Sperm donor websites are increasing in popularity with many people searching for a sperm donor or co-parent online. Are they a health risk or a personal choice which could benefit the future of any future children?
There has been a lot of bad press recently in light of the two businessmen Nigel Woodforth and Ricky Gage, charged for not having a licence to procure gametes. The pair acted as ‘sperm brokers’ aiding in the transport and testing of sperm. They enabled anonymous donation and put women’s health at risk by organising health screening. This has brought to the attention the increased popularity of sperm donor websites which effectively connect donors and recipients looking for sperm.
Sperm donor or co-parenting websites are not required by law to be regulated, as long as they are simply bringing people together, not acting as intermediaries in the way that the two recently convicted were doing. When a site is purely a connection service a women is able to make her own choice about whether she wishes to protect her heath and legal rights by taking the donor to a regulated fertility clinic, or whether she feels that there is a level of trust sufficient for them to obtain the necessary health screening tests themselves, through a clinic, GP or GUM service. After which recipients may decide to choose home insemination as a method of conception. This later option is more applicable to co-parenting situations whereby the donor and recipient have got to know each other over a period of time and there are legal co-parenting agreements in place before proceeding.
Women wish to have choices about how they will conceive and should they not have the freedom to make those choices without regulatory constraints. The emphasis should therefore not be about removing such choices, but instead about educating individuals so that they are fully informed about any risks they are taking, enabling them to make better informed decisions, which are right for their personal circumstances and their potential child.
There has been a social and cultural shift in recent times, towards women wishing to meet a known donor. Some may say this is because of high fertility costs, or maybe the ‘shortage of donors’ or could it be that women are actually thinking of their children’s future and that they would far rather personally meet a like minded individual, who is happy to stay in touch as an ‘uncle type’ figure, rather than for their child to always long to meet an unknown donor as they grow up. There has been much research and evidence which has shown that children who know the identity of their donor and know the truth about their conception from an early age are more secure with their identity as they become adults.
The change to the anonymity law, is a good thing for donor conceived children allowing them to trace the identity of their donor at age 18, however we are still to really discover the effect this will have on the thousands of children who may be wanting to meet their biological father in the future. They may find that the donor is simply not interested in being contacted. There is also the worry that the donor may not be the kind of person the mother would wish for their child to meet, after all, she may have only received basic details such as height and eye colour, by which to choose her donor originally. There is also the real concern of genetic attraction which especially affects parents and children who have never met before adulthood. The effect of this could be potentially catastrophic.
When these effects do come to the forefront in the year 2023, 18 years after the new law was introduced in 2005, will it be decided that children where better off not really getting this information? Would it not therefore be far better for donor conceived children to have known of their donor from the beginning?
So what is the answer, surely to give people the option of finding a known donor or co-parent and for the authorities to work together with sperm donor websites to ensure that enough information is available to their users regarding health screening and the legal implications allowing the ability for them to source accessible and affordable fertility treatment?
A spokesman for the HFEA has pointed out that it is the health risks of not using a fertility clinic which concerns them most. Therefore they are advising people to only use sperm donor websites which direct their users to a licensed clinic, ensuring that complete health screening is completed and that a record of the donor’s name is kept on file.
Pride Angel the leading worldwide connection site primarily aimed at the gay and lesbian community is the only website dedicated to providing quality information regarding health screening and fertility law. Erika co-founder of Pride Angel stated ’all our profiles are continually screening to ensure users are not offering ‘natural insemination’ or requesting an ‘anonymous’ donor. Nor is payment for donations allowed to be offered or requested.’ ‘We also offer email support for users requiring help and further information.’ ‘Users should never consider using a donor who offers natural insemination, even if they offer artificial insemination as well. The health risks of such ‘promiscuous’ donors is too great’.
‘We have had so many people thank us for the service we provide, without which co-parenting arrangements would not happen and many lesbian couples and gay men would not have the chance to experience the joys of parenthood.’ says Erika
For more information regarding finding a co-parent, health screening and fertility law visit www.prideangel.com
To read more go to http://bit.ly/9aF997
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Breastfeeding for 6 months protects babies against infections
Breastfeeding children for six months can ward off common infections during infancy, further evidence suggests.
