 cycles of IVF treatment. ‘The BFS believes it is inappropriate for the regulator to amass such a sum, which by its own admission is “unusually large”. ‘We will be writing to the HFEA chief executive to ask for an explanation.’
A spokesman from the HFEA said: ‘Previously, we have agreed with the department not to pursue the possibility of returning the money to clinics due to the complex principles and practicalities that would entail.
‘We developed proposals to enhance our capabilities in three ways, to spend the surplus money “wisely”, over three years. ‘The Department of Health have told us that they cannot agree to this for the next financial year, and so we await the department’s alternative suggestions.’
Article: February 2012 www.dailymail.co.uk
Tuesday 21 February 2012
Canadian sperm donor debate focuses on children's rights
While adoptive children have the right to information about their birth parents and children of sperm donors have no rights to information about the donors, there is no discrimination, the province argued Tuesday.
That's because the provincial law is targeted at adoptive children and does not address - or violate - the constitutional rights of children of gamete donors, who can remain anonymous, provincial lawyer Leah Greathead told the B.C. Court of Appeal.
The province is appealing a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that gave offspring of gamete (sperm or egg) donors the same rights as adopted children, who have had rights to access their birth records since the law was changed in 1996.
Two days have been set aside for the appeal case, which continues today. The landmark lawsuit being heard Tuesday, the first of its kind in North America, was launched by B.C.-born Olivia Pratten, who now lives in Toronto.
The provincial government also argued that Pratten is seeking rights that are not afforded to all children, as children who are not adopted must rely on getting genetic or medical information from a parent.
For example, a single mom can choose whether or not to tell her child who the father is. The province also argued more information is available today about sperm donors than there was 30 years ago.
Greathead noted that a woman who wants to use donated sperm today can usually get information on a donor's health and temperament. The woman can also seek out a donor willing to be identified.
In an interview during a break in the court proceedings, Pratten noted donor information is only accessible by voluntary agreement. She wants to see laws in place that ensure records of gamete donors are maintained and are available to the children of those donors.
"There's a complete void in the law," said Pratten, 29. She said she's been told by legal experts to expect the case to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Pratten said the case is not about opening up old files - hers have been destroyed - but about changing the law going forward.
Her lawyer, Joseph Arvay, told the court his client simply wants the same benefits that adopted children have under the province's laws. "I say the legislative scheme is discriminatory when it provides benefit to adoptive people ... because they have real needs [to know their genetic heritage and medical history] and deny benefits to those who have the same needs," argued Arvay.
The judges peppered Arvay with questions, noting the state has chosen not to create laws regulating the sphere of artificial reproduction. "It's [using a gamete donor] a matter of personal choice," noted Justice Mary Saunders.
In May 2011, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair struck down the Adoption Act on the grounds that it was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. She suspended the effect of the ruling for 15 months to allow the government time to draft legislation so it does not violate Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The judge also granted a permanent injunction to prohibit the destruction and disposal of the records of gamete donors. Countries such as Sweden, Holland, the U.K. and parts of Australia no longer allow anonymous gamete donations.
Article: 20th February 2012 www.vancouversun.com
That's because the provincial law is targeted at adoptive children and does not address - or violate - the constitutional rights of children of gamete donors, who can remain anonymous, provincial lawyer Leah Greathead told the B.C. Court of Appeal.
The province is appealing a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that gave offspring of gamete (sperm or egg) donors the same rights as adopted children, who have had rights to access their birth records since the law was changed in 1996.
Two days have been set aside for the appeal case, which continues today. The landmark lawsuit being heard Tuesday, the first of its kind in North America, was launched by B.C.-born Olivia Pratten, who now lives in Toronto.
The provincial government also argued that Pratten is seeking rights that are not afforded to all children, as children who are not adopted must rely on getting genetic or medical information from a parent.
For example, a single mom can choose whether or not to tell her child who the father is. The province also argued more information is available today about sperm donors than there was 30 years ago.
Greathead noted that a woman who wants to use donated sperm today can usually get information on a donor's health and temperament. The woman can also seek out a donor willing to be identified.
In an interview during a break in the court proceedings, Pratten noted donor information is only accessible by voluntary agreement. She wants to see laws in place that ensure records of gamete donors are maintained and are available to the children of those donors.
"There's a complete void in the law," said Pratten, 29. She said she's been told by legal experts to expect the case to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Pratten said the case is not about opening up old files - hers have been destroyed - but about changing the law going forward.
Her lawyer, Joseph Arvay, told the court his client simply wants the same benefits that adopted children have under the province's laws. "I say the legislative scheme is discriminatory when it provides benefit to adoptive people ... because they have real needs [to know their genetic heritage and medical history] and deny benefits to those who have the same needs," argued Arvay.
The judges peppered Arvay with questions, noting the state has chosen not to create laws regulating the sphere of artificial reproduction. "It's [using a gamete donor] a matter of personal choice," noted Justice Mary Saunders.
In May 2011, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair struck down the Adoption Act on the grounds that it was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. She suspended the effect of the ruling for 15 months to allow the government time to draft legislation so it does not violate Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The judge also granted a permanent injunction to prohibit the destruction and disposal of the records of gamete donors. Countries such as Sweden, Holland, the U.K. and parts of Australia no longer allow anonymous gamete donations.
Article: 20th February 2012 www.vancouversun.com
Saturday 18 February 2012
Sperm Donors in Australia could have their details tagged on Birth Certificates
BIRTH certificates could be secretly tagged with the identity of sperm or egg donors under a controversial New South Wales Government proposal to help children track down their biological parents later in life.
Notes or "hidden" addendums would be linked to the certificates, telling the child that more information relating to their donor was available when they turned 18.
The move would mean all donor details could be recorded on the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the first time.
The current Assisted Reproductive Technology Register, overseen by NSW Health since its introduction in 2010, covers commercial conceptions but excludes non-medical donations or private arrangements.
In a submission to a parliamentary inquiry, Department of Premier and Cabinet deputy director-general Vicki D'Adam suggested that the option of a hidden record would still allow the child to use the birth certificate for public identification purposes without possible embarrassment.
"Options for including donor information on the birth certificate would need to take into account issues of privacy to ensure that donor-conceived children are not stigmatised by being treated differently to other children," she said.
The inquiry was launched last year after the NSW District Court ordered that a NSW sperm donor be removed from his daughter's BDM register. It ruled that the birth mother's former partner had the right to be named on the register, despite the donor maintaining a close relationship and financial support for the child since birth.
