Divorced Couple Battling Over Embryos - MSNBC

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=25199450-167c-49ae-bfa5-d64427b5e341 video link here The case of Roman v. Roman is boiling over into the Texas Supreme Court.

This morning, we ran a story on Augusta and Randy Roman, a divorced couple that -- when they were married -- had planned to conceive a child through in-vitro fertilization.?

But divorce complicated their plans and brought about a legal and ethical issue -- what should be done with frozen embryos after a couple gets divorced?

Augusta, her lawyer, and Randy's lawyer also joined Meredith for a live interview this morning.

Doctors had retrieved 13 eggs from Augusta's ovaries, and six had been fertilized with Randy's sperm. But just hours before the embryos were to be implanted into Augusta's womb, Randy got cold feet. He canceled the procedure, and the embryos were frozen while the couple underwent counseling.

Counseling didn't work, and their 6-year marriage soon dissolved.

Augusta has argued that she should be allowed to implant the embryos and attempt to have a child. And she has agreed to absolve Randy of any financial or parental obligations.

Since the couple is no longer together, Randy wants the embryos destroyed -- or at least frozen indefinitely -- and cites a cryopreservation consent form the couple had signed that stipulated that if they were to divorce, the embryos would be discarded.

The Texas Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case later this year.

Who do you think is right? Should the courts allow her to use the embryos? Should Randy just allow Augusta to use the frozen embryos or should he stand firm?

http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/209482.aspx

'De facto' parent's visitation on trial

Abraham Center of Life No Longer in Embryo Business

For Immediate Releasehttp://newsroom.eworldwire.com/view_release.php?id=17092SAN ANTONIO, Texas/EWORLDWIRE/May 30, 2007 --- The Abraham Center of Life LLC is sorry to announce that they will no longer offer embryos to potential infertile families.The company, owned by Jennalee Ryan, who also operates Abagails Silver Spoon Adoptions, was created as a very cost effective method of pregnancy for infertile families.Contrary to some reports, The Abraham Center of Life was never established to generate revenue but as a way of "giving back" by giving an opportunity to so many people desperate for a child that cannot afford the extremely high cost of adoption.At the very best, it was a break even enterprise. However, regrettably, it is no longer cost effective to operate at such an extreme loss.It will, however, continue as an advertising agency for surrogates and egg donors, and attempt to offer options to the thousands of potential parents that have contacted them worldwide.

Woman defends decision to give birth at 60

Those who believe it is wrong for older women to bear children need to get in step with a society that is living longer, a 60-year-old woman who gave birth to twins this week said Thursday on TODAY.

"It's wonderful. It's wonderful," Frieda Birnbaum, who delivered healthy baby boys on Tuesday, said during a live interview from a New Jersey hospital. Birnbarm is believed to be the oldest woman ever to give birth to twins in the U.S.

"I think those people need to get ready for what's coming up in our society. Whenever there's anything new, people cannot comprehend or have difficulty getting comfortable," she said. "There are a lot of middle-aged women [having babies] - 40s, 50s, now I just turned 60. That's going to be acceptable. They have to just keep up with what's going on with society."

Birnbaum and her husband of 38 years, New York attorney Ken Birnbaum, traveled to South Africa last year to a center that specializes in in-vitro fertilization of older women. The procedure was a success. It surprised no one more than Birnbaum's obstetrician, Dr. Abdulla Al-Khan.

? ?Wow!? was my reaction. I had a little difficulty believing she was pregnant, until we confirmed it with ultrasound,? Al-Khan told TODAY anchor Meredith Vieira.

Birnbaum's adult children had trouble believing it, too. Alana Birnbaum, 29, told the New York Daily News that she was against her parents' decision to have another child so late in life.

?She's youthful for her age but I don't think it's good,? Alana Birnbaum told the tabloid. ?She should be going to the gym and taking time for herself ? not taking on more stresses and responsibilities ... Am I happy at all about this? No. I'm not,? she said.

Her choice Asked about her daughter's comment by Vieira, Frieda Birnbaum said the decision was hers and her husband?s to make, and she hopes someday her daughter ? and others ? will realize how much freedom modern women have and feel empowered by it.

?I hope I'm a role model for my daughter, that when she gets older she can make her own decision based on who she is, rather than what society dictates,? Birnbaum said.

The boys, who tipped the scales at 4 pounds, 11 ounces each when they were delivered by C-section within minutes of each other at the Hackensack University Medical Center, are doing well. The couple named them Jake and Jared.

The Birnbaums also have two other sons ? ages 33 and 6. Frieda told Fox News that part of the reason for her decision was that she wanted her younger child to have siblings closer to his age.

Al-Khan cautioned that having children late in life is risky for mother and child. He recommended that anyone considering it consult a physician first, become informed and seek out counseling to make sure late-life motherhood is what they really want.

?I can't be judgmental about that. This has taught me to be very open-minded,? Al-Khan said.

Earlier this year, a woman in Spain delivered twins at age 67, believed to be a world record.

Birnbaum and her sons are scheduled to leave the hospital on Saturday.

60 Year Old Woman Gives Birth in US to Twins

Couple Says Surrogate Mother Is Stealing Their Baby - Florida - WARNING: this is a Florida case involving a traditional surrogate who is genetically related to the baby

http://www.wftv.com/news/13375953/detail.htmlOVIEDO, Fla. -- An Oviedo couple said they're being extorted and defrauded by a surrogate mother. The couple hired a woman from Jacksonville to have their baby, but now, they said, she's refusing to give up the baby and is even asking for child support.The Oviedo couple already has one child through a surrogate mother. In that case, everything went perfectly. This time, they tried a different surrogate and said she is trying to steal their baby.The couple believes the baby was born last week, but they can't get any concrete answers. They are taking the issue to court as a crib sits empty and the couple waits for the baby they said their surrogate mom stole from them.The room, decorated in Tinkerbell theme, is awaiting the arrival of the Lamintina's little girl. They were set to name her Rochelle Amber. Now they don't know if they'll ever get to hold her."My biggest fear is we may not be able to bring her home. That's what's so hard," said Gwyn Lamintina.She said they had such a wonderful experience having a surrogate for their first child, TJ, that they looked forward to the process again, but she and her husband Tom said it has been awful."I just hope and I pray everything will work out alright," Tom said.The surrogate mother, Stephanie Eckard, lives in Jacksonville. At her home, someone inside would only say there was no comment. Then a note was taped on the door: 'No comment. Contact my attorney Kelly Hanson.' So Eyewitness News did."Under the laws of the state of Florida, surrogacy is like adoption. The surrogate mom has the option to keep the baby," Hanson said.That's something the Lamintina's attorney disputes."Is she asking for child support?" WFTV reporter Cynthia Demos asked Hanson."I'm not going to answer that," Hanson said."We didn't think anyone would be that low to scam someone with a baby out of money," Tom said.The DNA test proves that there is a 99.9999 percent chance Tom is the father. The egg is from the surrogate mother. The surrogate did cash the $1,500 deposit, which the Lamintina's hope will work in their favor.However, there is one major sticking point. The surrogate never signed the "surrogacy contract." The Lamintina's said they never checked, because they trusted her. They said they will not give up on until they have their baby girl home.The Lamintina's said they found Eckard on a surrogacy site online. All the lawsuits have been filed in Jacksonville in the Duval County courthouse and the Lamintina's are hoping they will get their Rochelle home by the time she's one.

