Building Families - Surrogacy and gamete donation show London 2013

Building Families brings together the world’s leading IVF & Surrogacy specialists and showcases the most diverse range of innovative methods and technologies to make surrogacy and egg/sperm donation work for you. Each year, Building Families will be holding two shows that will consist of seminars presented by industry professionals and exhibition/meeting spaces that will bring the world’s leading Surrogacy and gamete donation professionals together under one roof. Each year the venues will change, but each year the shows will be held at one European capital City and the other in a major US state. The show will take place at The Hilton, London Metropole Hotel in April 2013. Building Families is a unique bi-annual event dedicated to Practitioners, Specialists, Agency owners and students in the field of IVF and Surrogacy. The aim of the show is to bring these professionals together with not only their peers, but the general public who might be looking to start a family or grow their family with the help of surrogacy or gamete donation. "With 1 in 6 couples seeking help in trying for a child, infertility has become an epidemic of our generation" Building Families presents a perfect opportunity for all participants to boost and update their knowledge in the world of Surrogacy and Gamete Donation and to meet new contacts. Additionally, the seminar program provides an ideal setting for specialists and practitioners in this field to strengthen existing collaborations and develop new ones with their counterparts from all over the world. But also gives the general public or those wanting to know the process of surrogacy and gamete donation, the insight into your world! In addition to the excellent educational opportunities, a specialised exhibition held in conjunction with the seminars, provides an avenue for business entities in the industry to showcase and promote the most up-to-date skills and practices. "This Show is Certainly one not to miss" N Kelly - Vice President British Surrogacy Centre. Avertorial: 31st May 2012 www.buildingfamilies.co.uk

Gaydar radio talks about gay and lesbian parenting options

Gaydar Radio interviewed Sarah Wood-Health from Natalie Gamble Associates on Saturday morning about same sex parenting and the options and pitfalls for gay and lesbian parents starting a family. Talking to Neil and Debbie on the Saturday morning breakfast show (as Britain’s answer to Ally McBeal!), Sarah explained how surrogacy works for gay fathers, and the differences between a surrogacy arrangement in the UK or abroad. Careful planning is the best way of avoiding legal problems, especially for gay dads planning international surrogacy, given the immigration issues and the fact that UK law won’t recognise a foreign birth certificate naming you both as the parents. Sarah was also asked about the options for lesbian couples, discussing the pros and cons of using a known or unknown sperm donor, and the need to set things up in the right way. Although the law has become much more gay-friendly in the last few years, so much is still so untested, including what happens where relationships break down and who has rights and parental status when gay or lesbian parents break up or get divorced. The good news is that there are so many options available now for same sex couples and single gay and lesbian parents – adoption and co-parenting are also on the list. While the law still has a little way to go, it is evolving to try and keep up and it is now much easier for same sex couples or singles to find a way to start a family. It’s just a question of knowing your options and making an informed decision so you make the right choice for you. With good advice it needn’t be complicated. Article: 28th May 2012 by Natalie Gamble Associates

Gay penguin couple given adopted egg to complete their family

Gay male Gentoo penguins Inca and Rayas have lovingly built a nest together every year for six years, only to find that no eggs arrive to fill it. It doesn't seem to have dawned on the couple that both of them are male. But after the repeated heartbreak of watching other penguins become parents and raise their young, the "gay" couple finally have something to celebrate after their keepers gave them an egg of their own to care for. Rather than questioning how the improbable scenario arose, the inseparable pair has seized their one chance at fatherhood with the zeal of a couple who know they may not get another. Inca has taken on the "female" role of incubating the donated egg, obtained by keepers a month ago, and stoically remains atop his prize for most of the day, refusing the temptation to dip his feathers into the water. His partner Rayas, meanwhile, keeps a watchful guard over the nest while eating whatever he can fit in his beak in preparation for the traditional male job of feeding his young with regurgitated fish. His keepers report that Rayas has become more anxious due to nervous anticipation of his due date in June, but that the job seems to have made him into a "new penguin", according to The Times. Yolanda Martin, who cares for the pair, said: "We wanted them to have something to stay together for – so we got an egg. Otherwise they might have become depressed." The couple drew attention after forming an inseparable bond from the day they met at Faunia Park in Madrid, but the new development has made them a media sensation, topping news bulletins and bringing a welcome ray of sunshine to Spain after weeks of miserable headlines about the country's economic turmoil. Ms Martin said it was "lovely" to be able to cheer people up but emphasised that the penguins are not actually gay – they are just the best of friends. The penguins' bundle of joy arrived a year after staff at a zoo in China gave a penguin couple named Adam and Steve a chick to look after last year. But other "gay" relationships have not ended so happily: Buddy and Pedro, an all-male pairing at Toronto Zoo were put in separate enclosures by keepers who felt they were not making a sufficient contribution to the gene pool. Article: 22nd May 2012 www.telegraph.co.uk

Times magazine to do a new feature on fatherhood, can you help?

The Times Magazine is planning a big feature on the new faces of fatherhood and really wants to get in touch with men who have been known donors - possibly for friends or for a couple/person they have met online - or who are co-parenting in some way. The idea is to celebrate alternative ideas of fatherhood and what constitutes a modern family, and to explore how individuals make it work for them. We are looking for six men who have been known donors, perhaps with varying degrees of contact with the child (from none to sporadic, right up to daily) who are happy to be interviewed (phone is fine if preferred) and to attend a photoshoot at a date convenient for them (travel expenses paid if applicable; children won't be photographed). We'd be guided by them about what they are most happy to talk about, but topics covered might include: why they decided to be a known donor, how long had they known the couple/person, did they have a written agreement, what are the positives for them - are they what they expected, what kind of relationship do they have with the child and with the mother/parents, has the experience changed them, what advice would they have for others planning something similar. It's a great opportunity to inform a wide readership of the positives of alternative families, and we're really hoping people out there will agree and contact us. Many thanks for your time and best wishes to all. If you think you can help, then please contact us at Pride Angel and we will give you more information.