The law says only two parent names can be on the BDM register.
Article: 17th February 2012 www.heraldsun.com.au
Notes or "hidden" addendums would be linked to the certificates, telling the child that more information relating to their donor was available when they turned 18.
The move would mean all donor details could be recorded on the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the first time.
The current Assisted Reproductive Technology Register, overseen by NSW Health since its introduction in 2010, covers commercial conceptions but excludes non-medical donations or private arrangements.
In a submission to a parliamentary inquiry, Department of Premier and Cabinet deputy director-general Vicki D'Adam suggested that the option of a hidden record would still allow the child to use the birth certificate for public identification purposes without possible embarrassment.
"Options for including donor information on the birth certificate would need to take into account issues of privacy to ensure that donor-conceived children are not stigmatised by being treated differently to other children," she said.
The inquiry was launched last year after the NSW District Court ordered that a NSW sperm donor be removed from his daughter's BDM register. It ruled that the birth mother's former partner had the right to be named on the register, despite the donor maintaining a close relationship and financial support for the child since birth.
The law says only two parent names can be on the BDM register.
Article: 17th February 2012 www.heraldsun.com.au
Wednesday 15 February 2012
Transgender pregnant man in UK first to give birth
A trans man is believed to have become the UK’s first ‘male mother’ to give birth despite having already had gender reassignment surgery. According to the Sunday Times, the man in his thirties gave birth to a child last year via a caesarean section.
Joanna Darrell, of the Beaumont Society, which helps men who wish to or have changed gender told the newspaper that the unnamed father got in touch to enquire for help having a child after having undergone surgery.
Through the charity, the unnamed man had hormone treatment to reactivate his womb. The womb had not actually been removed during his original surgery. “He got back in touch about six months ago to thank the society for its help and to say he had the baby,” Ms Darrell said.
Thomas Beatie, a trans man who lives legally in his acquired gender in the United States, conceived and has given birth to three children since 2007. His wife Nancy is unable to conceive. The Oregon couple’s first daughter was born in June 2008 and a son followed a year later and a son in 2010.
Despite being legally defined as a man for over ten years and having had some gender reassignment surgery, Beatie kept his female reproductive organs. He is thought to have had natural births with his three children and his wife breastfed both.
Before starting a family, Beatie had been on hormone treatments, but stopped taking them in order to resume menstruating and conceive through artificial insemination. All children were conceived with the help of sperm donors.
Last month, Yuval Topper, became the first Israeli trans man to give birth. Mr Topper underwent gender confirmation surgery three years ago. He was travelling to Jerusalem, but stopped to give birth in Tel Aviv.
There is a cancer risk associated with retaining a uterus and ovaries after they are exposed to high levels of testosterone associated with gender reassignment which means many choose to have them removed. Christopher Inglefield, a surgeon specialising in gender reassignment surgery told the Sunday Times: “The obvious thing is to get them to store eggs before they have the surgery, so they can have babies later using a female surrogate.”
But not everyone is supportive of trans men having children. Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College told the newspaper: “The fact that the medical profession is facilitating and encouraging this is a serious problem. You are hardly going to end up with a baby that’s going to have a happy, productive and optimal childhood.”
Are you gay, lesbian or transgender, wishing to find a known sperm or egg donor? visit www.prideangel.com
Joanna Darrell, of the Beaumont Society, which helps men who wish to or have changed gender told the newspaper that the unnamed father got in touch to enquire for help having a child after having undergone surgery.
Through the charity, the unnamed man had hormone treatment to reactivate his womb. The womb had not actually been removed during his original surgery. “He got back in touch about six months ago to thank the society for its help and to say he had the baby,” Ms Darrell said.
Thomas Beatie, a trans man who lives legally in his acquired gender in the United States, conceived and has given birth to three children since 2007. His wife Nancy is unable to conceive. The Oregon couple’s first daughter was born in June 2008 and a son followed a year later and a son in 2010.
Despite being legally defined as a man for over ten years and having had some gender reassignment surgery, Beatie kept his female reproductive organs. He is thought to have had natural births with his three children and his wife breastfed both.
Before starting a family, Beatie had been on hormone treatments, but stopped taking them in order to resume menstruating and conceive through artificial insemination. All children were conceived with the help of sperm donors.
Last month, Yuval Topper, became the first Israeli trans man to give birth. Mr Topper underwent gender confirmation surgery three years ago. He was travelling to Jerusalem, but stopped to give birth in Tel Aviv.
There is a cancer risk associated with retaining a uterus and ovaries after they are exposed to high levels of testosterone associated with gender reassignment which means many choose to have them removed. Christopher Inglefield, a surgeon specialising in gender reassignment surgery told the Sunday Times: “The obvious thing is to get them to store eggs before they have the surgery, so they can have babies later using a female surrogate.”
But not everyone is supportive of trans men having children. Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College told the newspaper: “The fact that the medical profession is facilitating and encouraging this is a serious problem. You are hardly going to end up with a baby that’s going to have a happy, productive and optimal childhood.”
Are you gay, lesbian or transgender, wishing to find a known sperm or egg donor? visit www.prideangel.com
Tuesday 14 February 2012
Anonymous sperm donor law in Canada goes to appeal court
VANCOUVER — The long-running battle over sperm donor anonymity is heading for the B.C. Court of Appeal on Tuesday. Lawyers for the B.C. government are expected to seek to overturn a ruling that last year struck down as unconstitutional the anonymous sperm-donor law. The appeal is scheduled to be heard over two days.
Olivia Pratten, who was born in B.C. and now lives in Toronto, has been trying unsuccessfully for 10 years to find out details about her biological father, who was an anonymous sperm donor.
The May ruling by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair suspended her decision for 15 months to give the B.C. legislature time to redraft the Adoption Act to bring it in compliance with the Charter of Rights.
But instead of passing new legislation, the government has opted to appeal the ruling. Pratten believes the government is just stalling for political reasons that are unclear to her.
“In my eyes, it’s a delay tactic,” she said of the government appeal. “They don’t want to deal with it, but that’s been the problem since whenever we’ve done this. It gets bounced around between provincial and federal governments and no one wants to deal with it.”
Pratten added that while it’s been frustrating, scholars and legal experts have told her that the case will likely wind up being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in any event.