Sperm Donors Valued Less Than Egg Donors

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/530278/Newswise ? When Sociologist Rene Almeling decided to look into the operations of U.S. sperm banks and egg agencies, the UCLA Ph.D. candidate in sociology thought she knew what she would find.She figured that any discrepancies in compensation rates for the building blocks of assisted reproduction could be explained by either market forces or the biological differences between female egg donors, who must undergo hormone therapy and outpatient surgery, and their male counterparts, who, as one recruitment ad put it, ?get paid to do what you already do.?Instead, Almeling, whose findings appear in the June issue of the American Sociological Review, uncovered a topsy-turvy market that often defies not just conventional wisdom but also the basic law of supply and demand.?Men donors are paid less for a much longer time commitment and a great deal of personal inconvenience,? she said. ?They also are much less prepared for the emotional consequences of serving as a donor of reproductive material. Women, meanwhile, are not only paid more for a much shorter time commitment, they are repeatedly thanked for ?giving the gift of life.??From compensation rates to the smallest details of donor relations, sperm donors are less valued than egg donors,? Almeling said. ?Egg donors are treated like gold, while sperm donors are perceived as a dime a dozen.?The inequities persist despite the fact that profiles of hundreds of potential egg donors languish on agency Web sites, far outstripping recipient demand, while suitable sperm donors are quite rare, Almeling found. In fact, only a tiny fraction of the male population possesses a sperm count consistently high enough to be considered donation-worthy, and more than 90 percent of sperm bank applicants are rejected for this and other reasons. As a result, sperm banks routinely resort to finder?s fees to meet the need.?A pronounced double-standard exists in the way that men and women donors are valued by the fertility industry, and it can?t be explained medically or by market forces,? Almeling said. ?Based on the availability of donors alone, you would expect the abundance of potential egg donors to drive down compensation fees and the scarcity of potential sperm donors to drive up their fees. But I found just the opposite.Almeling?s findings are part of a growing body of research on the sociology of markets in life-saving and life-giving material, including blood and organ donations and life insurance payouts. But Almeling?s study, which is based on interviews with 25 staff members at two sperm banks and two egg agencies, is believed to be the first detailed comparison of gender-based differences in U.S. compensation rates for reproductive material. Almeling has been gathering data on the medical market in genetic material for the past five years.Almeling found that it is not unusual for egg donors in large cities to make upwards of $5,000 per donation ? no matter the outcome. Agencies also encourage recipient couples to provide female donors with thank-you notes, small tokens of appreciation and even cash bonuses.In contrast, sperm banks do not pay as well or encourage such displays of gratitude. Male donors make between $50 and $75 per donation, and they are paid only when their samples meet the high fertility standards required for freezing. Over the length of their contracts ? generally, an entire year ? sperm donors may make as much as their female counterparts do over the course of a single six-week cycle, but only if they donate more than the required one sample per week. Invariably, however, earnings of sperm donors fell short, either because donors missed weekly sessions or their samples failed to meet fertility standards. Women also may donate as many as three times in a year, and their fees increase with each completed cycle.So an egg donor actually stands to make far more during the same period of time than even the most diligent and fertile sperm donor.Moreover, men work much longer for their pay than women, and their activities are much more restricted as a result. In addition to requiring weekly donations for a year, sperm banks instruct men to refrain from sex for two days prior to donation or risk the possibility that their samples will fail to meet fertility standards. Being sick or stressed also has a negative effect on sperm count.?Even the doctors who were working with infertile couples were surprised when they learned just how demanding the process is for men,? Almeling said. ?Sperm donors basically have to schedule their sex lives for a year.?Meanwhile, their female counterparts also have to refrain from sex, but their activities are restricted only for six weeks. However, the women have to commit to a degree of bodily invasiveness not experienced by men: a six-week regime of hormone therapy, which leads to serious complications in 1 to 2 percent of cases, and a single egg-extraction procedure that causes some discomfort and leads to serious complications in less than 1 out of 1,000 cases, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.Men and women weren?t just compensated dramatically differently. They also experienced dramatically different ?working? conditions. Almeling found that women were repeatedly reminded of their generosity, whereas men tended to be reminded that sperm donation was to be viewed like any other job.?Staff at egg agencies constantly thank women and encourage them to think about what a wonderful difference they?re making in the lives of recipients,? Almeling said. ?The sperm bank staff is appreciative, but men aren?t told how amazing they are and what a great gift they?re giving. They?re treated more like reproductive service workers. They come in. They clock in and out. Their sample is checked for quality. And they?re only paid when they produce an acceptable sample.?The medical community has justified compensation rates for egg donors by pointing out that egg extraction is more difficult and risky than extracting sperm and that the female body has a limited supply of eggs, while the male body replenishes sperm. But Almeling does not believe these biological differences fully explain this market. While an individual woman has fewer eggs than an individual man has sperm, women never run the risk of ?running out? of eggs due to donating. Moreover, the huge oversupply of women willing to be donors means that eggs are not actually scarce for couples seeing to acquire them.Cultural norms of parenthood, which are perpetuated though marketing efforts, interact with these biological understandings to produce the differences in market prices, Almeling believes.?Both eggs and egg donors are more highly valued than sperm and sperm donors, where it is not just reproductive material but visions of middle-class, American femininity and masculinity and motherhood and fatherhood that are marketed and purchased,? she said.Donor recruitment at the egg agencies and sperm banks appeared to reinforce these stereotypes, Almeling found. Egg agency advertisements tend to appeal to women?s altruism, while men are informed of a job opportunity. The application process for donors also favors what Almeling called ?gendered stereotypes of selfless motherhood and distant fatherhood.? Although egg donors stood to be handsomely compensated, women who indicated there was a financial motive behind their participation were routinely rejected in favor of applicants who expressed more altruistic motives, such as the desire to ?help? infertile couples. Sperm banks, meanwhile, were much less explicit about the need to appear altruistic.?While most egg donors will never meet their genetic children, women are expected to reproduce well-worn patters of ?naturally? caring, helpful femininity, guiltily hiding any interest that they might have in the promise of thousands of dollars,? Almeling said. ?This ruse is not demanded of sperm donors. Men, who are more likely to be contacted through the banks? identity release programs, often do not even consider that children will result from regular deposits at the sperm bank.?In fact, one sperm donor was dumbstruck when he was informed that one of his contributions had resulted in conception.?I hadn?t really thought about the fact there were going to be pregnancies,? he said.The American Sociological Association, founded in 1905, is a non-profit membership association dedicated to serving sociologists in their work, advancing sociology as a science and profession, and promoting the contributions and use of sociology to society.