Gay couples and women over 40 now to get free IVF on the NHS

IVF treatment is now to be given free on the NHS to gay couples and women over 40, for the first time under new Government guidelines. Gay couples will be given the same rights as heterosexual couples under guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The NHS will also extend the upper age limit for IVF by three years to 42, following advice that suggests many women in their late 30s and early 40s could conceive after treatment. The move will see thousands of women a year given the chance to become mothers without having to pay up to £8,000 to private clinics. Fertility experts also questioned whether health authorities could afford to widen eligibility criteria, when only a quarter currently fund three cycles of IVF for infertile couples, as recommended by Nice. Gedis Grudzinskas, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Barts and the Royal London Hospital, said that while the new guidance reflects "social changes" there were questions over whether NHS trusts could afford it. "How do we reconcile the changes in society and equality of access to healthcare, with the economic predicament?" he said. The new guidelines call on health authorities in England and Wales to fund fertility treatment known as intra-uterine insemination (IUI), using donor sperm, for people in same-sex relationships. If they fail to conceive after six cycles of IUI, they should be considered for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), which is much more costly and involved. The move follows a relaxation in the law, made under Labour in 2008, to put same-sex parenting on an equal legal footing. The recommendation follows implementation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. It abolished requirement for fertility clinics to take into account a child’s need for a father or a male role model before agreeing to treatment. Gay couples or single women now need only show they can provide "supportive parenting". Demand from gay couples paying privately for fertility services has subsequently boomed, say clinics. Official figures show the number of lesbian couples undergoing IVF rose from 178 in 2007 to 417 in 2010. One cycle of IVF can cost up to £8,000 privately. Because success rates are low - typically 20 per cent for a 38-year-old - couples can spend tens of thousands on treatment. Gay rights campaigners welcomed the proposal, saying many same-sex couples receive "outright discrimination" from health authorities, but others said it amounted to a Government-backed attempt to "rewrite biology" Josephine Quintavalle, founder of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, described the same-sex move as "absurd". She said: "We are not prepared to accept what constitutes fertility from a biological perspective. "Fertility treatment is very important but in this case what we are trying to do is rewrite biology." Under the Nice guidelines, women aged 40 to 42 deemed to have no chance of conceiving naturally should be offered one full IVF cycle. In this age group one in eight will give birth after one cycle. Adam Balen, professor of reproductive medicine at Leeds Teaching Hospitals, and a senior member of the British Fertility Society, said it would increase demand for NHS-funded fertility services, although not by much in the short term. He said same-sex couples were "still a relatively small proportion of patients in clinics such as mine". Ruth Hunt, director of public affairs at Stonewall, the gay rights charity, welcomed the consultation as "explicit acknowledgements of the issues same-sex couples face". Sir Andrew Dillon, chief executive of Nice, told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme he believed it was important for the NHS to do the “right thing” in supporting older women who need IVF to conceive. He said: “It’s really important we know what the right thing to do it. The NHS needs a national point of reference when it's making decisions, especially regarding treatments which we know that in some areas is not treated as a priority. “The focus of the guidelines has been to encourage the NHS to do more. Providing more information and extending the range of circumstances where it is appropriate for the NHS to help will continue that trend. “The NHS has made a commitment to support people having difficulties conceiving. It’s important we know what the right thing is to do.” He told the programme he agreed it was right for people who want to undergo IVF to have access to it through the NHS, and that lifestyle choices should only be taken into account if they had a proven impact on the success of treatment. “I believe it’s right for the NHS to provide these services when the cause is medical and it’s clearly possible for us to do something and it could be effective,” he said. “I think lifestyle is only appropriate in circumstances where that has material impact on the likelihood of success. We should start with what’s right.” The programme also heard from Justine Bold, a woman who's spent more than £33,000 on fertility treatment at 43, who said there was still a “postcode lottery” for treatment. She said: “Unfortunately the changes would not help me but I hope they will help other women. It’s still a postcode lottery. “It’s been a long journey. It’s very hard, socially isolating and financially it’s very stressful as well. “At the moment it’s just guidelines. It doesn’t mean there’s an obligation for commissioners or PCTs to fund treatment. “You come across the attitude that infertility is not life-threatening and should not be treated, especially during times of austerity, which I think is ridiculous.” Article: 22nd May 2012 www.telegraph.co.uk

Sperm bank donors - A genetic roll of the dice?