The findings showed babies brought up exclusively on their mother's milk were significantly more healthy than those given substitute formula feeds.
But the study found the positive effects - fewer and less severe infections - were not felt by children who were only partially breastfed.
Researchers from the University of Crete monitored the health of just under 1,000 infants for a period of 12 months. They recorded any common infections they had at one, three, six, nine and 12 months, which included respiratory and urinary infections, ear infections, stomach upsets, conjunctivitis and thrush.
The infants, drawn from a total of 6,878 births in 2004 in Crete, were routinely vaccinated and had access to a high standard of healthcare.
Researchers found the longer an infant was exclusively breastfed - with no substitute formula feeds - the lower the rate of infection.
Any infections they did pick up were less severe than those experienced by their peers who were either partially breastfed or not breastfed at all.
Factors such as parental age and education, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, ethnicity and number of siblings influenced the frequency of infections, the findings showed.
Meanwhile, researchers concluded that antibodies passed on through the mother's milk, as well as nutritional and immunological factors, accounted for some of the differences observed
To read more go to http://bit.ly/9bFFT6
The findings showed babies brought up exclusively on their mother's milk were significantly more healthy than those given substitute formula feeds.
But the study found the positive effects - fewer and less severe infections - were not felt by children who were only partially breastfed.
Researchers from the University of Crete monitored the health of just under 1,000 infants for a period of 12 months. They recorded any common infections they had at one, three, six, nine and 12 months, which included respiratory and urinary infections, ear infections, stomach upsets, conjunctivitis and thrush.
The infants, drawn from a total of 6,878 births in 2004 in Crete, were routinely vaccinated and had access to a high standard of healthcare.
Researchers found the longer an infant was exclusively breastfed - with no substitute formula feeds - the lower the rate of infection.
Any infections they did pick up were less severe than those experienced by their peers who were either partially breastfed or not breastfed at all.
Factors such as parental age and education, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, ethnicity and number of siblings influenced the frequency of infections, the findings showed.
Meanwhile, researchers concluded that antibodies passed on through the mother's milk, as well as nutritional and immunological factors, accounted for some of the differences observed
To read more go to http://bit.ly/9bFFT6
Monday, 27 September 2010
Want to be a Dad? men have ticking biological clocks too
After much soul-searching, I have finally come out of the closet. It was pointless denying it any longer. Judging by the sniggers and knowing looks, everyone probably knew already. So I just came out with it: ‘I want a baby.’
I want to cradle the little mite in my arms. I want sleepless nights and afternoons in the park. I want to spend a small fortune every Christmas and moan about house prices in school catchment areas. In short, I’m broody.
I’ve felt this way for a few years — even before my two-year-old niece Ruby came along and melted my heart — but it’s not something I felt comfortable talking about beyond my close circle of friends.
In fact, for a long time I didn’t even admit it to myself. The sad truth is, there’s still a social taboo against men expressing their longing for parenthood.
It’s fine for us to say we’d love to have children ‘some time in the future’ and it’s perfectly acceptable, even cool, to be a doting dad once they’re born, but it’s somehow unmanly for us actively to yearn for a child of our own.
But when little Ruby was born, I found her so adorable that I had to confess to my brother that I wanted one as well. And I had to choose my words carefully when I discussed my feelings with my 32-year-old girlfriend Jennie. We’ve only been together for eight months, so it’s a bit early for a full-on baby conversation. Luckily, she didn’t scarper when I told her about my broodiness. She is keen to have kids one day, too.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/ctlJ8d
I want to cradle the little mite in my arms. I want sleepless nights and afternoons in the park. I want to spend a small fortune every Christmas and moan about house prices in school catchment areas. In short, I’m broody.
I’ve felt this way for a few years — even before my two-year-old niece Ruby came along and melted my heart — but it’s not something I felt comfortable talking about beyond my close circle of friends.