UK to loosen fertility controls

After months of consultation, the British government has released a draft overhaul of its contentious fertility legislation. Many significant changes have been made, but the bellwether issue is the creation of chimeras, or hybrid animal-human embryos. Although there had been signs that the government would ban these, the proposed legislation allows them. Health Minister Caroline Flint denied that it had caved in to pressure from scientists and patient groups. She said that the government always wanted to leave the door open to such research and that scientists had made a strong case for it.Scientists were pleased, although Dr Stephen Minger, head of the stem cell team at King's College London, lamented that Parliament was too involved. Only scientific and ethical experts were competent to regulate the fast-moving field of embryonic research. "This system of a panel of scientists, bioethicists, lawyers and informed lay members... has always worked perfectly well. It's the only way to do it. What we definitely want to avoid is government trying to legalise science," he commented.Opponents were scathing. Josephine Quintavalle, of the lobby group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said bluntly: "It is appalling that the government has bowed to pressure from the random collection of self-interested scientists and change its prohibitive stance. This is a highly controversial and terrifying proposal, which has little justification in science and even less in ethics. Endorsement by the UK government will elicit horror in Europe and right across the wider world."The possibility of creating hybrid embryos was just one amongst many proposals which would have seemed radical when the 1991 decision was first made to permit embryo research and establish the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. These include:* A child can be created without a legal father, but two legal mothers. Children do not necessarily need a father in IVF procedures.* Embryos can be screened for serious medical conditions.* Eggs or sperm can be removed from incompetent persons without their consent.* Not-for-profit surrogacy agencies will be able to charge reasonable expenses for organising surrogate mothers.Although the list of procedures which the government proposes to legalise and regulate is long, a few are explicitly banned. Sex selection is still on the black list, as are artificial gametes, genetic modification of IVF embryos and deliberately selecting a disease or disorder (such as deaf parents choosing to have a deaf child). ~ BBC, May 17; Guardian, May 17 ??

60-year-old N.J. woman delivers twins - MSNBC

Associated Presshttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18817248/

TRENTON, N.J. - A 60-year-old woman became a mother, twice over, when she delivered a pair of boys Tuesday.

Frieda Birnbaum gave birth to ?Baby A? at 12:44 p.m. and ?Baby B? a minute later by Caesarean section at Hackensack University Medical Center, hospital spokeswoman Nancy Radwin said. The twins each weighed 4 pounds, 11 ounces, she said.

?The mom is in recovery, and she and the babies are doing really well,? Radwin said, declining a request to speak with the mother.

Hospital officials believe Birnbaum may be the oldest woman to give birth to twins in the United States, Radwin said.

Birnbaum, a psychologist from Saddle River, underwent in-vitro fertilization last year in Cape Town, South Africa, at a center that specializes in older women. She and her husband, Ken, a New York attorney, have been married for 38 years and have three other children ? sons ages 6 and 33 and a daughter, 29.

Birnbaum told Fox News she wanted her younger son to have siblings closer to his age and wanted to remove some of the stigma attached to older women giving birth.

Coincidentally, Tuesday was the birthday of twins born one year ago to a 59-year-old woman ? also to a New Jersey woman. Lauren Cohen gave birth to Gregory and Giselle on May 22, 2006, at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia.

Cohen said Birnbaum contacted her after seeing her name in a magazine and that the two quickly became friends.

?We talked about babies; I suggested things that would be helpful when you try to feed two babies simultaneously,? Cohen said.

Dennis Quaid and wife having twins by surrogate

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/05/22/showbuzz/LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Dennis Quaid and his wife, Kimberly, are expecting twins later this year by a surrogate mother.The 53-year-old actor and his wife are the biological parents, Quaid publicist Lisa Kasteler said Monday. The couple married in July 2004.Quaid has a teenage son, Jack Henry Quaid, from his marriage to Meg Ryan.His screen credits include "The Right Stuff," "The Rookie" and "Far From Heaven."Quaid is now filming "The Express," Kasteler said.

Canadians turning to US surrogates

The Case for PGD - Dr. Wherlin

On April 23, 2007, Bruce Goldman authored a byline for The Los Angeles Times entitled, ?Not-so Natural Selection,? in which he outlined to readers the results of a Belgian study published by Human Reproduction in 2004. This study indicated that, among other things, the advanced reproductive technology Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) ? when utilized as a tool for aneuploidy screening in women of advanced maternal age ? yielded fewer successful pregnancies when compared with a control group. Goldman uses this to build a foundational argument supporting the opinions of unidentified industry experts, citing deficient substantiation of claims that PGD positively contributes to the ?take-home baby rate.?While the results of the Belgian study are no doubt reliable and noteworthy to be sure, they beckon mention of the following point: that PGD?s proven benefits rest in aiding the detection of single gene defects like cystic fibrosis or Huntington?s disease. ?When planning PGD for infertility, the number of cells to be biopsied must be considered carefully,? explains Dr. Santiago Munn?, an award-winning and internationally recognized leader in reproductive medicine research, director of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis at Reprogenetics, LLC and the co-author of a noted study(*) on the subject.This may account for the discrepancy between American and Belgian study results. Whereas European groups remove two cells for biopsy, American groups rely on the use of just one cell. Removal of up to one-third to one-half of embryonic tissue versus a single cell may be the defining difference in the embryo?s ability to continue to develop and divide appropriately.As with any technology, patients must be advised of risks and benefits associated with the procedure. For women of advanced maternal age, as was cited in The Los Angeles Times ? and who mainly comprise a high-risk group of patients for whom there is increased risk for chromosomal abnormality ? PGD serves another function not addressed in the article. When observing embryos for high-risk groups, such as women of advanced maternal age, women with recurrent pregnancy loss, women with two or more failed in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and couples where the male has severe male factor; 25 to 30 percent of these patient have all embryos abnormal. Thus, PGD allows patients within these high-risk groups an assessment on their likelihood of conceiving and consideration of alternative options.In instances where aneuploidy is consistent, PGD can help women turn a corner from their painful position of, ?If I just keep trying IVF, I will eventually get pregnant.? The technique provides answers that allow these women to search for other options such as traditional adoption, use of donor eggs or donor embryos. Of course, every patient?s case needs to be evaluated on an individual basis and no process is 100 percent accurate; however, PGD can be beneficial for a number of reasons ? including its ability to answer patient queries as to why they haven?t conceived in the past or why repetitive results may indicate a need to look at other options.Clearly, there need to be guidelines for how PGD is used. But through application of the technique, multifetal gestational rates can effectively be reduced ? a point not mentioned by Goldman (LA Times, 2007). By transferring fewer healthier embryos, the likelihood of a pregnancy resulting in twins and triplets is dramatically reduced.Perhaps Goldman?s closing thoughts on the impact that an embryo experiences from removal of its genetic material deserve greater attention. Attributing results of a Belgian study to the PGD pregnancy rates of American patients, becomes an apples-to-oranges comparison ? one that acts as a disservice to the thousands of couples nationwide who aspire to build a family through advanced reproductive technologies.(*) Cohen, J., Munn?, S. & Wells, D. (2007). Removal of 2 cells from cleavage stage embryos is likely to reduce the efficacy of chromosomal tests that are used to enhance implantation rates. Fertility and Sterility (Vol. 87, No. 3), p.495-502.