Children conceived with donated sperm from sperm banks are struggling with serious genetic conditions inherited from men they have never met. Sharine and Brian Kretchmar tried a number of medical treatments to conceive a second child. After a depressing series of failures, a doctor finally advised them to find a sperm donor. For more than a year, the Yukon, Okla., couple carefully researched sperm banks and donors. The donor they chose was a family man, a Christian like them, they were told. Most important, he had a clean bill of health. His sperm was stored at the New England Cryogenic Center in Boston, and according to the laboratory’s website, all donors there were tested for various genetic conditions. So the Kretchmars took a deep breath and jumped in. After artificial insemination, Sharine Kretchmar became pregnant, and in April 2010 she gave birth to a boy they named Jaxon. But the baby failed to have a bowel movement in the first day after birth, a sign to doctors that something was wrong. Eventually Jaxon was rushed to surgery. Doctors returned with terrible news for the Kretchmars: Their baby appeared to have cystic fibrosis. “We were pretty much devastated,” said Sharine Kretchmar, 33, who works as a nurse. “At first, we weren’t convinced it was cystic fibrosis, because we knew the donor had been tested for the disease. We thought it had to be something different.” But genetic testing showed that Jaxon did carry the genes for cystic fibrosis. Sharine Kretchmar had no idea she was a carrier, but was shocked to discover that so, too, was the Kretchmars’ donor. His sperm, they would later discover, was decades old, originally donated at a laboratory halfway across the country and frozen ever since. Whether it was properly tested is a matter of dispute. Sadly, the Kretchmars’ experience is not unique. In households across the country, children conceived with donated sperm are struggling with serious groenetic conditions inherited from men they have never met. The illnesses include heart defects, spinal muscular atrophy, neurofibromatosis type 1 and fragile-X syndrome, the most common form of mental retardation in boys, among many others. Hundreds of cases have been documented, but it is likely there are thousands more, according to Wendy Kramer, founder of the Donor Sibling Registry, a website she started to help connect families with children who are offspring of the same sperm donor. Donated eggs pose a risk as well, but the threat of genetic harm from sperm donation is arguably much greater. Sperm donors are no more likely to carry genetic diseases than anybody else, but they can father a far greater number of children: 50, 100 or even 150, each a potential inheritor of flawed genes, and each a vector for making those genes more pervasive in the general population. The scale of the problem is only now becoming apparent with the advent of online communities like Kramer’s. “There needs to be oversight, and some regulation of the industry,” she said. Genetic testing optional It is not known how many children are born each year using sperm donors, because mothers of donor offspring are not required to report their births. By some estimates, there are more than 1 million children in this country conceived with donated sperm or eggs. The Food and Drug Administration requires that sperm donors be tested for communicable diseases, but there is no federal requirement that sperm banks screen for genetic diseases. Some of the better ones do anyway, in accordance with guidelines promulgated by organizations like the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which encourages sperm banks to test donors for conditions like cystic fibrosis and mental retardation when there is a family history of the disease. Generally, the donor himself is tested, not his sperm. But compliance with those guidelines is not obligatory, and genetic testing practices vary widely across the United States. Critics of the industry are calling for mandatory and consistent medical and genetic testing of all donors. “In this day and age, when you have genetic testing available for about $200, there’s no reason sperm banks can’t provide this for clients,” Kramer said. The fertility industry, however, has long resisted the idea. “Human reproduction is an inherently risky proposition, and it always will be, so it’s impossible to remove all the risk and uncertainty of reproducing,” said Sean Tipton, director of public affairs for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. “You’ll never be able to catch everything. As the technical capabilities to do genetic testing and screenings improve, the banks will do that. But it will be incredibly expensive to test for everything.” A lack of regulatory record-keeping also makes it difficult for sperm banks to warn related families, or even donors, when a genetic illness is discovered in one or more children. And donor families are not required to report births or illnesses to the sperm banks. Since the clinic has no way to know a donor’s sperm is flawed, it may continue to be sold long after problems have surfaced. Pamela Callum, a genetic counselor at California Cryobank, the largest sperm bank in the country, recently discovered that a donor to the bank had passed on the gene for neurofibromatosis type 1, or NF1, to five children. The case was reported in the February issue of the journal Human Reproduction. NF1 can cause benign tumors along nerves in the skin, brain and other areas, and it contributes to learning problems and an increased risk of brain tumors, leukemia and other cancers. “There were two other children who had been diagnosed with the disease, but the parents never told us,” Callum said. “If we had known earlier, we may have been able to take that donor off the catalog earlier.” “We’ll never be able to eliminate genetic diseases,” she added. “It’s just not possible. That’s why follow-up is so important.” Forming national registry Several of the largest sperm banks in the country are attempting to create a national donor gamete registry, a centralized and permanent repository for the records of egg and sperm donors, said Scott Brown, communications director for California Cryobank, a leader in the effort. Such a registry might help prevent the spread of genetic diseases among donor children by providing a way for parents to report children’s illnesses to their sperm banks, thus allowing banks to weed out donors who may be carriers. Max Jackson, 18, of San Rafael, Calif., discovered that he had inherited a deadly heart defect known as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, or HCM, when the family of one of his donor siblings — a child conceived from the same sperm donor — reported the illness to the sperm bank. The donor was tested and found to be a carrier of the disease. At least eight other children conceived with the donor’s sperm have HCM, a thickening of the heart muscle that makes it harder to pump blood and can cause sudden cardiac death. Two of them have pacemakers now, and a 2-year-old donor child died of the disease, according to a case report in The Journal of the American Medical Association. Jackson, an aspiring rapper, must take medicine to control the illness, and he has to keep his heart rate below a certain level or risk cardiac arrest. (HCM is a leading cause of heart attacks in young athletes.) He recently met his sperm donor for the first time, and learned that the man and his wife also have a child with HCM. “He said he felt horrible for giving me the disease,” Jackson said. “I think I’ve been less scared of death since I found out I have HCM. It made me realize how easily we can die. I can die when I’m just running.” The lives of the Kretchmars have been irrevocably altered by their son’s illness. Cystic fibrosis is a progressive disorder that causes thick, sticky mucus to build up in the lungs, digestive tract and other areas of the body. The life expectancy of someone with the disease is about 37 years. Every day, Jaxon, now 2, must take more than 20 pills. (He learned how to swallow pills before he could walk, his mother said.) The boy needs several nebulizer treatments daily, and he must regularly don a special vest that shakes his torso to help loosen the congestion in his body. The Kretchmars have sued New England Cryogenic Center, the sperm bank that sold them the sperm used to conceive Jaxon. As it turns out, the sperm was purchased from Rocky Mountain Cryobank in Jackson, Wyo., which closed a few years ago. The sperm was donated more than 20 years ago. A spokeswoman for the New England Cryogenic Center, Jacalyn Fallman, said her bank received documentation from Rocky Mountain Cryobank that the donor had been tested for cystic fibrosis, but added, “It would appear that testing done by Rocky Mountain was faulty.” “Someday I have to explain to Jaxon that the pain and difficulties that he endures every day are unnecessary and should have been prevented,” Sharine Kretchmar said. “It is a helpless feeling to know that I can’t take away my child’s pain.”

Guide to starting a family as a single dad

For single prospective dads, the decision between surrogacy, adoption and co-parenting is a tough one, with each option having its own benefits and pitfalls. First, ask yourself the question – what role do I want to have in my child’s life? To go it on your own or share the journey? If you want to go it on your own, surrogacy or adoption are undoubtedly the best choices. If you want a shared role, co-parenting could be ideal. UK law is not geared up to cater for all single would-be parents. For men, building your own biological family through surrogacy is difficult, given the need to find a woman to carry your child and the fact that the law may not operate in your favour. The law is more supportive on adoption, but forming a non-biological family requires patience and determination. Surrogacy – establishing a surrogacy arrangement as a single parent is difficult. As intended (biological) parents are not treated as their child’s legal parents automatically, parents through surrogacy need to go through a specific legal process to achieve this status. This particular process, though, is only available to couples, effectively denying single parents the legal solution available to everyone else. Our previous government’s rationale for this (despite our attempts to persuade them otherwise) was that surrogacy is such a serious undertaking, only couples should be eligible. This has the knock-on effect of making it almost impossible to join one of the UK’s surrogacy organisations as a single dad, since their first question to applicant members is whether they can resolve their status after birth. This essentially ousts all single parents. So, finding a surrogate is challenging. Some single dads find a willing volunteer among their friends and family. Others go abroad, where the same restrictions don’t apply locally. This undoubtedly overcomes the initial hurdle of getting things off the ground, but it only gets you half way there. The anomaly in the law on surrogacy means that once your baby is born, the surrogate will automatically be treated as the legal mother. You will only be treated as the legal father if the surrogate is unmarried and even then, you are unlikely to have full parental status in the UK. If born abroad, your child may not be British. There are various options for fully securing your legal status, and/or extinguishing that of your surrogate, but the law is complex and remains largely untested. Co-parenting can be an effective way for single dads to have a family and share the load. But, it is naturally complicated, not in the set-up, but by virtue of the distinct influences each co-parent will have on your child. The best arrangements are built on a strong foundation of openness and matched expectations – the primary cause of co-parenting turning sour is a lack of communication at the outset. The logistics of pregnancy, childbirth and breast feeding will, in the majority of arrangements, mean that your baby will live primarily with the birth mum (and her partner). It is important that this doesn’t lead to resentment. The courts are beginning to show an appetite for recognising co-parent fathers in situations where things have gone wrong. The law remains muddled though and there are still improvements to be made. Your legal status (and security) will depend on the circumstances of the birth mum, and whether she is in a relationship. Co-parenting arrangements often involve more than two parents but the law only recognises a child as having a maximum of two parents. This means that the law can override your status as a legal father, instead giving the status as ‘second parent’ to the birth mum’s partner Adoption is another way of creating a family, with children much in need of a loving parent. This is a different experience to conceiving a family, with the inherent need to engage with the authorities before you can be matched with your child, the non-biological relationship you will have and the fact that your child may have particular needs and be older. The law is much more up to date with respect to single parents hoping to adopt. Like everyone else, you will need to go through a rigorous assessment process and additionally be able to show that you are the whole package in one, in terms of meeting the needs of a child. Adoption is possible for you within the UK and abroad, although you will need to ensure that the laws in your destination country are compatible. In advance of your match you will need to be approved as a prospective adopter. The process usually takes 6-8 months and involves attending preparation groups and working with a social worker who will perform background checks, seek references and do home visits before preparing a detailed prospective adopter’s report which will be presented to an adoption panel for their consideration. If successful, you will then begin the matching process either within the UK or abroad. So there are now more choices than ever for single dads to build their own families with or without sharing the responsibilities. It may not be straightforward but it is by no means impossible. Read more information about surrogacy for single dads, co-parenting as a father, adoption and other parenting options.