The judge found that the law was unfair because it allowed adopted children to find out information about their biological parents, but prevented donor offspring such as Pratten from finding out anything about their parents.
“In my view, the evidence in this case provides strong support for the conclusion that the circumstances of adoptees and those of donor offspring with regard to the need to know and have connection with one’s roots, are closely comparable,” said the judge.
Article: 13th February 2012 www.montrealgazette.com
Olivia Pratten, who was born in B.C. and now lives in Toronto, has been trying unsuccessfully for 10 years to find out details about her biological father, who was an anonymous sperm donor.
The May ruling by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair suspended her decision for 15 months to give the B.C. legislature time to redraft the Adoption Act to bring it in compliance with the Charter of Rights.
But instead of passing new legislation, the government has opted to appeal the ruling. Pratten believes the government is just stalling for political reasons that are unclear to her.
“In my eyes, it’s a delay tactic,” she said of the government appeal. “They don’t want to deal with it, but that’s been the problem since whenever we’ve done this. It gets bounced around between provincial and federal governments and no one wants to deal with it.”
Pratten added that while it’s been frustrating, scholars and legal experts have told her that the case will likely wind up being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in any event.
The judge found that the law was unfair because it allowed adopted children to find out information about their biological parents, but prevented donor offspring such as Pratten from finding out anything about their parents.
“In my view, the evidence in this case provides strong support for the conclusion that the circumstances of adoptees and those of donor offspring with regard to the need to know and have connection with one’s roots, are closely comparable,” said the judge.
Article: 13th February 2012 www.montrealgazette.com
Sunday 12 February 2012
How to avoid a dispute when using a known sperm or egg donor
The courts are all talking about same sex parenting disputes. The Court of Appeal has this week been hearing from a donor applying for contact with his biological son against a lesbian couple who say they feel “bitterness and betrayal” (the case has not yet been decided but you can read the coverage in the Telegraph here). This follows the decision just a few weeks ago by High Court judge Mr Justice Hedley (in P&L (minors) 2011, available here in full) which dealt with a very long and bitter dispute about the role of gay donor dads to two children (aged 10 and 6) being raised by their lesbian mothers. The courts are feeling their way with what they call new models of alternative parenting, and trying to develop an approach for these types of cases, which are far from traditional family law disputes.
Having advised many same sex parents (both at the planning stages and those who end up in dispute) we see some wonderfully successful co-parenting arrangements. But where they go wrong, they go horribly wrong. What is interesting, though, is that parents always seem to fall into one camp or the other. I can honestly say that none of the clients we have advised at the planning stage has ever come back for legal representation later. Equally, not one of the clients we have represented in disputes took legal advice at the outset.
So here are our tips on how to make your co-parenting or known donation arrangement a successful one, and how to avoid ending up in court:
Talk, talk, talk (and more importantly listen, listen, listen)
Don’t rush into trying to conceive. Get to know each other, have honest conversations about the roles you will have and how much involvement you all want. Be as clear as you can about your expectations and be honest with each other and yourselves. If things don’t feel right, have the courage to walk away. There are always other options. You could find another donor or co-parent, or choose unknown donation (as mums) or surrogacy (as dads) if what you really want is parental autonomy.
Understand what roles you will all have
Justice Hedley was keen to “stress the importance of agreeing the future roles of the parties before the first child is born“. And this fits with our experience. Almost all the cases we have seen which have ended up in dispute are ultimately about status. Is the biological dad a father or a donor? Are you equal co-parents, or primary and secondary parents, or parents with another adult role model? Make sure you talk about how you see yourselves and each other, as well as the day to day practicalities of managing your child’s care.
Understand how the law works
The law on parentage is complicated, and who will be the legal parents (and what goes on the birth certificate) depends on the facts, including how you conceive and the birth mother’s marital status. There may be all sorts of different options, both for choosing who the legal parents are and for giving some parental status to the other co-parents if you want to, and problems can often arise where parents have expectations (for example about what goes on the birth certificate) which can’t be met. Take legal advice, or check out the free information on our website about this.
Put in place a written agreement
Donor agreements may not (strictly) be legally binding, but they are incredibly useful. I have always advised parents that putting something in writing helps with the planning, facilitates honest conversations and sets a framework which everyone will feel morally bound by, giving clarity and transparency and setting a really strong foundation.
However, it now seems they may be more legally binding than we previously thought. Although the issue is still untested (the parents in P&L did not have a written agreement, which I suppose comes back to my point that it is not the parents with properly prepared legal agreements who end up in court) the case suggests that the court will pay attention if there is one. Mr Justice Hedley said, in the strongest indication yet, that “the court will be bound to give careful consideration and weight to any such agreement“.
There is no standard format for a donor or co-parenting agreement, but having something which is accurate and personal to you (and prepared with a solid understanding of how the law applies in your particular circumstances) will be much more helpful than any standard pro forma.
If you need help with planning a co-parenting or known donation arrangement, or if you need representation in a dispute, feel free to contact us.
Having advised many same sex parents (both at the planning stages and those who end up in dispute) we see some wonderfully successful co-parenting arrangements. But where they go wrong, they go horribly wrong. What is interesting, though, is that parents always seem to fall into one camp or the other. I can honestly say that none of the clients we have advised at the planning stage has ever come back for legal representation later. Equally, not one of the clients we have represented in disputes took legal advice at the outset.
So here are our tips on how to make your co-parenting or known donation arrangement a successful one, and how to avoid ending up in court:
Talk, talk, talk (and more importantly listen, listen, listen)
Don’t rush into trying to conceive. Get to know each other, have honest conversations about the roles you will have and how much involvement you all want. Be as clear as you can about your expectations and be honest with each other and yourselves. If things don’t feel right, have the courage to walk away. There are always other options. You could find another donor or co-parent, or choose unknown donation (as mums) or surrogacy (as dads) if what you really want is parental autonomy.
Understand what roles you will all have
Justice Hedley was keen to “stress the importance of agreeing the future roles of the parties before the first child is born“. And this fits with our experience. Almost all the cases we have seen which have ended up in dispute are ultimately about status. Is the biological dad a father or a donor? Are you equal co-parents, or primary and secondary parents, or parents with another adult role model? Make sure you talk about how you see yourselves and each other, as well as the day to day practicalities of managing your child’s care.