In fact, for a long time I didn’t even admit it to myself. The sad truth is, there’s still a social taboo against men expressing their longing for parenthood.
It’s fine for us to say we’d love to have children ‘some time in the future’ and it’s perfectly acceptable, even cool, to be a doting dad once they’re born, but it’s somehow unmanly for us actively to yearn for a child of our own.
But when little Ruby was born, I found her so adorable that I had to confess to my brother that I wanted one as well. And I had to choose my words carefully when I discussed my feelings with my 32-year-old girlfriend Jennie. We’ve only been together for eight months, so it’s a bit early for a full-on baby conversation. Luckily, she didn’t scarper when I told her about my broodiness. She is keen to have kids one day, too.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/ctlJ8d
Saturday, 25 September 2010
HFEA the UK's fertility regulator is on a Government 'Hitlist'
The UK's fertility regulator is on a Government 'hitlist' of quangos facing abolition, according to a letter leaked this week. The letter, dated 26 August, supposedly from Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude to other ministers lists the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) among 177 quangos due to be axed.
BioNews reported two months ago that the HFEA could be split up following the publication of a Government review of health Arm's Length Bodies (ALBs). 'There isn't anything new in this news story compared to two months ago and we'd like to reassure patients that they will continue to receive regulation', a HFEA spokesperson told BioNews.
Baroness Deech, former HFEA Chair, reiterated that the leaked letter was no surprise on Friday morning's BBC Today programme. 'It was trailed and it's aroused great dismay', she said.
HFEA Chair Lisa Jardine responded to news of the leaked letter on BBC News this afternoon saying the HFEA would 'hold the line' until someone took over its functions. 'We will keep doing that work until someone else takes over. Without that you're going to have things that the government fears and the public fears - things like human admixed embryos, which have human material in as well as animal material'.
The HFEA's functions will be split three ways when it's finally 'dismantled', Lisa Jardine told the BBC. 'It is proposed that our regulatory functions will go to a beefed-up Care Quality Commission (the health and social care regulator) and there should be a new regulatory body for science research', she said.
'The work we do on regulating licensing research based on embryonic tissue - anything that's based on human tissue - might go into this new body, but that would require primary legislation so we're looking at two, three years on that. Our information might go to the big government information bank, but I think that's a red herring because our information is so sensitive - parenting of donor-conceived children and all that'.
To read more http://bit.ly/anfTKt
BioNews reported two months ago that the HFEA could be split up following the publication of a Government review of health Arm's Length Bodies (ALBs). 'There isn't anything new in this news story compared to two months ago and we'd like to reassure patients that they will continue to receive regulation', a HFEA spokesperson told BioNews.
Baroness Deech, former HFEA Chair, reiterated that the leaked letter was no surprise on Friday morning's BBC Today programme. 'It was trailed and it's aroused great dismay', she said.
HFEA Chair Lisa Jardine responded to news of the leaked letter on BBC News this afternoon saying the HFEA would 'hold the line' until someone took over its functions. 'We will keep doing that work until someone else takes over. Without that you're going to have things that the government fears and the public fears - things like human admixed embryos, which have human material in as well as animal material'.
The HFEA's functions will be split three ways when it's finally 'dismantled', Lisa Jardine told the BBC. 'It is proposed that our regulatory functions will go to a beefed-up Care Quality Commission (the health and social care regulator) and there should be a new regulatory body for science research', she said.
'The work we do on regulating licensing research based on embryonic tissue - anything that's based on human tissue - might go into this new body, but that would require primary legislation so we're looking at two, three years on that. Our information might go to the big government information bank, but I think that's a red herring because our information is so sensitive - parenting of donor-conceived children and all that'.
To read more http://bit.ly/anfTKt
Women are having fewer children and later in life
Some are having children almost two years beyond the point they anticipated while an intended family size of at least two children has not, on average, proved a reality.
The effective baby gap was last night attributed to increasing numbers of women taking on careers, households not being able to afford large families or just not being able to find the right partner.