Couple finally conceived afer five cycles of IVF by eating eggs and soya oil

Couple finally conceived twins after they went through five cycles of IVF and spent £25,000 over five years - after she was prescribed a diet of egg and soya oil. The rich fatty solution was found to boost IVF success rates by six times in a recent study. Sara Conyers, 33, was drip-fed the Intralipid infusion at a fertility clinic in Nottingham to try and stop her own body destroying embryos. The technique was successful and now she and her husband Matthew, 40, from Solihull, are now parents of twin boys William and Ben. 'It's been a long and difficult journey but it's been worth it,' said Mrs Conyers. 'This whole experience has made us even stronger. I've been prodded and poked by a lot of doctors and, hormonally, I've been up and down. But we never gave up hope and always remained positive.' The teacher and 40-year-old Matthew, who works in finance, started trying for a baby immediately after they wed in August 2007. But after six months, the pair became worried that nothing had happened so went to see their GP. Various tests found there was nothing wrong with the couple, yet more than two years later they were still unsuccessful in conceiving. They decided to go private and began IVF at CARE Fertility, in Nottingham, in January 2010. Mrs Conyers explained: 'The first time the IVF didn't work and we were devastated. However, I'd produced 18 eggs and they were frozen so they could be used for the next two rounds I had. But still nothing happened.' That's when Sara decided to take an immunology test to find out if the real reason she wasn't getting pregnant was because her own body attacking the embryos. 'The result said I was slightly immune,' she added. 'So on the fourth IVF attempt I was given the soya oil and egg yolk. It didn't work on the first occasion - but the second time round I was so happy to find out I was pregnant.' Intralipid infusion emerged in 2009 in the U.S as an experimental fertility treatment. It is a brand name for a fat emulsion, made partly from eggs and soya oil usually used when tube-feeding very sick patients. However, it has also been shown to lower the activity of the natural killer cells component of our immune systems. This was found to have a beneficial effect on women whose bodies were attacking their own eggs. A 2011 study found it increased the odds of an IVF pregnancy up to six times while also inhibiting chemicals which causes miscarriages. Mrs Conyers was drip fed the solution for two hours on three separate occasions: the day her eggs were collected, the day two fertilised embryos were put back inside her body and on the afternoon she found she was pregnant. Despite being born eight weeks prematureon April 4 the twins are healthy babies and finally came home last week. Philip Lowe, Medical Director at CARE Fertility, said: 'Our reproductive immunology programme has provided essential support for Matthew and Sara and we're pleased to have helped them achieve their dream of having a family.' Article: 17th May 2012 www.dailymail.co.uk

Egg donation - Is there anything wrong with students donating eggs?

Recent news has highlighted the issue of whether students should be encouraged to donate their eggs. There was press coverage over the weekend about a UK egg donor agency which has been leafleting students at Cambridge University to try and recruit egg donors. The tabloid coverage was yawningly predictable - vulnerable young students being enticed to sell their eggs for £750 by a profit-making fertility business. As ever, the true story behind the headlines is very different. The agency in question (Altrui) operates legally, helping parents to find egg donors in the face of donor shortages and supplementing the services otherwise exclusively provided by licensed fertility clinics. Let’s not forget that fertility clinics also profit from egg donation, and have done since the birth of IVF. The story is, as far as the agency goes, just tabloid hot air. But what interests me is why the UK press seems to have such an aversion to students acting as egg donors. Medical students have long acted as sperm donors, and why not as egg donors too? On anyone’s measure, students at Cambridge University are a pretty bright lot, capable of understanding the risks and implications of donating eggs. The maximum allowed payment of £750 for egg donation expenses may seem attractive, but it is not much incentive once you know how much cost, time and effort is involved (the actual out of pocket costs of an egg donation cycle commonly run to this amount), and even if it is an incentive, so what? Wasn’t one of the reasons for the HFEA increasing the payment to egg donors from £250 to £750 last month to encourage more women to donate? Let’s have some honesty about this at least. What is very important is that anyone considering egg donation fully understands the medical risks and the long term implications of helping to conceive a child who may wish to contact them in 18 years’ time. That is true for all egg donors, but where the donor is younger (which is possibly more likely with students, but not necessarily so) or more likely to be attracted by the headline payment, we have even more of a duty to take care. But no one in the UK would be allowed to donate eggs without counselling, information and clear medical advice about the risks. If students want to help others conceive having gone through this intensive preparation, why should they not make that choice? Article: 14th May 2012 by NatalieGambleAssociates.