The "Egg Donors Are People Too" Story - Jennifer's Blog

http://www.jenisfamous.com/2007/05/egg-donors-are-people-too-story.html which was part of a fertility conference at the Grand Central Hyatt (a quite nice hotel). The woman moderating the panel was a psychiatrist (maybe a psychologist, I forget) specializing in fertility issues. She was beautifully dressed and coiffed and had a sort of blue-blooded air about her, as though, despite having an enviable job, she didn't actually need to work. She was the one who named the panel. Things got off to, in my view, a hilarious start when Dr. Upper Class began with a poignant paean to egg donors, women who really care about other people's infertility and are so giving of their time and of themselves. Because, of course, no one would go through all that just for the money! And then the floor was turned over to me, to introduce myself and talk -- in a teary, estrogen-fueled sort of way, I imagine -- about what it meant to donate eggs. "Of course," I began, "when we say 'donating,' we're not really donating at all. That's why all the ads in the Village Voice prominently list how many thousands of dollars the gig pays." Some egg professionals in the audience looked stricken. I then spent the next ten minutes metaphorically pointing at the white elephant in the room and jumping up and down, saying the same thing I always say: women are adults who can make their own decisions in a market economy. If our bodies are our own, then we can make economic decisions about them as well. Men can choose to endanger their health working in coal mines; women can choose to inject themselves with hormones for cash. (Imagine a blue-blooded society woman claiming "No one would go underground in those dirty pits and mine coal and risk black lung disease just for $25,000 a year! Surely these kind souls must really care that rich people need to burn fuel for energy!) Egg donors aren't heartless people who don't care about infertility, I pointed out, but seriously, but I think a lot more broke twenty-year old women apply their altruistic instincts towards, say, Darfur, or global warming, or AIDS in Africa, than towards the inability of American couples to conceive. And rightly so. What kind of arrogance does it take to think that, when typically lower-middle-class women donate eggs to upper-middle-class buyers, it's not about the money? On the question of whether $8,000 is enough to go through all the hormones, I said that, towards the end when it was two injections a day and lots of PMS-type side effects, I simply took the amount of money I was still owed, divided it by the number of injections remaining, and told myself that figure every time I had an injection to do. The number was over $100. Was I, and had I always been, in an economic position such that I felt that a worthwhile exchange? Obviously. That's why I signed up to do it. Of course, it's not entirely about the money. It's also about a desire to spread my genes anywhere I can, just as men have always done, and male hip-hop artists regularly rap about. That ("I'd like to knock you all up, quite frankly") didn't go over so well at the panel either, at least among the organizers. However, a number of people-trying-to-be-parents came up to me afterwards and thanked me for making them laugh. (If only "comedian on call" could be my title! Of course, it's easy to make people laugh when you're the only comedian in the room and no one is expecting a comedian).

As Demand for Donor Eggs Soars, High Prices Stir Ethical Concerns

Samantha Carolan was 23 and fresh out of graduate school when she decided to donate eggs to an infertile couple. Ms. Carolan concedes that she would never have done it if not for the money, $7,000 that she used to pay off some student loans.She has since had a second egg extraction, for which she was paid $8,000, and she is planning a third before taking a break.?The first time, it?s frightening,? said Ms. Carolan, now 24, of Winfield Park, N.J. ?It is surgery, and I don?t think I would have done it without compensation. But I had very limited pain, and it was a great experience for me. I would have done it the second time for less money or even no compensation.?Though many egg donors derive great satisfaction from knowing that they helped someone start a family, the price of eggs has soared in recent years as demand has increased, and the sizable payments raise controversy.A survey published this month in the journal Fertility and Sterility, ?What Is Happening to the Price of Eggs?? found that the national average compensation for donors was $4,217. At least one center told the authors of the paper that it paid $15,000. Many centers did not respond.Though laws prohibit the sale of transplant organs, sperm donors have always received small payments, and prospective parents in the United States are allowed to compensate women for their far greater expenditure of time and energy. (Many countries, including Canada and Britain, do prohibit payments to egg donors.)The American Society for Reproductive Medicine considers compensation of $5,000 or more to ?require justification? and sums exceeding $10,000 ?beyond what is appropriate.?Meanwhile, advertisements recruiting students from elite universities to donate promise tens of thousands of dollars, and donor agencies have sprung up, appealing to would-be parents with online videos and photo galleries of donors. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 5,767 babies were born in 2003 from donor eggs; the number of actual egg donations is probably much higher, however, because the success rate is fairly low.Ethicists and some women?s health advocates worry that lucrative payments are enticing young women with credit-card debt and steep tuition bills to sell eggs without seriously evaluating the risks.?The real issue is whether the money can cloud someone?s judgment,? said Josephine Johnston, an associate for law and bioethics at the Hastings Center, a research group in Garrison, N.Y., that specializes in medical ethics. She does not oppose compensation, but she does worry about high prices.?We hear about egg donors being paid enormous amounts of money, $50,000 or $60,000,? Ms. Johnston said. ?How much is that person actually giving informed consent about the medical procedure and really listening and thinking as it?s being described and its risks are explained??Adding to the debate was a proposal by lawmakers in Maryland to ban payments for eggs. Proponents of compensation say if payments are lowered or eliminated, the supply of eggs will dwindle or dry up.?Women aren?t exactly lining up to be donors,? said Dr. Mark Sauer, director of the Center for Women?s Reproductive Care at the Columbia University Medical Center. ?There are a lot more recipients than donors.?Part of the problem is that the risks of donation have not been thoroughly studied. Although the consensus among most reproductive endocrinologists is that extraction is safe, five deaths have been reported in Britain. There are enough unanswered questions that stem cell researchers have promised not to pay for eggs.?One of the most striking facts about in vitro fertilization is just how little is known with certainty about the long-term health outcomes for the women who undergo the procedure,? a recent report by the Institute of Medicine said.The 2005 guidelines of the National Academy of Sciences for human embryonic stem cell research discourage paying for eggs for research. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine reimburses women only for out-of-pocket expenses like lost wages or cab fare.?As a public agency, we felt we shouldn?t be putting money on the table that might induce someone to take a risk,? said Geoffrey Lomax, senior officer for medical and ethical standards at the institute.So far, women have not come forward to give away eggs for research. ?I just completed an outreach initiative to 21 institutions across the state that we?ve funded,? Dr. Lomax said. ?No one has had an egg donated specifically for research.?The reluctance is understandable. The process of egg extraction is time consuming, and it is not comfortable. For some women, it can be painful. A woman first has to take medications to stop her menstrual cycle and then daily hormone injections for several weeks to stimulate her ovaries to produce a crop of mature eggs at once.The drugs may cause bloating, weight gain, moodiness and irritability, and there is a risk of a rare condition called ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome that can cause life-threatening complications, blood clots and kidney failure.The egg extraction itself is a surgical procedure in which a thin needle is inserted through the vagina into the ovary to retrieve the eggs and liquid from the follicles. Risks include adverse responses to anesthesia, infection, bleeding or the inadvertent puncture of an organ.It is the long-term risks, both physical and psychological, that are harder to assess. Questions have been raised about whether extraction may jeopardize the donor?s fertility, and critics worry about the potential psychological harm to a donor of eggs as a young woman who later finds that she is unable to have children.And since egg donors go through much the same process as women trying to conceive in vitro, there are concerns that they may be prone to the higher rates of certain cancers that some studies have found among infertility patients. Still, said Dr. James A. Grifo, director of the division of reproductive endocrinology at the New York University School of Medicine, ?There is no credible evidence of long-lasting effects or health consequences down the line.?That does not necessarily mean that the procedures are safe.?There?s no health-outcome data collected by anybody other than some voluntary reporting, and there?s no postmarket testing on how these drugs are being used,? said Susan Berke Fogel, co-founder of the Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research, a project of the Public Health Institute in Oakland, Calif.In a recent article in The New England Journal of Medicine, a Harvard Business School professor said the controversy over the price of eggs was obscuring questions of women?s health. The author, Debora L. Spar, an economist who wrote ?The Baby Business? last year, calls for more studies of the drugs being used, more long-term follow-up of donors and federal regulations to ensure proper informed consent.When Ms. Carolan went to donate, the short-term risks were described to her in detail, but she said she did not recall any mention of possible long-term risks. Her family opposed her decision because they worried about her health, she said, and her friends did not understand.?They all think I?m crazy,? she said. ?If the topic comes up, and I tell friends I?ve done it, they?re like: ?Why? Oh my God, aren?t you afraid you have a baby out there?? They?re so stunned and shocked.?Then she tells them how much she was paid. ?And then they go, ?O.K., I understand now, that?s cool,? ? she said. ?People understand the money.?http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/health/15cons.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