The average childbearing age in Britain now stands at 29.3 years, the highest level since records began in 1938, a study for the Office for National Statistics said.
Between 1991 and 2007, the research asked women how many children they intended to have and found they consistently gave a higher rate than the actual average fertility rate throughout that period.
The intended family size ranged between 2.0 and 2.16 children per woman when the actual fertility rate was around 0.3-0.4 children per woman lower until 2001, after which the gap narrowed slightly.
Women also expected, on average, to have their first child at a younger age than actually proved to be the case.
Those aged 22-25 in 1991/94 expected to give birth within 3.9 years – the actual average wait was 4.5 years.
For women aged 30-33, the anticipated two-year wait for a first child became 3.5 years on average.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/8XE8rM
The effective baby gap was last night attributed to increasing numbers of women taking on careers, households not being able to afford large families or just not being able to find the right partner.
The average childbearing age in Britain now stands at 29.3 years, the highest level since records began in 1938, a study for the Office for National Statistics said.
Between 1991 and 2007, the research asked women how many children they intended to have and found they consistently gave a higher rate than the actual average fertility rate throughout that period.
The intended family size ranged between 2.0 and 2.16 children per woman when the actual fertility rate was around 0.3-0.4 children per woman lower until 2001, after which the gap narrowed slightly.
Women also expected, on average, to have their first child at a younger age than actually proved to be the case.
Those aged 22-25 in 1991/94 expected to give birth within 3.9 years – the actual average wait was 4.5 years.
For women aged 30-33, the anticipated two-year wait for a first child became 3.5 years on average.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/8XE8rM
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Take a Break Reveals Sperm Donors
Take a Break have recently covered an article revealing sperm donors who offer natural insemination (or sexual intercourse) to single and lesbian women. Their investigation into unregulated sperm donors gets deeper.
Take a Break tracked them down on Britain’s top social network Facebook. The group is called ‘Help Find Suitable FREE Sperm Donors in the UK’. Also other groups called ‘Lesbian Seeking Sperm’ and an online group ‘Support Sperm Donation’.
Sperm donors revealed include:
Rod, of Liverpool
Describes himself as: Donor from near Liverpool, looking for other couples and singles to help, 6ft 3” tall, slim build, blue eyes, brown hair, clean, professional.
Requests: assisted artificial insemination (with a helping hand)
Leroy 43, Eastbourne, East Sussex.
Member of 10 Facebook sperm donation groups
Requests: natural insemination
Dave, 31, near Seattle, USA
Member of online group ‘Need a sperm donor to complete our family’
Requests: natural insemination
Derek, 36, Northampton
Member of online group ‘Lesbian Seeking Sperm’
Derek says: I am a 36 year old sperm donor based in Northamptonshire UK. If you would like to get in touch to discuss any requirements you may have or any questions please get in touch and we can decide if I am suitable to help.
Requests: natural insemination
Alan, 36, Manchester
Requests: natural insemination
Andrew, Cambridge
Member of the online group ‘Support Sperm Donation’
Andrew says: How much can I earn donating sperm? I have a lot of spare time on my hands. I think this would be an enjoyable/profitable way to prevent my boredom.
Requests: natural insemination
Giwrgos, 26, Athens, Greece
Requests: natural insemination
Giwrgos says: I only donate to people who are not able to have kids. All the rest pay a heavy fee of 2000euros. Prices normally go from 12K-50K. In some cases even 100K. It’s better to come with cash, however we will get you 100 per cent pregnant before we have to exchange anything.
Pride Angel
Pride Angel is the only connection site to continually monitor member’s profiles and acts upon all ‘report abuse’ comments, to help provide a safer site for connecting genuine sperm donors and co-parents. Sperm donors must abide by the following items within our ‘Code of Conduct’:
Donors must not offer natural insemination to recipients
Donors must not request payment for donations (other than reasonable expenses)
Donors must not donate to numerous women
Suspect a sperm donor? Report them!