Birth mother vs non-birth mother - lesbian family breakdowns

The news has recently highlighted a number of high profile cases involving disputes within lesbian families and alternative family structures. Primarily these concern fathers or known donors seeking more of a relationship with their child than they originally wished for. However, another interesting and sadly increasing area we are witnessing is the breakdown of relationships in two-mother lesbian parent families. As with any relationship breakdown, issues to be dealt with include division of the finances, any civil partnership dissolution and with whom any children will live (as well as contact with the non-resident parent). But these types of divorce cases have a more complex dynamic, with difficult legal and social questions arising from the mismatched biological (and often legal) status of the two female parents. To date there has been very little judicial guidance as to how much weight the family court will place on the importance of being a birth mother in divorce proceedings, and whether in such cases the birth history and biological link should be considered more important than the relationship between the non-birth mother and the child. Of course every case is unique, but the two main cases so far where the court has considered and explored these issues in principle make for very interesting reading. The first case was that of Re G [2006] UKHL 43 which involved a difficult dispute about where the children conceived by a lesbian couple through artificial insemination should live following their separation. The High Court and Court of Appeal ruled that the non-birth mother should have primary care of the two children (mainly because the birth mother had behaved badly and removed the children to Cornwall deliberately to obstruct her former partner’s relationship with the children). However, in a landmark judgment the House of Lords ruled that the lower courts had not given sufficient weight to the fact that the birth mother was the biological mother of the children and ordered that the children should continue to live with her. The House of Lords expressly stated that the lower courts had placed too much weight on the behaviour of the birth mother and not enough on the biological basis of her relationship. This was a ‘significant consideration which was of importance’. Being the birth mother is, it seems, significant. The more recent case of T v B [2010] EWHC 1444 (Fam) involved a lesbian couple who were not civil partners but had lived together for many years and had undergone fertility treatment to conceive a child together. Once the child was born they both undertook the role of parents. Although the law at the time did not recognise the non-birth mother as a legal parent, she sought – and was given by the court – parental responsibility, which meant she had full legal authority to take decisions as a parent and to be involved in her child’s care. Following separation the birth mother applied to the courts for financial provision from the non-birth mother. The court ruled that as the non-birth mother was not a legal parent she had no financial obligation despite the fact that she had to all intents and purposes been a ‘parent’ to them from the very start. The court was somewhat constrained by the wording of the law (and its frustration was evident) but it was clear in this case that whether you were a birth mother or not was deeply significant. When the court are considering cases involving disputes about care arrangements for children, the court has a range of factors it has to take into consideration. These include: the child’s age, sex and background; their physical, emotional, educational needs; the effect of any change in circumstances; their ascertainable wishes and feelings; any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering and how capable each parent is in meeting the child’s needs. The welfare of the child will be the court’s paramount consideration and any decision made by the court will be based on what the court considers to be in the child’s best interests. In practice this gives a lot of flexibility, although it is clear that the court is inclined to place weight on the importance of the biological link with the birth mother. In relation to child maintenance questions, this bias is more institutional, with clear legal rules which make only legal parents (and their spouses) financially responsible. On 6 April 2009 the law in the UK changed to allow two mothers to be named on the birth certificate, recognising them both as the legal parents and giving them both financial responsibility for their children. It is notable that both of the birth mother vs non-birth mother cases have involved children born before this legal change. Whether or not the new law will give greater weight to the non-birth mother’s position waits to be seen (although this will certainly be the case in relation to financial questions). Things are likely to be muddied further by the increasing blurring of the lines between birth and biological parenthood for lesbian couples. We are certainly seeing more egg swapping cases, where an egg has been taken from the non birth mother, fertilised and then transferred to the birth mother. Where parents in these situations separate, will the birth mother or the biological mother be the one with the upper hand? Same-sex divorces are undoubtedly legally complex where children are involved. In a dispute over a child within an alternative family structure, an argument often run is the importance of the biological link, and the genetic identity of the child. With changes to the law and even more complex family structures emerging, it will be interesting to see how the court responds.

Lesbian Fertility Journey - Annoying little BEEPS and Olympic Gold Swimmers

Like most people, I always look forward to the longer daylight hours of spring. This year though, I await it with a particular eagerness, because the lighter mornings will bring an end to frantic half-conscious scrabbling around in the dark for the thermometer, torch, pen and notepad. I’m not sure quite how she does it, but whilst I am still fumbling around on my bedside table sending the random paraphernalia of my nocturnal life in all directions, I invariably hear the smug BEEP of my partner’s thermometer: waking temperature taken, job done. Never mind the life transformation new parents undergo; we’re already experiencing a whole new world – and language – of BBT, ICI and FSH among others. Our collection of monthly charts is growing and a daily analysis of the ups and downs usually leads to me wondering whether typing “=OVULATION” into an Excel spread sheet might be worth a try. I’ve prodded and pondered on the texture of parts of my body I barely knew existed. And the Sarah Waters and Emma Donoghue novels have been shelved in favour of titles which usually include the words “lesbian” and then “insemination”, “conception” and/or "pregnancy”. The Americanisms – it seems most are from over the Atlantic – get a bit tedious, but we’re lucky such publications exist at all – I don’t suppose anyone looking for such material ten years ago would have had much success. One result of finding myself in a happy long-term lesbian relationship that I could not perhaps have predicted, was a serious interest in sperm. And I no longer find myself performing a dramatic squirm of disgust when the word is mentioned – spermatozoa (yes I’ve learnt the full name, and you need to trust me on this – that I just typed it with a serious and thoughtful expression on my face, no eeugh face or sperm squirm now). Try as I might though, I think I’ll always struggle a bit with looking at things from a scientific viewpoint; I need some frame of reference and sperm have become for me the athletes I’ll be following this year. It’s all about having a well-formed shape and getting up some speed as far as I can see. And if they do it in time for a gold medal in London this year, well, all the better – we’re ready for you. Because it’s amazing how your mind-set changes, and how in six months you can go from “we’d better start discussing the baby question before it’s too late to decide” to “right, where’s the sperm and when do we start?” It seems to happen so gradually, with each smug thermometer BEEP, you find yourself not only in the new world of BBT, ICI and FSH but wondering whether it’s too early to talk about which bedroom he or she would have, which high-chair seems like a good buy and will we get chance to go back to the gay book shop in London for that children’s book about the kids who have two mummies and/or two daddies or should we get it now? (We decided pre-definite sperm donor was a bit soon.) So the life transformation is already well underway – perhaps when we actually have a baby, this process will have made us so ready that we’ll barely notice it slip into our lives. Yes, parents reading this, I’m joking – I know – or rather, perhaps more to the point, I really have NO IDEA! So there you are: mittens and bootees might have a job to do sometime next winter, and as for my partner and I, we’ve got our eyes on the gold this summer, and next time the lighter mornings are on the way, perhaps we’ll be welcoming them with a new member of the family. And the nocturnal noise level might just have risen above that smug thermometer BEEP.