Understand how the law works
The law on parentage is complicated, and who will be the legal parents (and what goes on the birth certificate) depends on the facts, including how you conceive and the birth mother’s marital status. There may be all sorts of different options, both for choosing who the legal parents are and for giving some parental status to the other co-parents if you want to, and problems can often arise where parents have expectations (for example about what goes on the birth certificate) which can’t be met. Take legal advice, or check out the free information on our website about this.
Put in place a written agreement
Donor agreements may not (strictly) be legally binding, but they are incredibly useful. I have always advised parents that putting something in writing helps with the planning, facilitates honest conversations and sets a framework which everyone will feel morally bound by, giving clarity and transparency and setting a really strong foundation.
However, it now seems they may be more legally binding than we previously thought. Although the issue is still untested (the parents in P&L did not have a written agreement, which I suppose comes back to my point that it is not the parents with properly prepared legal agreements who end up in court) the case suggests that the court will pay attention if there is one. Mr Justice Hedley said, in the strongest indication yet, that “the court will be bound to give careful consideration and weight to any such agreement“.
There is no standard format for a donor or co-parenting agreement, but having something which is accurate and personal to you (and prepared with a solid understanding of how the law applies in your particular circumstances) will be much more helpful than any standard pro forma.
If you need help with planning a co-parenting or known donation arrangement, or if you need representation in a dispute, feel free to contact us.
Friday 10 February 2012
Sir Elton John and David Furnish fear their son will face 'stigma' growing up
Sir Elton John and David Furnish talked about their first year of parenthood, the pair spoke of their pride and joy at becoming parents to Zachary, who was born via a surrogate in America on Christmas Day, 2010.
The couple, who met in the early 1990s, said they had enjoyed a “brilliant” year with their 13 month-old son, whose full name is Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John.
But they admitted he faced “challenges” and potential “double” stigma as he grew up and have consulted counsellors to find out the best way of dealing with any potential problems.
As a result they have created a scrapbook to give to him when he is older in order to explain his “creation” and birth from his unidentified surrogate mother.
“We're going to have challenges, of course we are,” Sir Elton said in a magazine interview. “But we talked about that before we had him.”
Mr Furnish, a Canadian-born film-maker, added: “I think he's going to have a lot of attention thrust upon him.
“He's going to be potentially doubly stigmatised, because one of his parents is extremely famous and because he comes from two dads.
“We've taken advice from counsellors. We've put a whole scrapbook together about his creation, the people who were involved in the process and how the intent was about love.”
Mr Furnish, a former advertising executive, added: “We're going to raise him to be proud of who he is.”
Sir Elton, 64, and Mr Furnish, 49, made the comments in an interview with the British Attitude magazine, Europe’s popular publication for gay men. The pair, who had a civil partnership in December 2005, reportedly spend the majority of their time at their mansion in Windsor, Berks. They tried to adopt an AIDS-infected orphan in Ukraine in 2009, but were thwarted by government regulations.
Sir Elton, who is due to perform at the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee concert in the summer, said the couple had experienced the “most incredible year” with their son as they introduced him to family and friends and took him on holidays.
“I can't tell you how brilliant this year has been and how much love he's brought us and how much we're getting,” Sir Elton said.
“We thought that the civil partnership brought us together, but having a child has been magnificent, and I never thought I would have a kid.
“I don't feel 65, which I will be next year. Now, having a kid there's so much more to do. There's so much more I want to see happen before I die.”
Their son’s middle name “Levon” is thought to be a reference to John’s 1971 song of the same name, whose lyrics were written by his long time collaborator Bernie Taupin and inspired by drummer and singer Levon Helm.
In the interview, reported in the Daily Mail, Sir Elton said he was proud of his sexuality and that he had no problems performing in front of people that found it hard to accept.
Despite being “the world's most acceptable” gay man, he insisted he would not be fearful of performing in countries such as Iran, which had known homophobic cultures. He added: “I'm like the Queen Mother of homosexuality, basically.”
Article: 10th February 2012 www.telegraph.co.uk
The couple, who met in the early 1990s, said they had enjoyed a “brilliant” year with their 13 month-old son, whose full name is Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John.
But they admitted he faced “challenges” and potential “double” stigma as he grew up and have consulted counsellors to find out the best way of dealing with any potential problems.
As a result they have created a scrapbook to give to him when he is older in order to explain his “creation” and birth from his unidentified surrogate mother.
“We're going to have challenges, of course we are,” Sir Elton said in a magazine interview. “But we talked about that before we had him.”
Mr Furnish, a Canadian-born film-maker, added: “I think he's going to have a lot of attention thrust upon him.
“He's going to be potentially doubly stigmatised, because one of his parents is extremely famous and because he comes from two dads.
“We've taken advice from counsellors. We've put a whole scrapbook together about his creation, the people who were involved in the process and how the intent was about love.”
Mr Furnish, a former advertising executive, added: “We're going to raise him to be proud of who he is.”
Sir Elton, 64, and Mr Furnish, 49, made the comments in an interview with the British Attitude magazine, Europe’s popular publication for gay men. The pair, who had a civil partnership in December 2005, reportedly spend the majority of their time at their mansion in Windsor, Berks. They tried to adopt an AIDS-infected orphan in Ukraine in 2009, but were thwarted by government regulations.
Sir Elton, who is due to perform at the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee concert in the summer, said the couple had experienced the “most incredible year” with their son as they introduced him to family and friends and took him on holidays.
“I can't tell you how brilliant this year has been and how much love he's brought us and how much we're getting,” Sir Elton said.
“We thought that the civil partnership brought us together, but having a child has been magnificent, and I never thought I would have a kid.
“I don't feel 65, which I will be next year. Now, having a kid there's so much more to do. There's so much more I want to see happen before I die.”
Their son’s middle name “Levon” is thought to be a reference to John’s 1971 song of the same name, whose lyrics were written by his long time collaborator Bernie Taupin and inspired by drummer and singer Levon Helm.
In the interview, reported in the Daily Mail, Sir Elton said he was proud of his sexuality and that he had no problems performing in front of people that found it hard to accept.
Despite being “the world's most acceptable” gay man, he insisted he would not be fearful of performing in countries such as Iran, which had known homophobic cultures. He added: “I'm like the Queen Mother of homosexuality, basically.”