Any member who suspects that any of the above sperm donors are offering their services within Pride Angel, or any other sperm donors are breaking the 'Code of Conduct' are requested to report them using the ‘Report Abuse’ button.
www.prideangel.com
To read more go to http://bit.ly/a7C2vV
Take a Break tracked them down on Britain’s top social network Facebook. The group is called ‘Help Find Suitable FREE Sperm Donors in the UK’. Also other groups called ‘Lesbian Seeking Sperm’ and an online group ‘Support Sperm Donation’.
Sperm donors revealed include:
Rod, of Liverpool
Describes himself as: Donor from near Liverpool, looking for other couples and singles to help, 6ft 3” tall, slim build, blue eyes, brown hair, clean, professional.
Requests: assisted artificial insemination (with a helping hand)
Leroy 43, Eastbourne, East Sussex.
Member of 10 Facebook sperm donation groups
Requests: natural insemination
Dave, 31, near Seattle, USA
Member of online group ‘Need a sperm donor to complete our family’
Requests: natural insemination
Derek, 36, Northampton
Member of online group ‘Lesbian Seeking Sperm’
Derek says: I am a 36 year old sperm donor based in Northamptonshire UK. If you would like to get in touch to discuss any requirements you may have or any questions please get in touch and we can decide if I am suitable to help.
Requests: natural insemination
Alan, 36, Manchester
Requests: natural insemination
Andrew, Cambridge
Member of the online group ‘Support Sperm Donation’
Andrew says: How much can I earn donating sperm? I have a lot of spare time on my hands. I think this would be an enjoyable/profitable way to prevent my boredom.
Requests: natural insemination
Giwrgos, 26, Athens, Greece
Requests: natural insemination
Giwrgos says: I only donate to people who are not able to have kids. All the rest pay a heavy fee of 2000euros. Prices normally go from 12K-50K. In some cases even 100K. It’s better to come with cash, however we will get you 100 per cent pregnant before we have to exchange anything.
Pride Angel
Pride Angel is the only connection site to continually monitor member’s profiles and acts upon all ‘report abuse’ comments, to help provide a safer site for connecting genuine sperm donors and co-parents. Sperm donors must abide by the following items within our ‘Code of Conduct’:
Donors must not offer natural insemination to recipients
Donors must not request payment for donations (other than reasonable expenses)
Donors must not donate to numerous women
Suspect a sperm donor? Report them!
Any member who suspects that any of the above sperm donors are offering their services within Pride Angel, or any other sperm donors are breaking the 'Code of Conduct' are requested to report them using the ‘Report Abuse’ button.
www.prideangel.com
To read more go to http://bit.ly/a7C2vV
Sunday, 19 September 2010
Sperm 'brokers' who made £250,000 face jail
Two businessmen Nigel Woodforth 43 and Ricky Gage 49 face jail after being convicted of running an illegal fertility company. They made £250,000 by acting as 'sperm brokers' and intermediaries through their online operation Fertility 1st. The pair introduced would be donors to nearly 800 women who were desperate to conceive - who were charged over £500 for the privilege.
The men were reported to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) after one of their clients complained about their unprofessional standards.
Unlike any other introductory site, Fertility 1st directly paid sperm donors and charged women for the donations. They also kept the donors details anonymous as the women and the donors did not need to meet or exchange any personal details. Instead Fertility 1st arranged for the fresh sperm to be couriered to the recipients house for home insemination.
The sperm brokers claimed to have tested the sperm donors for infections such as HIV, but there could be no assurance that the tests where actually up to date, and that the donors had not had unprotected sex in the meantime, thus putting the health of these women as risk of infections such as HIV, hepatitis and syphilis. There was also no proof that the sperm was actually from the right donor.
Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, donors using licensed clinics are not the legal fathers of any child conceived. However they are classed as parents if the centre has no licence.
Without licensed treatment, a child does not have the legal guarantee that they would be able to find out who their father is later in life, nor can they access his genetic history.