Gay sperm donor drive in Australia has reduced waiting lists

A recruitment drive aimed at gay men has contributed to a significant reduction in the waiting times for Australian women seeking a sperm donor in their bid to have a baby, according to a leading IVF specialist. But women who delay reproduction are more likely than ever to encounter difficulties, experts say. IVF Australia spokesman Professor Michael Chapman said Australian women were waiting up to 18 months for donor sperm about a year ago The waiting time was now about eight weeks, thanks largely to imrproved supply from overseas clinics and to a local donor drive that targeted gay men. Professor Chapman said improved adherence by US sperm banks to Australia’s strict legal requirements had helped to slash times. Donors must give consent so any child resulting from the donation can make contact once they turn 18. Similarly, a recent advertising campaign by IVF Australia in the gay media had resulted in an increase in inquiries and, subsequently, much-needed donors, he said. However, the demand in Australia for donors has steadily risen as women who put off having children suddenly find themselves emotionally or financially ready, yet unable to fall pregnant as easily as hoped - if at all. Perils of putting it off According to a recent study of 1010 women aged 18-44 years, more of them know someone in their circle trying to fall pregnant — and failing — than don’t. More surprisingly, these women of childbearing age remained ambivalent about - or oblivious to - their own decreasing chances of conceiving, the survey by pregnancy test maker Clearblue found. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirm that women are delaying pregnancy, with the average age at which women fall pregnant for the first time rising from 27.5 years in 1990 to 28.9 years in 2010. Since 2005, more women aged 35-39 years have given birth than have women aged 20-24 years, the ABS figures show. IVF experts concur that both the number and the average age of women seeking help from fertility clinics has increased. Dr David Molloy of the Queensland Fertility Group said while the age of women seeking help getting pregnant at his Brisbane clinic had steadily risen, success rates had struggled to keep pace. "There’s a misconception that infertility clinics can cure you getting older. We can’t," he said. "Pregnancy rates drop quite dramatically once you hit 39-40, and start to reduce from 35. Certainly we can help patients get pregnant in those age groups, but the success rates are lower and there’s no major cure." New research Research published over the weekend suggests that babies conceived using commonly available fertility treatments are almost 50 per cent more likely to have a birth defect than those conceived naturally. In the most comprehensive study of its kind in the world, researchers from the University of Adelaide's Robinson Institute compared the risk of major birth defects for each of the reproductive therapies commonly available internationally, including IVF, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and ovulation induction. "The unadjusted risk of any birth defect in pregnancies involving assisted conception was 8.3 per cent, compared with 5.8 per cent for pregnancies not involving assisted conception," said Associate Professor Michael Davies, the lead author of the study published on Saturday in the New England Journal of Medicine. The risk of birth defects for IVF was 7.2 per cent, while the rate for ICSI - a procedure used to overcome male infertility in which a sperm is injected into an egg - was even higher at 9.9 per cent (139 defects). No substitute for good planning Dr Molloy said Queensland had led the country in pioneering such recent technology such as oocyte (egg) freezing and AMH (Anti-Mullerian Hormone) testing - "a measure of how many eggs you have left" - but they were no substitute for good planning and prioritisation. "It doesn’t get around the problem of reproductive ageing completely," he said. "What you don’t want to be is 39 with 39-year-old DNA in your eggs and not many eggs left. "And you don’t want to be 31 and thinking you can delay getting pregnant. At 31 you have lovely DNA but if your egg stocks are very poor it’s still going to be harder to get pregnant and you mightn’t be able to fit your two children in. "The DNA ageing that goes on between 35 and 45 still happens, but if you’ve got fewer eggs then you’ve got a double whammy and your back to the wall." Professor Chapman said the average age of the patients seeking help at his New South Wales fertility clinic was "now 37 years of age, so half of them are over 37". He said while the news that more than half of women trying to have a baby were now aged over 30 was alarming enough from a scientific perspective, "more importantly, the percentage of women over 35 trying to have babies has climbed quite dramatically". "More women are putting off faster than science is able to reverse it. The sad part is that we don’t know how to reverse the inexorable decline in egg quality over time. That’s the conundrum," he said. "The truth is, even with multiple attempts, with all the technology that we have, less than 50 per cent of women over 40 will end up having a baby." It takes time Professor Chapman said a large number of women failed to realise that falling pregnant often took time, the very thing hindering the chances of a woman over the age of 37 conceiving. "What we haven’t been able to get through to people is that getting pregnant doesn’t happen the day you want to be pregnant," he said. "The human body at its peak in the mid-20s produces a pregnancy rate of only around 15 to 20 per cent a month. To actually have a good chance of getting pregnant, you have to keep going for a number of months - 12 months - before you maximize your chance of falling pregnant naturally. "In women who are older, that natural cycle rate drops. At 35, it’s probably more like 10-12 per cent and by 40, that rate per cycle of falling naturally is probably around 5 per cent. "Cumulatively, a rate of 5 per cent over 12 months gives you a better than 50-50 chance of getting pregnant at 40, but if you’re the 50 per cent that hasn’t gotten pregnant, another year has gone by - another year of decline in the quality of your eggs and the number of eggs has occurred." Why women struggle with fertility Professor Chapman said the most common reason he saw for women not getting pregnant after 38 was the quality of their eggs. As a result, he said, more people were using fertility treatment. Despite the repeated warnings from experts, the Clearblue survey found that only 4 per cent of women currently in their best childbearing years saw having a baby as a top priority in their lives. Job security and income was the main concern of 48 per cent of those surveyed, with only 5 per cent admitting to significant stress at the thought of not being able to conceive. Yet nearly half of Australian women have experienced difficulty in falling pregnant — and there are more than twice as many women (450,000) trying to conceive as are pregnant (190,000), according to the study. And seven out of 10 women admit to wanting to have children in their life — when the time is right. Ninety per cent of women could see the benefits in having kids early, however the sentiment was outweighed by the reasons for delaying motherhood. Of those surveyed: •74 per cent felt the need to be financially secure; •50 per cent wanted to be in a loving relationship; and •51 per cent wanted time to travel and fulfil life experiences free of children. White-collar women's expectations Professor Chapman said that an overwhelming majority of women who sought help at his clinic were "white-collar professionals" whose driven nature and high expectations of themselves extended in the realm of reproduction. "When they get to us, they are the desperate ones, and therefore emotion gets in the way of reality. I can tell a woman that she’s got a less-than 1 per cent chance of success with IVF and she says 'I still want to go through with it'," Prof Chapman said. "They don’t want to be in a situation in 10 years' time looking back and saying 'I never tried'. They wouldn’t get to the point of coming to a clinic and then being confronted with some pretty harsh facts and [not] keep on going." He added: "Their expectation will be that they will have a baby." Dr Molloy said that apart from the career women and couples who put off child-bearing, he increasingly treated women who had simply failed to secure a commitment from partners in time. "You see an awful lot of women who invest 10 years in a live-in relationship and they say in their mid-30s 'we need to get moving' and the guy is out the door. All of a sudden they’re trapped," he said. "It takes a while to re-establish a baby-making relationship. That’s a big commitment. The interview process for that could be a couple of years. So these women do get time trapped in these relationships. In a way there’s a shame that there isn’t a higher level of commitment - marriage, home and a commitment to children. "I bet you know people like that." Sperm donor option Dr Molloy said sperm donation was one option for women in this situation and in the face of shortages in recent years, Queensland clinics had actively targeted the gay community as a source of sperm donation for several years. "We've had the gay population coming from NSW and particularly Victoria, where the laws are draconian - you have to have a police check before you can go to an IVF clinic and donate sperm," he said. "We were the second unit in the country to import US sperm - started doing it 7 years ago." Queensland Fertility Group had also led the country in "reproductive insurance", namely egg-freezing, he said. "We've had more pregnancies from egg freezing than all the other IVF units in the country combined," he said. Willing donors Advertising representative Scott McKeown is among those gay men who would willingly donate sperm to a fertility clinic for use by women - "straight, lesbian or bisexual” – wanting to start a family. While Mr McKeown cannot himself donate for medical reasons, he said gay men were prime and willing candidates for sperm donation, as they were unlikely to be deterred by laws requiring a donor to agree to being contacted by the child once the child turns 18. “The difference between gay guys and straight men in wanting to be a sperm donor is, we are not going to create a complication for ourselves or a future partner and kids, more often than not," he said. “We’re not going to have to deal with a future wife or husband, and those kids, and then someone knocking on the door or making a phone call years later, because it’s less likely that we’re going to have that kind of lifestyle.” He added that for many gay men – just as it was with heterosexual brethren – “it would kind of be nice - as you get older to actually see someone, possibly see yourself in their face and actually say, well the surname may not pass on but maybe my genes will live on”. “It’s the basic human driver for both men and women - why we live, and how we came about anyway. What a nice thing to leave,” he said. Article: 8th May 2012 www.brisbanetimes.com.au