Article: 10th February 2012 www.telegraph.co.uk
Thursday 9 February 2012
Gay sperm donor in custody battle with lesbian couple
A gay man who donated his sperm to enable his lesbian ex-wife to become pregnant is demanding overnight and holiday access to their two-year-old son. The woman and her female partner have instructed their lawyers to fight the man's demands on the basis he has 'betrayed' a 'pact' the threesome made before the baby was conceived, in which they allegedly agreed he would have 'limited' parental rights. The parents are not being named in order to protect the little boy's identity, but are reportedly all highly-paid professionals living in central London.
The father is said to have attended the baby's birth and currently has five hours of contact a fortnight with him. He claims he was always more than just a sperm donor, and now wants the right to have a full parenting role in his son's life. The Appeal Court heard that the man had been 'utterly consistent' in his desire to parent the little boy, and gained 'pleasure and joy' from interacting with his son.
The child's mum, however, says they had a 'clearly agreed' pact with the man before the baby was even conceived, which stated she and her female partner would be the 'primary parents' within a 'two-parent, nuclear family'. The court heard that the man was previously in a marriage of convenience with the woman which ended in divorce.
The Appeal Court judges are now being asked to rule whether the toddler would the better off with 'three parents and two homes'. The lawyer for the mum and her partner said the couple had been left with 'bitterness and betrayal' and would have used an anonymous sperm donor if they had known the dad would take this stance.
Charles Howard QC, told the court: "Notwithstanding their sexuality and that they acknowledge to that extent that they are an alternative family, the mother and her partner hold very traditional views of family life and would not have chosen to bring a child into anything other than an intact, two-parent, family.
"The ideal upbringing for a child is a stable home in which the parents love each other and had together chosen to bring a child into the world. This is the upbringing which the mother and her partner always wanted to create for this little boy. They were always of the view that their son's best interests militated against him spending very much time away from them or from his home.
"The intention was always that the father, who was at one time their close friend, would generally see the boy in their company by sharing in activities and family events. The breakdown of the friendship has had the result that the boy is spending far more time away from his primary parents than they had anticipated."
"To this couple, the concept of 'three parents, two homes' repeated so often by the father, is very alien and has never been something they could consider. This is something which they have had to accept but it represents a significant departure from their initial plans for their son's upbringing. They cannot conceive of their child being shuttled, physically but more significantly emotionally, between two homes and it is something that they believe will harm their son and cause significant emotional damage."
The dad's lawyer said his client had no desire to undermine the role of the mum and her partner as the child's primary carers, but wants sufficient contact with the toddler to enable a 'developing relationship' with his only son. What a messy situation!
This article shows the importance of setting out clear intentitions between recipients and donors prior to conception and that legal sperm donor agreements must be put in place to help with any possible future disputes. Read more about sperm donor legal rights.
www.prideangel.com
The father is said to have attended the baby's birth and currently has five hours of contact a fortnight with him. He claims he was always more than just a sperm donor, and now wants the right to have a full parenting role in his son's life. The Appeal Court heard that the man had been 'utterly consistent' in his desire to parent the little boy, and gained 'pleasure and joy' from interacting with his son.
The child's mum, however, says they had a 'clearly agreed' pact with the man before the baby was even conceived, which stated she and her female partner would be the 'primary parents' within a 'two-parent, nuclear family'. The court heard that the man was previously in a marriage of convenience with the woman which ended in divorce.
The Appeal Court judges are now being asked to rule whether the toddler would the better off with 'three parents and two homes'. The lawyer for the mum and her partner said the couple had been left with 'bitterness and betrayal' and would have used an anonymous sperm donor if they had known the dad would take this stance.
Charles Howard QC, told the court: "Notwithstanding their sexuality and that they acknowledge to that extent that they are an alternative family, the mother and her partner hold very traditional views of family life and would not have chosen to bring a child into anything other than an intact, two-parent, family.
"The ideal upbringing for a child is a stable home in which the parents love each other and had together chosen to bring a child into the world. This is the upbringing which the mother and her partner always wanted to create for this little boy. They were always of the view that their son's best interests militated against him spending very much time away from them or from his home.
"The intention was always that the father, who was at one time their close friend, would generally see the boy in their company by sharing in activities and family events. The breakdown of the friendship has had the result that the boy is spending far more time away from his primary parents than they had anticipated."
"To this couple, the concept of 'three parents, two homes' repeated so often by the father, is very alien and has never been something they could consider. This is something which they have had to accept but it represents a significant departure from their initial plans for their son's upbringing. They cannot conceive of their child being shuttled, physically but more significantly emotionally, between two homes and it is something that they believe will harm their son and cause significant emotional damage."
The dad's lawyer said his client had no desire to undermine the role of the mum and her partner as the child's primary carers, but wants sufficient contact with the toddler to enable a 'developing relationship' with his only son. What a messy situation!
This article shows the importance of setting out clear intentitions between recipients and donors prior to conception and that legal sperm donor agreements must be put in place to help with any possible future disputes. Read more about sperm donor legal rights.
www.prideangel.com
Tuesday 7 February 2012
Pregnant women with diabetes have higher risk of babies with birth defects
Pregnant women with diabetes are almost four times more likely to have a baby with a birth defect than women without the condition, warn researchers. Their findings suggest that higher blood sugar levels in the mother raise the risk. Around one in 13 babies born to a woman with type 1 or type 2 diabetes is affected by a major birth defect, such as heart disease and spina bifida. This compares with a risk of one in 50 for women without diabetes.
Doctors at the charity Diabetes UK, which funded the study, are urging women with diabetes who want to start a family to take advice about getting good glucose control first to minimise the risk. But they stressed that the vast majority of pregnancies in women with diabetes did not involve a birth defect.
The study, led by researchers at Newcastle University and the Regional Maternity Survey Office, looked at the outcomes of 401,149 pregnancies, including 1,677 pregnancies in women with diabetes, between 1996 and 2008 in the North of England. Researcher Ruth Bell told the journal Diabetologia: ‘The good news is that, with expert help before and during pregnancy, most women with diabetes will have a healthy baby.
'The risk of problems can be reduced by taking extra care to have the best possible glucose control before becoming pregnant.’ The study examined 401,149 pregnancies born between 1996 and 2008 'Any reduction in high glucose levels is likely to improve the chances of a healthy baby. ‘All young women with diabetes need to know about preparing for pregnancy, and should contact their doctor or diabetes team as soon as possible if they are thinking about pregnancy or become pregnant.’