Making Babies - Washington Post

EVERYTHING CONCEIVABLEHow Assisted Reproduction Is Changing Men, Women, and the WorldBy Liza MundyKnopf. 406 pp. $26.95How do you baptize three small boys who sprang from two different mothers? What ritual can anoint their genetic mother, a young flight attendant who "donated" her eggs? In Everything Conceivable, this complicated dilemma is resolved by a thoughtful minister, who solemnly blesses the egg donor as an "angel" who by Jesus's "abiding grace helped to place them in the arms of their parents." After the ceremony, the flustered flight attendant is bustled off to a post-baptismal Mexican lunch, where she meets the extended family, bounces the other woman's babies on her knee and then flies home to Denver, wondering whether she might someday use the couple's leftover embryos for herself.Welcome to the wild new world of reproduction, where traditional players in the nuclear family are tossed about like so many cards in a deck. In this well-researched and vividly detailed book, Liza Mundy follows dozens of topsy-turvy tales from the reproductive edge. There is, for example, the story of Doug Okun and Eric Ethington, two gay men determined to conceive and raise a child. They visit a swank surrogacy agency, compile a marketing profile of themselves and eventually discover Ann Nelson, a mother of four from West Virginia, who agrees to carry their child. Then they start searching for another woman to provide the eggs, reasoning, as Mundy tells us, that "of course she would have to be fabulous, your basic Ivy League supermodel."When these eggs don't take, Okun and Ethington start again, becoming even pickier in the process: "The thing that became very, very important to me," Ethington recalls, "was music. Music and sports, as an indicator of well-roundedness." They finally find their perfect woman, fertilize her eggs with a mixture of their sperm, fly Nelson back to California, and then watch as four embryos are transferred to her womb. Thirty-five weeks later, she delivers Elizabeth Ruby and Sophia Rose, biological twins and genetic half-sisters born of two mothers and raised by two dads.Although there is not much in Everything Conceivable that is truly new, Mundy, a reporter for The Washington Post, tells her tales in a fresh voice and with a keen eye for detail. People reveal all sorts of intimacies to her, and she plays them back for us to see. The result is a largely uplifting read, full of joyful parents, gorgeous babies and embryos that generally survive.Yet the sum of all this happiness is oddly disquieting. For while Mundy does not hesitate to give us the gory details, she seems resolutely determined not to draw any broader conclusions from them. Instead, agonizing decisions and life-threatening situations are treated almost literally parenthetically, as with the three boys conceived by donor eggs: "After the birth of the triplets," Mundy reports matter-of-factly, "which was horrific and nearly fatal -- Laura hemorrhaged badly after the triple C-section, losing an enormous amount of blood -- Laura emailed Kendra photos of the newborns. Kendra put the pictures up in her townhouse. She e-mailed them to friends." Now, it's nice to learn that the egg donor delighted in her far-off progeny and that she and the birth mother have become friends. But somehow the material inside the dashes seems more deserving of our regard. A young woman had three embryos transferred to her womb. She hemorrhaged during delivery and nearly died. Yet these details are bundled oddly away.An equally frightening subplot runs through the story of Okun, Ethington and Nelson. While the two men are dashing across the country to attend their daughters' birth, Nelson starts hemorrhaging. Doctors race to stop the bleeding and ultimately perform an emergency hysterectomy to save her life. An unfortunate accident? Perhaps. But Nelson, we learn, was overweight. She had delivered her own children by Caesarean section and was at increased risk for uterine rupture. Yet the doctors and prospective fathers still agreed to transfer four embryos to her, creating a predictably dangerous pregnancy.It is in not dwelling on these accidents-in-waiting that Mundy's book falls short. She seems so enchanted by her subjects and so sympathetic to their plights that she refuses to touch more than briefly on the questions that their stories raise. Should any woman -- and particularly a paid surrogate -- have four embryos transferred to her womb? Should fertility doctors be allowed to create such high-risk pregnancies, passing the potential dangers to the obstetricians who eventually treat these patients? And what about the plight of others dragged along in the harrowing quest for high-tech babies?For this reader, the most poignant stories of Everything Conceivable concerned the peripheral players: David Nelson, Ann's husband, who stood photographing Okun and Ethington's newborn daughters while his wife lay nearly dying from their birth; and in another case reported by Mundy, Megan, a little girl whose mother gave birth to premature triplets. Two years after their arrival, Mundy reports, the triplets are doing well. But Megan is not. Her parents are getting divorced and she is in therapy, trying to cope with the sibling abundance that has been thrust upon her.Even as reproductive technologies advance at warp speed, discussions of reproduction slip easily into timeworn patterns. We want babies to be born healthy. We want families to cherish their offspring. And we want to conclude, as Mundy does, that the critical element of the baby-making equation, regardless of the technology involved, is love. The problem with love, though, in parenthood and elsewhere, is that it is too often blind. Parents are entranced by their offspring and unwilling to question the mechanism of their conception. In some deep pocket of their souls, they need to believe that the particular child they have acquired is precisely the child they were destined to have: the only magical mixing of egg and sperm that could ever have made sense. Yet when science intrudes so heavily into the realm of nature, an impartial observer should be moved to feel not only compassion for others' offspring but also some sense of excess.How many babies are too many for a family to handle? When is a mother too old or sick to conceive? And how much choice should parents have in determining their offspring's traits? Everything Conceivable pushes us toward these questions, but leaves us tantalizingly short of answers. ?Debora L. Spar is a professor at Harvard Business School and the author of "The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception."

Everything Conceivable - Book Review

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Everything ConceivableHow Assisted Reproduction Is Changing Men, Women and the WorldBy Liza MundyKNOPF; 416 PAGES; $26.95

You might have forgotten this snippet of local news. In 2005, a San Francisco woman gave birth to a baby who as an embryo had been frozen for 13 years. While this may have been perceived as a curiosity, now it can be grasped as a component in a much larger story, one about to swamp us all with sticky choices.