ICSI fertility treatment has double the chance of birth defects

Fertility clinics are facing demands to restrict the most popular form of IVF after a shocking new report linked it to an increased risk of birth defects. The study created a major alert after revealing the ICSI treatment, used by 23,000 women in the UK every year, creates a ‘sky high’ chance of having a baby with serious abnormalities. The procedure, which involves injecting a single sperm into an egg, is used in both the NHS and the private sector, and now represents more than half of all IVF treatments. But it is more expensive than standard IVF, raising fears some clinics may be promoting it to increase profits. Scientists behind the latest survey of 300,000 births found that one child in ten born following ICSI has a defect – twice the level of the general population – but that standard IVF has no extra risks compared with natural births. Following the report, other experts called for clinics to use ICSI only when there was no medical alternative, and demanded a national database of children born from IVF be set up urgently. Women who undergo the most popular IVF treatment in Britain are twice as likely to have babies with birth defects as the rest of the population, the shocking new survey revealed. Women who undergo the ICSI process, in which a single sperm is injected into an egg, are more likely to have a baby with problems including cleft palate, heart and lung conditions, cerebral palsy and blood disorders. The extensive research found that ten in every 100 births from ICSI had a defect, compared with five in 100 natural births. But other forms of IVF are no more risky than natural conception. When other factors such as the mother’s age, smoking habits and underlying health problems are taken into account, the ICSI treatment is linked to a 57 per cent increase in birth defects, compared to natural conception. The treatment was designed to help infertile men become fathers, but has become the dominant IVF process, accounting for 52 per cent of all such treatments carried out in this country. More than 23,000 women were treated using the technique in 2010, when 6,500 babies were born as a result. Previous studies have raised concerns over birth defects from all forms of IVF, but the new research, published yesterday in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, concludes that the abnormalities stem specifically from using the ICSI method. The study’s author, Professor Michael Davies from the University of Adelaide, said: ‘We know from the study that standard IVF is safe. But we also now know that with ICSI, the risk is sky high.’ Last night, British doctors said ICSI was too widely used and said it should only be offered if there is no alternative. They also suggested its popularity was caused by clinics promoting the treatment for commercial profit, as it costs an additional £1,000 on top of the £2,500 fee for standard IVF. Scientists also called for a national register of births for all IVF treatments to be established to allow research into long-term effects. Prof Davies said ICSI – intracytoplasmic sperm injection – effectively creates children from single sperm that Nature might have weeded out as unsuitable. By contrast, in standard IVF, eggs are placed in a dish with a sperm sample and allowed to be fertilise naturally which means it is still the strongest sperm which reaches the egg. Infertility consultant Gedis Grudzinskas said: ‘The use of ICSI has increased in the UK over recent years and in some centres it is used universally. That’s irresponsible and this study should cause those centres to rethink their policy. ‘Some of these ICSI decisions could be commercially driven, although I would hope not.’ Dr Alastair Sutcliffe, an expert on the effects of IVF in children, added: ‘I’m against the widespread increasing unrestricted use of ICSI because it’s hardly a Darwinian way of reproducing. Now this paper’s come out, those who are close to the wind on this issue might think twice.’ Part of the popularity of ICSI is because it has a conception rate of just under 30 per cent, compared to around 25 per cent for standard IVF. Figures from regulators, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), show that fewer than half of couples using ICSI do so because of male infertility. In one large unit, the London Women’s Clinic, 83 per cent of IVFs were ICSIs. But medical director Peter Bowen-Simpkins denied it was offered to generate profit. He said: ‘That’s an inevitable criticism, but many of our patients are single women and same sex couples using frozen donor sperm which means ICSI will be more successful.’ The new research paper, one of the most comprehensive ever, looked at 300,000 births in South Australia over 16 years, including 6,100 from fertility treatment. It found 8.3 per cent of babies born from any fertility treatment had some defect, compared with 5.8 per cent of those conceived naturally. But when they took into account other factors, standard IVF was no more risky than naturally conception. In contrast, ICSI babies did have a high risk of defects, even after these factors were taken into account. Out of 939 single babies born from ICSI, 91 were found later to have a birth defect – a rate of 9.9 per cent. The researchers said in general ICSI babies were therefore 57 per cent more likely to have an abnormality than those born after standard IVF or conceived naturally. But that figure could be as much as 90 per cent in a worst-case scenario. The risk of cerebral palsy also doubled following ICSI treatment, although it was still rare (0.4 per cent compared to 0.2 per cent conceived naturally). Prof Davies, who did not call for the technique to be abandoned, said it was unclear whether the increased birth defects following ICSI was down to a problem inherent in the technique, or because of the quality of sperm used, which could carry damaged DNA. He said: ‘There are some seriously defective sperm that can be selected and there are many occasions when that sperm could never naturally fertilise an egg. But we can’t jump to that conclusion straight away. ‘This is a technology that’s operating at the absolutely limits of available knowledge, which does open up a debate about how fast should some of these things be implemented.’ Advice on the HFEA website has not been updated since March 2009. It says: ‘Although some research suggests that fertility treatment may be associated with an increased incidence of birth defects, this risk remains low. ‘Research to date does not show with absolute certainty that any increased risk is due to fertility treatment. Other causes cannot be discounted, including underlying sub-fertility in the parents, their age and unexplored factors.’ Last night the regulator said it has ‘no plans’ to update its guidance as a result of the latest research. A spokeswoman said: ‘Research into the area is ongoing and, to make sure patients understand the risks of fertility treatment, we keep research of this kind under review.’ The question all couples must now ask: Do you REALLY need this procedure? Researchers said children born via ICSI were 57 per cent more likely to have an abnormality than those born by standard IVF. Unless you’ve had personal experience of infertility, it isn’t easy to understand how devastating it can be to find that you’re not able to become pregnant naturally or the lengths to which you would go in order to have a much-longed-for baby. Couples who are trying unsuccessfully to conceive are faced with an ever-expanding fertility industry offering everything from the latest high-tech treatments to the wackiest complementary therapies. ICSI, the focus of the new research, was developed in the early Nineties and has been a huge step forward in the treatment of male infertility. It has allowed men who once would never have been able to have their own genetic children to become fathers. ICSI has been so successful that some clinics now use it widely, and may offer it even when there isn’t a male fertility problem. Cynics might suggest that this is because ICSI is a more expensive treatment and makes the specialists more money, but it’s also true that some clinics believe they get better success rates when they use ICSI. So what should couples do if they’re about to embark on fertility treatment in the light of this new research? The message for anyone having standard IVF is extremely positive and reassuring, but there may be more concerns for those who have been recommended ICSI. Talking it through with your fertility specialist is a good idea, and if you’re considering ICSI as an optional add-on to your treatment, you may want to think about whether you really need it. For couples where there is a male factor fertility problem and ICSI is the only possibility, the real risks are still small, and ICSI has produced many thousands of healthy babies. What’s more, one interesting result from the research was that when embryos created using ICSI were frozen, the risks were reduced. It has been suggested that only the most robust embryos will survive the freezing and thawing process. The researchers themselves haven’t concluded that couples who need ICSI for male fertility problems should not go ahead with the treatment, but have shown that considering freezing embryos before having them transferred is something couples may want to think about. This particular research paper is actually a good news story for fertility patients, as it has found that babies born after standard IVF treatment have no greater risk of problems than those conceived naturally. Infertility is tough, and one of the best ways to help yourself get through it is to ensure that you are well-informed. If you’ve got concerns about any aspect of infertility or treatment, it’s always advisable to raise them with a doctor or fertility specialist who will be able to offer the best advice for your individual situation.