Previous research shows having diabetes increases the chance of birth defects, but this is one of the first studies to quantify the effect of glucose levels on risk. Higher blood sugar levels can be reduced using lifestyle and diet, or changes to medication during pregnancy. Dr Iain Frame, Director of Research for Diabetes UK, said ‘The real message from this study is that the blood glucose level of the mother is important to the risk.
‘This study offers clear evidence that although women with diabetes might still have a higher risk of a birth defect, they can still do something positive to reduce that risk by carefully monitoring their blood glucose level and trying to reduce it if it is high. ‘We need to get the message out to women with diabetes that if they are considering becoming pregnant, then they should tell their diabetes healthcare team, who will make sure they are aware of planning and what next steps they should be taking.
‘Blood glucose control continues to be important throughout pregnancy and should be closely monitored to ensure the best result for the baby and this is why women should be as prepared as possible beforehand.’ He said women with diabetes who were sexually active but not planning a baby should use contraception. ‘This is because as well as high blood glucose levels increasing risk of birth defect, some medications taken by people with Type 2 diabetes can cause problems in the developing foetus and higher doses of folic acid are needed for women with diabetes to reduce the risk of complications such as spina bifida’ he added..
Birth defects include congenital heart disease and defects of the nervous system such as spina bifida. Many can be treated but some result in stillbirth or pregnancy loss or ongoing health problems. The study did not look at women who developed diabetes - gestational diabetes - during pregnancy.
Article: 6th February 2012 www.dailymail.co.uk
Doctors at the charity Diabetes UK, which funded the study, are urging women with diabetes who want to start a family to take advice about getting good glucose control first to minimise the risk. But they stressed that the vast majority of pregnancies in women with diabetes did not involve a birth defect.
The study, led by researchers at Newcastle University and the Regional Maternity Survey Office, looked at the outcomes of 401,149 pregnancies, including 1,677 pregnancies in women with diabetes, between 1996 and 2008 in the North of England. Researcher Ruth Bell told the journal Diabetologia: ‘The good news is that, with expert help before and during pregnancy, most women with diabetes will have a healthy baby.
'The risk of problems can be reduced by taking extra care to have the best possible glucose control before becoming pregnant.’ The study examined 401,149 pregnancies born between 1996 and 2008 'Any reduction in high glucose levels is likely to improve the chances of a healthy baby. ‘All young women with diabetes need to know about preparing for pregnancy, and should contact their doctor or diabetes team as soon as possible if they are thinking about pregnancy or become pregnant.’
Previous research shows having diabetes increases the chance of birth defects, but this is one of the first studies to quantify the effect of glucose levels on risk. Higher blood sugar levels can be reduced using lifestyle and diet, or changes to medication during pregnancy. Dr Iain Frame, Director of Research for Diabetes UK, said ‘The real message from this study is that the blood glucose level of the mother is important to the risk.
‘This study offers clear evidence that although women with diabetes might still have a higher risk of a birth defect, they can still do something positive to reduce that risk by carefully monitoring their blood glucose level and trying to reduce it if it is high. ‘We need to get the message out to women with diabetes that if they are considering becoming pregnant, then they should tell their diabetes healthcare team, who will make sure they are aware of planning and what next steps they should be taking.
‘Blood glucose control continues to be important throughout pregnancy and should be closely monitored to ensure the best result for the baby and this is why women should be as prepared as possible beforehand.’ He said women with diabetes who were sexually active but not planning a baby should use contraception. ‘This is because as well as high blood glucose levels increasing risk of birth defect, some medications taken by people with Type 2 diabetes can cause problems in the developing foetus and higher doses of folic acid are needed for women with diabetes to reduce the risk of complications such as spina bifida’ he added..
Birth defects include congenital heart disease and defects of the nervous system such as spina bifida. Many can be treated but some result in stillbirth or pregnancy loss or ongoing health problems. The study did not look at women who developed diabetes - gestational diabetes - during pregnancy.
Article: 6th February 2012 www.dailymail.co.uk
Sunday 5 February 2012
Fertility Road Magazine is now available Online for FREE
We are excited to announce that Europe’s No.1 Fertility Magazine ‘Fertility Road’ is now free to read online within the comfort of your own home. The magazine aims at helping men and women whether you are single, lesbian, gay or infertile on your path to parenthood.
There is some really useful information from healthy eating habits to lifestyle choices and answers to your questions, all written by leading doctors and fertility experts.
Fertility Road’s goal is to make your journey easier by offering the latest dos and don’ts on conception, providing valuable information on the best chances of getting pregnant and even getaways to help you and your partner relax, chill out, de-stress.
Bestselling Author of "You & Your Bump" & "Baby Making Bible" Emma Cannon is their “Expert Witness” answering your fertility questions and she even provides some delicious "cooking to conceive" recipes from time to time.
Speaking with the founders of Fertility Road they said ‘We have had awesome interviews with some of the World's Top Celebrities about their own infertility struggles. We present the lowdown on not only the latest treatments and drugs to help people conceive, but we also offer natural conception options as well.’
Other features within Fertility Road include News, Reviews, Finance, Fitness, Alternative Options, "Celebrity's In The Fertility Spotlight", as well as a cutting edge Science Section. Their "Letter From The Heart" section is always good for a tear or two and often big smiles as people share their personal and emotional stories.
Read Fertility Road here now for FREE
Gay? lesbian? wishing to start a family? visit www.prideangel.com
There is some really useful information from healthy eating habits to lifestyle choices and answers to your questions, all written by leading doctors and fertility experts.
Fertility Road’s goal is to make your journey easier by offering the latest dos and don’ts on conception, providing valuable information on the best chances of getting pregnant and even getaways to help you and your partner relax, chill out, de-stress.
Bestselling Author of "You & Your Bump" & "Baby Making Bible" Emma Cannon is their “Expert Witness” answering your fertility questions and she even provides some delicious "cooking to conceive" recipes from time to time.
Speaking with the founders of Fertility Road they said ‘We have had awesome interviews with some of the World's Top Celebrities about their own infertility struggles. We present the lowdown on not only the latest treatments and drugs to help people conceive, but we also offer natural conception options as well.’
Other features within Fertility Road include News, Reviews, Finance, Fitness, Alternative Options, "Celebrity's In The Fertility Spotlight", as well as a cutting edge Science Section. Their "Letter From The Heart" section is always good for a tear or two and often big smiles as people share their personal and emotional stories.