This bigger story is laid out in exquisite and disquieting detail by award-winning science writer Liza Mundy in "Everything Conceivable: How Assisted Reproduction Is Changing Men, Women and the World." The book is the result of an assignment given to Mundy to write about infertility among the poor. What she discovered was that many of her colleagues were also experiencing this heartrending problem. It also became evident to Mundy that the world has undergone a major shift. The almost quaint environment in which she formed her attitudes concerning reproductive choice during the 1980s had been superseded by a more Byzantine landscape.A feature writer for the Washington Post Magazine, Mundy has done her research well. She conducted hundreds of interviews with "mothers, fathers, prospective parents, infertility doctors, lab technicians, social workers, surrogate mothers, egg donors, sperm donors and children (many now adults) conceived through surrogacy and in vitro fertilization," using them to penetrate the high-tech, high-dollar world of making babies.The topic of assisted reproductive technology is complex, yet Mundy keeps the narrative moving forward without dumbing down the story. She leads the reader through oblique concepts, acronyms and statistics, embedding the facts within the human stories, making her book palatable for serious students of the subject as well as the general reader. Endnotes and a fine bibliography offer readers the opportunity to take their interest even deeper.Filled with scenarios and questions not imagined 30 years ago, this remarkable work provokes a spectrum of emotions ranging from alarm to wonder. Consider the concept of fertility tourism, in which patients visit Cyprus, Ukraine and Romania to obtain eggs "donated" by women in those cash-poor countries. Or consider the startling fact that today the rate for having twins is highest for women older than 40. And how reproductive technology could topple Roe vs. Wade, with the emerging theory of civil rights for embryos, in which the fetus could be elevated to "constitutionally protected personhood status."Mundy introduces the reader to the bizarre world of industrial assisted reproduction with a stroll through the aisles of the 2005 American Society for Reproductive Medicine conference. Vendors hawk a patented sperm-sorting technique called Microsort, and a Los Angeles business, Fertility Futures, provides egg donors to gay men. These trade shows are underwritten primarily by the pharmaceutical industry, which does an estimated $3 billion a year, Mundy says, selling the drugs and manufacturing medical devices, such as "microscopes with joysticks that control hollow needles that enable lab technicians to suck a single cell out of a three-day-old, eight-cell human embryo."She applauds the San Francisco company Sperm Bank of California, recounting how by using a simple technique, this nonprofit engineered a breakthrough in technology-assisted alternative families, with lesbians leading the way. Mundy shows that San Francisco is the center of lesbian-pioneered same-sex families and that Los Angeles is "ground zero for gay parenting ... and the world capital of technology-enabled gay parenting."In the most disturbing chapter, "Souls on Ice: America's Frozen Human Embryo Glut," Mundy explores the tortured world of patients burdened with the moral decision of what to do with their frozen fertilized eggs, and how they are usually so conflicted that they decide not to decide and leave them frozen indefinitely. This surplus of nearly half a million eggs has spawned a new industry solely to manage the accumulation of frozen life.One study states "that even in the most progressive regions of the country ... such as the San Francisco Bay Area," few patients were blase. The frozen embryos were variously characterized as "biological tissue, living entities, virtual children having interests that must be considered and protected, siblings of their living children, genetic or psychological insurance policies and symbolic reminders of their past infertility."Mundy states that her goal in writing "Everything Conceivable" was not to sort out right from wrong or advocate for a hold on scientific research. Rather, she wanted to inform readers why these changes are occurring, what the probable consequences will be for our families and our culture, and maybe to help us answer the moral questions of "what life is, and morally what can and should be done with it."

Woman Gives Birth to Grandsons - Greece

A 52-year-old Greek mother has given birth to her two grandsons, after getting legal permission to be a surrogate mother for her daughter.

The woman, who was implanted with embryos from her daughter's eggs fertilised by her son-in-law, gave birth to twin boys in good health and weighing 2.5 kilograms, gynaecologist Charalambos Batakis said.

In July last year a Greek court gave permission for the woman to carry out a surrogate birth because her daughter was unable to carry a pregnancy to term due to health problems.

Greek law allows for surrogate mothers as long as the parties concerned reach an agreement with no financial compensation.

In principle, the surrogate mother should not be more than 50 years old, but in this case, the court agreed to an exception.

Court denies newspaper request to open adoption records - Indiana Update

CHARLES WILSON
Associated Press
The Indiana Court of Appeals has denied a request by The Indianapolis Star for access to judicial records in a New Jersey man's adoption of twin girls born of a surrogate mother. A three-judge panel ruled Friday that the privacy of the children outweighed the public interest in the case espoused by the Star. "The children in this case have already erroneously had their names and the details of their lives made public, and continued publication of the details of their lives based on information in this Court's files further infringes upon the privacy to which the family is entitled," Chief Judge John G. Baker wrote in the six-page order. Star Editor Dennis Ryerson said in a story posted on the newspaper's Web site that he was disappointed by the decision and the newspaper was reviewing its legal options. The case stemmed from a child welfare investigation involving the adoption that was reported in the media after a Marion County judge opened the normally confidential records. The judge later recused herself and the new judge closed the files to the public. The Marion County Division of Children's Services argued that the adoption of the children by New Jersey schoolteacher Stephen F. Melinger occurred without proper oversight. Melinger hired a South Carolina woman to bear the children in Indiana through Surrogate Mothers Inc., a Monrovia-based agency run by attorney Steven C. Litz. The case was transferred to a Hamilton County court, which has since reapproved the adoptions. The children have since moved to New Jersey but the Marion County child service agency is appealing the ruling authorizing the adoption, court documents said. The Star sought access earlier this year to the court records, arguing that the public has a right to be informed about potential dangers to children in surrogate adoption cases and that the Legislature had considered a bill addressing the issue. The public interest in the issue outweighed the confidentiality rule, the newspaper argued. But the Court of Appeals disagreed. "Public interest in, and legislative action on, surrogacy and adoptions do not provide extraordinary circumstances for opening a particular adoption case file to the public," Baker wrote. Baker also said the original decision to open the case file was an error that should not be compounded. The judges, however, denied a request from Melinger to seal further court proceedings since they already are confidential. There was no number for Melinger in published phone listings for New Jersey and he could not be reached for comment. "I am happy that the Court of Appeals decided that the children's privacy rights come ahead of a reporter's desire to invade those rights," attorney Litz told The Indianapolis Star. The Associated Press left a phone message Friday seeking additional comment at the office of Surrogate Mothers Inc.

Gays seek parenthood through infertility clinics

By CARL T. HALLSan Francisco ChronicleMonday, May 07, 2007Infertility clinics in areas of the country with large gay populations are actively promoting biological parenthood for gay men and lesbians, hoping to expand the market for reproductive technologies once aimed almost exclusively at infertile heterosexuals.The methods can be expensive and fraught with difficulties, and the families that result may or may not be legally recognized _ or even socially accepted _ in less gay-friendly places.Despite the risks, biological parenthood is increasingly seen in gay communities as an attractive alternative to adopting _ or remaining childless."For some people, having a biological connection to their children is important," said Judy Appell, a lesbian parent of two and executive director of Our Family Coalition, a San Francisco gay-parenthood group. "More doors are opening to us through medical advancements, so more and more people are willing to try new ways to create our families."Options range from simple intrauterine insemination for women, which may cost a few hundred dollars, to use of paid egg donors and gestational surrogates for gay men, who may have to pay $150,000 in medical and legal services to have a child.Statistics are hard to come by, in part because of the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage and the hostility in some parts of the country to the idea of gay men and lesbians raising families. But experts in the field say there's no doubt that at least 5 percent of clients at many clinics are homosexual."In the last decade, it's dramatically increased," said Gail Taylor, president and founder of Growing Generations in Los Angeles, which offers surrogacy services.Jeff Eichenfield, 46, a gay man from San Francisco, said he's perceived a lot of isolation and unhappiness in the gay community partly because of limited opportunities to have families. That changed for him in October when his son, Nate, was born using a surrogate."I've talked to a lot of gay men, and they say, 'How many trips can you take? How many restaurants? How many new cars?' " Eichenfield said. "I want people to see there's a whole other side to gay life. Gay life is changing."Taylor's organization has been involved in the births of about 500 babies in the past 11 years, she said, mostly to gay men using a gestational surrogate _ a woman paid to carry an implanted embryo produced from a donor egg fertilized with the client's sperm.In vitro fertilization technology today offers gay people more options to participate directly in the biological adventure of childbirth than once thought possible, creating along the way some novel family relationships.Ronda Hanson, 47, and her partner, Darleen DeRosa, 36, of Moss Beach, Calif., decided to use the younger woman's eggs, which were fertilized in vitro. They obtained sperm from an anonymous donor through a sperm bank. The resulting embryos were transferred into Hanson, who after three failed pregnancies delivered a boy, Lorenzo Hanson DeRosa, on July 12, 2006."I am the birth mother, but not the biological mother," Hanson said. "It was a way for us to feel that we were really sharing this baby, much the same as a straight couple would. To whatever extent we could do this together, we did."Both men in a relationship can contribute sperm to fertilize donor eggs. A resulting embryo from each man can be implanted in a surrogate, sometimes at the same time, in order to produce fraternal twins, each child with a different biological father.Dr. G. David Adamson, director of a San Francisco Bay Area medical group called Fertility Associates of Northern California and president-elect of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the leading in vitro industry group, said the boom in biological parenthood is driven not so much by technology as by gradually changing societal attitudes."There's increasing acceptance of nontraditional families, meaning either single women or men or couples of women and men having a life together and sometimes wanting to have children together," he said. "So there's unquestionably been an increased utilization of these more sophisticated technologies and less traditional approaches to creating families."This recently prompted the American Fertility Association, a national patient-advocacy group in New York, to create its first referral list of providers eager to expand their gay and lesbian clientele. "It's another reflection of the gay community growing up," said Pamela Madsen, the group's founder.(E-mail Carl Hall at chall(at)sfchronicle.com.)