Considering fertility and parenting options? we want to hear from you

A TV production company ‘Garden Productions’, have approached us, as they are in the process of making a new groundbreaking documentary series for Channel 4. The series is concentrating on people who are about to make a very significant life-changing decision and they are keen to explore the area of fertility and parenting within the series. As part of their research they would very much like to reach out to couples and individuals who are thinking about starting a family through sperm donation, IVF or egg sharing, but are still at a point where they are not entirely sure if they want to proceed and may be exploring other methods as well. At this stage they keen to reach out to couples (both same sex and heterosexual) and single people who are still deciding and are yet to take the first steps. Samantha from Garden Productions thought that Pride Angel would be a good place to let people know about her research. Samantha would be really happy to speak with any interested people in more detail about the project and about how the programme works, all of which will be in confidence. There is no obligation to take the process any further once you have spoken with Samantha, so please feel free to contact us at Pride Angel for more information or with any questions. Finally, a note about ‘Garden Productions’. They produces a wide range of interesting, sensitive television programmes including Channel 4's ‘24 Hours In A&E’ and they’re really excited about this new groundbreaking project for Channel 4.

Egg and sperm donor survey - Have your say!

The NGDT want to hear your views on egg and sperm donation. Last year, we blogged about The National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT)’s Donor Satisfaction Survey trying to get feedback from prospective egg and sperm donors. They asked for our support to get the issues addressed, and Kriss Fearon from the NGDT wrote following article for our blog. If you are a donor, please do take part in the NGDT survey as they need just a few more to take part and have your voice heard: What would you think if you approached someone asking if you could donate a large and very personal gift, and your message was ignored, or answered weeks or months later? If, when you went to see them to talk about the gift, they left you waiting and with the distinct impression they didn’t think the gift was important? Would you carry on trying – or assume they weren’t interested, and go somewhere else? This is the experience some egg and sperm donors have when they approach a clinic. The NGDT works with donors on a daily basis and hears directly from them about their experience of donation. Too often the feedback is not good, and yet some small changes in the way donors are treated could produce some big improvements. To carry weight with the people who can make a difference, the Trust needs to prove that changes are necessary. That’s why we are running a survey: to gather evidence of what works and what doesn’t work. This will be the basis for making recommendations on how to treat donors through the whole process of donation, from information-gathering at the beginning to sharing the outcome at the end of the cycle. The NGDT are targeting donors at two stages: first, as enquirers, and second, after a donor has completed their donation cycle. It’s important that donors are treated with respect; it’s also important that those who enquire but do not donate are treated well. People think really carefully before they make that first enquiry. It’s often prompted by the infertility of a close friend or family member, so there’s a big emotional investment. The minimum they should receive for this unpaid act of generosity is to be treated courteously. Why does this matter? For the same reason that poor service matters anywhere else: reputation. Donors talk to their friends and family, who in turn share with their friendship groups. They talk to the media. And, most importantly, prospective donors trust current donors to give them an honest picture of what to expect. The longer-term impact of one person’s bad experience can deter others from ever looking into it. Good donor care is good practice, but it is also an essential recruitment tool. When you’ve known people with fertility problems finally achieve their much loved and hoped-for child, it is hard to understand why the people whose precious gift made such a difference are sometimes treated so disappointingly. That must change. Click here to complete the donor satisfaction survey For more information about the National Gamete Donation Trust, visit their website at www.ngdt.co.uk Read more information about the law for egg and sperm donors.