Read Fertility Road here now for FREE
Gay? lesbian? wishing to start a family? visit www.prideangel.com
Friday 3 February 2012
Can't get pregnant? 'Try again' says Australian study
In a new study from Australia almost half of women who said they'd been struggling to get pregnant for at least a year ended up having a baby despite not getting fertility treatment.
That success rate was only slightly lower than in women who also reported trouble conceiving and opted for treatment with fertility hormones or in vitro fertilization (IVF).
"Many women aged up to 36 years with a history of infertility can achieve spontaneous conception and live birth without using fertility treatment indicating (they) are sub-fertile rather than infertile," says study researcher Danielle Herbert of the University of Queensland School of Population Health in Brisbane.
That means that if nothing is clearly wrong -- men make enough sperm, and women are ovulating regularly -- couples who have had trouble conceiving should still be optimistic they can get pregnant on their own, researchers said.
"I'm not surprised that women who were not treated still get pregnant -- we know that," said Dr. Courtney Lynch, head of reproductive epidemiology at The Ohio State University in Columbus, who wasn't involved in the new research.
"We know we can get women pregnant quicker if we have them go into IVF, but if we give women time, (many of them) can still get pregnant," she said.
The research is part of a long-term study of more than 7,000 women living in Australia. Starting in 1996, participants filled out health surveys every few years, which included questions on pregnancy and childbirth.
The current data is from about 1,400 women age 28 to 36 who reported on the most recent questionnaires that they'd tried unsuccessfully to get pregnant for at least a year at a time.
Close to 600 of those women said they'd received infertility treatment using IVF or fertility hormones, including Clomid.
Through the latest survey in 2009, 53 percent of those women said they had a baby following fertility treatment, compared to 44 percent of women who'd had trouble conceiving but didn't seek treatment, the researchers reported in the journal Fertility and Sterility.
For women who did have a baby, there was no difference in pregnancy complications -- including stillbirths or premature births -- between those who did and didn't get fertility treatment.
AFTER A YEAR, GET CHECKED OUT
Herbert and her colleagues pointed out some limitations of the report, including that they didn't know if women changed male partners at any point during the study period, which could have affected their chances of becoming pregnant.
And one fertility researcher not involved in the new study said it's impossible to know whether women who didn't get treatment lost or gained weight, or changed their diet and lifestyle to improve their chances of becoming pregnant.
Alice Domar, of Boston IVF, said that the number of women who got pregnant without treatment after a year of infertility is higher than previous studies have suggested.
"What a lot of physicians feel is if you're not pregnant within a year, it usually means there's something going on," Domar said.
Domar said that she'd still recommend a woman who's been trying to get pregnant for that long get checked out to see if there's anything preventing her from conceiving. If not, she can keep trying. But if, for example, her tubes are blocked, any extra waiting is "time out the window," she said. Lynch said that about 15 percent of women won't get pregnant after a year of trying, but only three to five percent of them are truly infertile. The rest will likely conceive on their own after another year or two.
"There are a lot of patients that don't want to wait another year, especially if you're an older patient," Lynch said -- and they might want fertility treatment, even if pregnancy without it may be possible.
"But if you're 28, I think waiting another year makes sense potentially before going on a treatment."
According to Domar, most women who can't get pregnant will only need treatment with fertility hormones, which cost about a dollar a day, to get ovulation back to normal. IVF, on the other hand, runs for about $15,000 a cycle, and may or may not be covered by insurance.
'WOMEN SHOULD STILL BE HOPEFUL'
The findings can be seen as encouraging for some women, Domar said. "It means if you've been trying for a year and you're young and you have unexplained infertility, according to this data you have a decent chance of spontaneously conceiving," Domar said.
Dr. Sacha Krieg, an ob-gyn who studies recurrent pregnancy loss at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, agreed.
"Women should still be hopeful that they're going to get pregnant, even if they've been trying for an entire year," she said.
Still, Krieg said, "I wouldn't want this to (dissuade) women from seeing a fertility specialist and being evaluated."
Article: Fertility and Sterility, online January 23, 2012.
That success rate was only slightly lower than in women who also reported trouble conceiving and opted for treatment with fertility hormones or in vitro fertilization (IVF).
"Many women aged up to 36 years with a history of infertility can achieve spontaneous conception and live birth without using fertility treatment indicating (they) are sub-fertile rather than infertile," says study researcher Danielle Herbert of the University of Queensland School of Population Health in Brisbane.
That means that if nothing is clearly wrong -- men make enough sperm, and women are ovulating regularly -- couples who have had trouble conceiving should still be optimistic they can get pregnant on their own, researchers said.
"I'm not surprised that women who were not treated still get pregnant -- we know that," said Dr. Courtney Lynch, head of reproductive epidemiology at The Ohio State University in Columbus, who wasn't involved in the new research.
"We know we can get women pregnant quicker if we have them go into IVF, but if we give women time, (many of them) can still get pregnant," she said.
The research is part of a long-term study of more than 7,000 women living in Australia. Starting in 1996, participants filled out health surveys every few years, which included questions on pregnancy and childbirth.
The current data is from about 1,400 women age 28 to 36 who reported on the most recent questionnaires that they'd tried unsuccessfully to get pregnant for at least a year at a time.
Close to 600 of those women said they'd received infertility treatment using IVF or fertility hormones, including Clomid.
Through the latest survey in 2009, 53 percent of those women said they had a baby following fertility treatment, compared to 44 percent of women who'd had trouble conceiving but didn't seek treatment, the researchers reported in the journal Fertility and Sterility.
For women who did have a baby, there was no difference in pregnancy complications -- including stillbirths or premature births -- between those who did and didn't get fertility treatment.
AFTER A YEAR, GET CHECKED OUT
Herbert and her colleagues pointed out some limitations of the report, including that they didn't know if women changed male partners at any point during the study period, which could have affected their chances of becoming pregnant.
And one fertility researcher not involved in the new study said it's impossible to know whether women who didn't get treatment lost or gained weight, or changed their diet and lifestyle to improve their chances of becoming pregnant.
Alice Domar, of Boston IVF, said that the number of women who got pregnant without treatment after a year of infertility is higher than previous studies have suggested.
"What a lot of physicians feel is if you're not pregnant within a year, it usually means there's something going on," Domar said.
Domar said that she'd still recommend a woman who's been trying to get pregnant for that long get checked out to see if there's anything preventing her from conceiving. If not, she can keep trying. But if, for example, her tubes are blocked, any extra waiting is "time out the window," she said. Lynch said that about 15 percent of women won't get pregnant after a year of trying, but only three to five percent of them are truly infertile. The rest will likely conceive on their own after another year or two.