Females Should Research The Risk of Egg Donation Before Lunging at Money - Opinion Piece

By Kate Ryan and Lisa DiMaiowww.theimpactnews.comThere are few twenty-something women walking the halls of any college campus who couldn't use a few thousand dollars in their bank accounts. And that's what's making a new advertising campaign so controversial.A new market is expanding in American society: the biological frontier of egg donation. And prospective parents are willing to pay unprecedented amounts of money in exchange for the donation of life. Through fertility clinic mediators, couples are paying women between the ages of 21 and 35 anywhere from $2,500 to an astonishing $500,000 for a donor cycle of oocytes. And many clinics and enthusiastic couples are looking to college campuses for their potential baby's mother.But critics complain that advertising a large sum of money to young female college students, without mentioning the risks they may incur, is capitalizing on a twenty-something woman's financial vulnerability.Julia Derek, a former student at George Mason University, has donated eggs 12 times, and was first drawn to donation in 1996. "For someone who has no money, $3,000 is a lot. To me, it seemed like a lot of money; I didn't have that much at the time," Derek said, according to MSNBC.com. Derek has gone on to publish "Confessions of a Serial Egg Donor," a critically acclaimed novel about her donation experiences.And there are probably a few women out there who are thinking, "Sounds great! For $500,000 I'd donate in a second!" But despite your motivations, be they altruistically or financially influenced, for not every woman's eggs are wanted. The couple who offered half a million dollars, for example, expected a woman who was 5'10", naturally blonde, and Ivy-league educated with a 1400 on her SATs or higher.? Sound discriminatory? That's because it is. But couples argue that they're looking for a child with the same traits as the parents, so as it grows up it will "match" its parents and the family will be as cohesive as possible. It's their money, they argue, so they can spend it as they see fit.?Welcome to the 2007 version of "you're just not pretty enough". Maybe in decades past, if your list of attributes was below a critic's standards, you would have difficulty dating. But today, women aren't alone in their rejection-their potential offspring joins them. It's not just you who's undesirable- it's your DNA.But for some unaccepted donors, the sting of rejection is not just a matter of aesthetics.According to www.health.state.ny.us, New York state's department of health website, some women are rejected as a consequence of their physical, mental, or emotional test screening results. Every potential donor must be willing to submit personal and family physical and psychological histories, and undergo an extensive list of physical examinations, blood tests, ultrasounds, and infectious disease, inherited disease, and psychological screenings. If any of these tests come back with undesirable results, a woman could likely be rejected. However, in many cases, women are not informed about the details of their elimination- causes could range from a woman's family history of addictive behavior, an undesirable emotional or mental state at the time of donation, or even because they're the unfortunate carrier of a genetic or inherited condition.The emotional duress a woman must experience as a rejected donor is palpable, but for those women who are accepted as donors, the stress of the situation has only just begun. Once a woman is recognized as a capable donor, she must undergo an arduous process to fulfill her duties. First, she would be prescribed a medication to temporarily stop ovarian functions. This prescription eases the process of adjustment to fertility drugs. Once the prescribed medicine has been administered, she would then be trained to inject herself (either under her skin or directly into muscle) with medications to stimulate egg production. In a normal menstrual cycle, one egg matures and is released for fertilization, but women who are donating need to produce several eggs at once to improve the chances of a viable fertilization in a new uterus. By taking these fertility drugs, women may expose themselves to a heightened risk of ovarian cancer (although these findings are still debated by scientists), as well as to a condition known as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, or OHSS; symptoms of OHSS range from intense abdominal cramping to blood clots and shock, and occasionally result in emergency hospitalization. It is also possible for the woman to become pregnant at this time if she has unprotected sex, so women are expected to refrain from intercourse or use effective contraception while under fertility drugs. Once she has begun treatment with the fertility medications, the donor must undergo frequent blood tests and ultrasounds to monitor her progress. Finally, when the oocytes are viable, the female donor must undergo a minor surgical procedure called a transvaginal ovarian aspiration, which involves a thin needle attached to an ultrasound probe. Using suction from the needle, the egg and liquid inside each follicle is withdrawn from the woman's uterus. The woman will have had painkillers, sedatives, or anesthesia administered before this 30-minute procedure, and will require several days of rest and restricted activity in order to recover. This surgical procedure can occasionally cause severe internal bleeding or serious damage to pelvic organs, in which case major, emergency abdominal surgery would be required.After donation, many women may experience physical repercussions including infection, bleeding, or even loss of an ovary. It is common for women to experience some kind of depression or anxiety after they complete their duties as an egg donor.? Therefore, the experience of egg donation is clearly more complicated than a poster could convey. Simply advertising a large sum of money is a gross oversimplification of a life-altering and potentially hazardous experience. Although in many cases college women are the best physical candidates for donation, so many college women are in financial jeopardy that they are unable to make an unbiased decision about donation. They simply cannot turn the money down.? So what conclusion did donation expert Derek, the former student who began donating eggs for the financial benefits, reach? "It should be an absolute last resort, donating eggs," she concluded. "If students can get a job, in the long run it will be better for them."