The HFEA said: "Certain internet-based businesses claim to be merely an introductory service whereby recipients and donors are put in touch with one another and thereafter make their own arrangements. The HFEA is aware that some of these businesses, however, do not allow direct contact between recipient and donor. Under the act this is an element of procurement and therefore required to be licensed."
Websites who act as purely introduction services, allowing potential donors and recipients to meet, are not required to be licensed.
Unfortunately sperm brokers such as Fertility 1st do give a bad name to online connections services, many of which do help to bring people together in a positive way, enabling co-parenting arrangements and genuine donors who wish to stay in contact with any child. For example a lesbian couple being able to co-parent with a gay couple can have such a positive effect for the child's identity.
Pride Angel, the leading parenting connection site welcomes the decision of the court regarding 'Fertility 1st'. Erika Tranfield co-founder of Pride Angel stated 'the broker service that these businessmen provided went against everything we at Pride Angel believe in'. 'We want to provide our users with the ability to find co-parents, who will be part of the child's life and do not agree with anonymous donation. We are also committed to advising our users about the health screening risks and legal implications of any co-parenting or donor arrangement.'
'In addition to this, Pride Angel has a strict 'Code of Conduct' for our users to abide by' and sperm donors agree to use HFEA regulated clinics for treatment. All our profiles our continually monitored and reviewed. No mention of natural insemination is permitted. No mention of anonymous donation is allowed, donors must not request payment for donations and recipients must not offer money to donors. We also restrict messages sent between users to prevent any donors over contacting or harassing women, unlike any other connection service'.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/b2b1a9
The men were reported to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) after one of their clients complained about their unprofessional standards.
Unlike any other introductory site, Fertility 1st directly paid sperm donors and charged women for the donations. They also kept the donors details anonymous as the women and the donors did not need to meet or exchange any personal details. Instead Fertility 1st arranged for the fresh sperm to be couriered to the recipients house for home insemination.
The sperm brokers claimed to have tested the sperm donors for infections such as HIV, but there could be no assurance that the tests where actually up to date, and that the donors had not had unprotected sex in the meantime, thus putting the health of these women as risk of infections such as HIV, hepatitis and syphilis. There was also no proof that the sperm was actually from the right donor.
Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, donors using licensed clinics are not the legal fathers of any child conceived. However they are classed as parents if the centre has no licence.
Without licensed treatment, a child does not have the legal guarantee that they would be able to find out who their father is later in life, nor can they access his genetic history.
The HFEA said: "Certain internet-based businesses claim to be merely an introductory service whereby recipients and donors are put in touch with one another and thereafter make their own arrangements. The HFEA is aware that some of these businesses, however, do not allow direct contact between recipient and donor. Under the act this is an element of procurement and therefore required to be licensed."
Websites who act as purely introduction services, allowing potential donors and recipients to meet, are not required to be licensed.
Unfortunately sperm brokers such as Fertility 1st do give a bad name to online connections services, many of which do help to bring people together in a positive way, enabling co-parenting arrangements and genuine donors who wish to stay in contact with any child. For example a lesbian couple being able to co-parent with a gay couple can have such a positive effect for the child's identity.
Pride Angel, the leading parenting connection site welcomes the decision of the court regarding 'Fertility 1st'. Erika Tranfield co-founder of Pride Angel stated 'the broker service that these businessmen provided went against everything we at Pride Angel believe in'. 'We want to provide our users with the ability to find co-parents, who will be part of the child's life and do not agree with anonymous donation. We are also committed to advising our users about the health screening risks and legal implications of any co-parenting or donor arrangement.'
'In addition to this, Pride Angel has a strict 'Code of Conduct' for our users to abide by' and sperm donors agree to use HFEA regulated clinics for treatment. All our profiles our continually monitored and reviewed. No mention of natural insemination is permitted. No mention of anonymous donation is allowed, donors must not request payment for donations and recipients must not offer money to donors. We also restrict messages sent between users to prevent any donors over contacting or harassing women, unlike any other connection service'.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/b2b1a9
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