"There are a lot of patients that don't want to wait another year, especially if you're an older patient," Lynch said -- and they might want fertility treatment, even if pregnancy without it may be possible.
"But if you're 28, I think waiting another year makes sense potentially before going on a treatment."
According to Domar, most women who can't get pregnant will only need treatment with fertility hormones, which cost about a dollar a day, to get ovulation back to normal. IVF, on the other hand, runs for about $15,000 a cycle, and may or may not be covered by insurance.
'WOMEN SHOULD STILL BE HOPEFUL'
The findings can be seen as encouraging for some women, Domar said. "It means if you've been trying for a year and you're young and you have unexplained infertility, according to this data you have a decent chance of spontaneously conceiving," Domar said.
Dr. Sacha Krieg, an ob-gyn who studies recurrent pregnancy loss at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, agreed.
"Women should still be hopeful that they're going to get pregnant, even if they've been trying for an entire year," she said.
Still, Krieg said, "I wouldn't want this to (dissuade) women from seeing a fertility specialist and being evaluated."
Article: Fertility and Sterility, online January 23, 2012.
Wednesday 1 February 2012
Vitamin D may help infertile couples conceive study shows
Vitamin D may help couples conceive a study has found. Couples trying for a baby should take a sunshine holiday as sunlight boosts fertility in both men and women by increasing their levels of vitamin D. Known as the sunshine vitamin, vitamin D is also key to balancing sex hormones in women and improving sperm count in men, according to researchers.
For women, vitamin D helps boost levels of the female sex hormones progesterone and oestrogen by 13 per cent and 21 per cent respectively, regulating menstrual cycles and making conception more likely. Fathers-to-be increase their fertility by going into the sun, too – because vitamin D is essential for the healthy development of each sperm’s nucleus.
It also increases levels of the male sex hormone testosterone, improving a man’s libido, according to the review of several studies, published this week in the European Journal of Endocrinology. The vitamin’s effect on both male and female sex hormones may explain why conception rates fall in the winter and peak in the summer in Northern European countries, say the researchers at the Medical University of Graz in Austria.
In their own study of nearly 2,300 men, they also found that levels of testosterone and vitamin D peaked in August and were lowest in March, just after the winter. Women have been found to ovulate less – and their eggs have a reduced chance of implanting in the womb – in the winter months. The link between sunshine and fertility has also been found in animal studies, the review states. Female rodents kept in total darkness have been found to be less fertile and have more pregnancy complications. In male rats raised with no sunlight, the number of successful matings drops by 73 per cent.
Fertility problems affect one in seven couples in the UK. In four out of ten cases, the difficulty lies with the male partner. Although vitamin D can be obtained in small quantities by eating oily fish, eggs and liver, about 80 per cent of the amount the body needs is obtained via a chemical process that happens when the UVB rays in sunlight are absorbed by the skin.
So how is the best way of getting your optimum levels of Vitamin D? The first option should always be through nature, which as everyone knows is through the sun. However, we live in the UK where we do not get adequate sun light to obtain vitamin D. Even in the summer, most people seek to get their sun at the wrong time of day.
The 2 types of sun rays we are concerned about are UVA and UVB. UVA rays are the ones that are more likely to cause skin problems. UVB rays are strongest when the sun is highest in the sky, which is what we are looking for in order for our skin to produce vitamin D.
Never getting sunburn is the idea, as you should build up your tan and resistance gradually to fulfil your body’s vitamin D potential.
Clare and Donovan Blake from the Natural Fertility Program & Retreat, based in Essex say 'It is pretty hard to get adequate vitamin D levels living in the UK, and food sources do not provide high enough levels, therefore supplementation is required. As always, practitioner supplements are recommended to ensure good quality. You should always take Vitamin D with fat.'
Read more about fertility and Vitamin D or visit www.naturalfertilityprogram.co.uk for more ways to boost your fertility naturally
For women, vitamin D helps boost levels of the female sex hormones progesterone and oestrogen by 13 per cent and 21 per cent respectively, regulating menstrual cycles and making conception more likely. Fathers-to-be increase their fertility by going into the sun, too – because vitamin D is essential for the healthy development of each sperm’s nucleus.
It also increases levels of the male sex hormone testosterone, improving a man’s libido, according to the review of several studies, published this week in the European Journal of Endocrinology. The vitamin’s effect on both male and female sex hormones may explain why conception rates fall in the winter and peak in the summer in Northern European countries, say the researchers at the Medical University of Graz in Austria.
In their own study of nearly 2,300 men, they also found that levels of testosterone and vitamin D peaked in August and were lowest in March, just after the winter. Women have been found to ovulate less – and their eggs have a reduced chance of implanting in the womb – in the winter months. The link between sunshine and fertility has also been found in animal studies, the review states. Female rodents kept in total darkness have been found to be less fertile and have more pregnancy complications. In male rats raised with no sunlight, the number of successful matings drops by 73 per cent.
Fertility problems affect one in seven couples in the UK. In four out of ten cases, the difficulty lies with the male partner. Although vitamin D can be obtained in small quantities by eating oily fish, eggs and liver, about 80 per cent of the amount the body needs is obtained via a chemical process that happens when the UVB rays in sunlight are absorbed by the skin.
So how is the best way of getting your optimum levels of Vitamin D? The first option should always be through nature, which as everyone knows is through the sun. However, we live in the UK where we do not get adequate sun light to obtain vitamin D. Even in the summer, most people seek to get their sun at the wrong time of day.
The 2 types of sun rays we are concerned about are UVA and UVB. UVA rays are the ones that are more likely to cause skin problems. UVB rays are strongest when the sun is highest in the sky, which is what we are looking for in order for our skin to produce vitamin D.
Never getting sunburn is the idea, as you should build up your tan and resistance gradually to fulfil your body’s vitamin D potential.
Clare and Donovan Blake from the Natural Fertility Program & Retreat, based in Essex say 'It is pretty hard to get adequate vitamin D levels living in the UK, and food sources do not provide high enough levels, therefore supplementation is required. As always, practitioner supplements are recommended to ensure good quality. You should always take Vitamin D with fat.'
Read more about fertility and Vitamin D or visit www.naturalfertilityprogram.co.uk for more ways to boost your fertility naturally
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