Lawmaker to revisit surrogate adoptions - Indiana

Miller aims to renew push for law that would criminalize some arrangements kevin.corcoran@indystar.com

A state senator said Tuesday she intends to bring back legislation next year that would make it a crime to receive anything of value for arranging a surrogate birth.
Sen. Patricia L. Miller’s legislation died after abortion-related amendments to the bill were proposed in early April. Those amendments prompted the legislation’s sponsor, Rep. Peggy Welch, D-Bloomington, not to call Senate Bill 199 for debate to avoid embroiling lawmakers in a contentious debate that could have killed other legislation.
Miller, R-Indianapolis, said efforts to amend the legislation into a related bill near the end of the session failed. Although the Senate passed the measure 48-0 on Feb. 27, the House never voted on it, and the 2007 session ended Sunday.
In opposing the bill, Steven C. Litz, owner of Monrovia-based Surrogate Mothers Inc., told members of the House Judiciary Committee last month that his firm performs a valuable service by screening and matching prospective parents and surrogates.
Litz told lawmakers he charges $12,500 for each contract he arranges for women to carry a baby. Litz said he believed he would have been the only person affected by the bill.
In April 2005, Litz, an attorney, handled the Hamilton County adoptions by a then-58-year-old New Jersey schoolteacher of twins born at Methodist Hospital to a surrogate mother from South Carolina.
Child welfare authorities in Indiana are appealing those adoptions, saying they violated state adoption and interstate laws meant to ensure children placed across state lines end up in safe homes. That court challenge, before the Indiana Court of Appeals, is in an early stage.

Paid surrogacy driven underground in Canada: CBC report

The risk of a $500,000 fine or up to 10 years in jail has not eliminated paid surrogacy among infertile couples in Canada but has driven the practice underground, a CBC News investigation has found.Under the Assisted Human Reproduction Technology Act passed in 2004, a surrogate who carries a fetus for others may be reimbursed for expenses such as prenatal vitamins and costs of travelling to the doctor. She cannot receive any sort of wage for carrying the child.A surrogate takes fertility drugs and progesterone injections to prepare her body to carry embryos from another couple.The law is vague, and no one is sure which expenses are legitimate, said Stephanie Scott, who runs a surrogacy agency in Texas, where surrogates who work for her may be paid up to $25,000 US plus expenses for carrying the child.The uncertainty surrounding the Canadian law has created a chill among infertile couples, Scott said."They're afraid to do it in Canada. A lot of people think they're going to go to jail," said Scott. "If they send their surrogate, you know, $600 for her rent or whatever, they try to pay it in cash, under the table, so there's no paper trails."?Despite the cost of travel, paying in U.S. dollars, not being near the woman carrying their child, and missing out on going to ultrasound appointments, some Canadians go to American agencies.A Canadian surrogate said she met many couples who feel so constrained by the limits of the law that they simply go underground and meet willing women on the internet.Many Canadian?couples want to pay their surrogates, and do so, in cash and gifts. If caught, they face?penalties.The terms create a potentially dangerous situation for couples trying to conceive, said one woman. CBC News agreed not to use her name to protect the couples she has worked for."Couples that I've spoken to have been ripped off, because of their own fear, forced to go without contracts," she said, adding they might not have to if the law is changed.?"Or, go with surrogates that maybe are a little bit less desirable to them because they're just desperate."In June, Health Canada will begin a consultation process on the question of compensation for surrogates, and egg and sperm donors.

Utah Couple Could Lose Adopted Baby On Technicality

(KUTV) Imagine adopting a baby only to lose the child because of a problem with the final paperwork. It?s happening to a Utah family and now they are suing those who handled the paperwork.The birth mother signed her baby away, and then later said she wanted the baby back.The Utah Supreme Court determined this and other forms weren?t handled correctly and it may be just a matter of time before matt and Toni Worthington lose the boy they?ve raised.?To walk through that door on a daily basis and get hug...that is unbelievable,? says Matt.Matt and Toni Worthington have done everything they can to keep that joy, named Anthony, in their lives.But for more than two years, as they?ve raised him they?ve also fought to keep him.?Sometimes you?d rather be numb because the thought of him going away hurts too much,? said Tori.Anthony?s biological mother had acted as a surrogate mother for a man, but after he was arrested she regained custody.And in November of 2004 she signed this relinquishment of parental rights form through an adoption agency so the Worthingtons could adopt Anthony.But two months later she decided she wanted Anthony back and as the battle went to court it turned out the notary public, the person who places that seal and signature on the last page of a legal document, wasn?t there when the mother signed.That technicality meant she had never given up her rights, and the Worthingtons may have to give Anthony up as he approaches his third birthday.Matt says, ?Chaos emotionally, mentally, physically. Needing to go to countless courts and wonder is this the day they take my son away???If you?re not going to do your job right, shouldn?t be doing that job,? says ToriIn a nutshell that is the basis of a lawsuit filed by the Worthingtons against the adoption agent, their former attorney, and the notary.They say they would never be in this situation if they had done their job correctly.And while the suit doesn?t give a dollar amount they say they have spent everything they have, more than $40,000 dollars.And they may lose the most important part of their life anyway.Tori says, ?That?s what makes me the most afraid is to worry about how he would feel and what he would think, why isn?t mom and dad coming to get me??The bottom line is the Worthingtons want their money back from the experts they hired to help them have a child.Keeping Anthony is a separate battle.2News spoke with the adoption agency today; she said she is devastated for the Worthingtons but couldn?t comment on the lawsuit.

Law against paying egg donors drives couples to U.S. from Canada

Some Canadian couples trying to conceive say the country's laws prohibiting compensation for egg donors is driving them underground or across the border.Although it is illegal to compensate egg donors in Canada, women told CBC News they would undergo a fertility drug cycle that usually results in about 20 human eggs for $5,000 and $7,000.Under the Assisted Human Reproduction Technology Act passed in 2004 to prevent cloning, it's not illegal for women to sell eggs, but it is illegal to buy them. Seeking donor eggs or sperm is legal.Anyone convicted of buying eggs can face a fine of up to $500,000 or 10 years in jail.Many fertility experts agree that?few women will go through the intense drug therapy necessary to donate eggs for free.After repeated attempts at expensive in vitro fertilization with negative results, Anne and her husband did what many infertile couples are doing: went on a fertility vacation to the U.S., where compensation services are legal.You feel like you're doing something wrong," said Anne, who does not want her last name used because of the circumstances surrounding the birth of her baby girl."You do know that it's not accepted in Canada, so do you feel a little bit like you're breaking the law. You're kind of reluctant to really say exactly what you're going there for, or coming home from. You do feel a little bit like a criminal."The couple contacted an American clinic, went through its list of donors, picked one they liked and eventually did IVF twice with donor eggs, paying $25,000 US each time. Each time,?about $3,000 of the fee went to the donor as payment for her eggs.No one is sure how far the Canadian law reaches. For instance, while clinics in Canada refuse to deal with anyone who has paid for eggs in this country, it's a different matter if they've paid a donor in the U.S.A couple may use an American clinic, pay for eggs from a younger donor, which?are more likely to produce a pregnancy, create embryos on the U.S. side of the border, pack them in a freezer tank and drive them back to Canada.

'Is that a violation of the law or not?'

Canadian clinics will then implant the U.S.-made embryos."Is that a violation of the law or not?" asked Dr. Roger Pierson, a fertility doctor in Saskatoon who is with Canada's Fertility and Andrology Society. "There are many, many technologies that would be deemed illegal in Canada, but are easily circumvented by simply driving across the border.""We don't have customs agents trained to ask questions beyond 'Have you bought new tires for your car?' We don't have them ask people if they achieved a pregnancy while they were abroad."Pierson is frustrated with Canada's laws, which he calls "political quavering" on an emotional issue that is based in everyday science.In the meantime, American agencies field calls from Canadians who want to be parents, asking which services are available and how the law works in Canada."I'm constantly getting calls," said Stephanie Scott, who runs the Texas-based agency Simple Surrogacy, which?matches couples with surrogates willing to carry their babies.