Friday Legal Updates - Embryo Mix-Up, California Update, & Lawsuit over Donation to Stem Cell

TGIF!  Today is short and sweet as I am on my way to ASRM.  Blog posts on the conference to follow.

CaliforniaA move that went largely unnoticed by the media on Monday, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger quietly signed a bill that adds new rights for gay and lesbian couples.

Schwarzenegger signed the bill, SB-54 by Senator Mark Leno (D), on Sunday, his office said. Leno's bill requires California to recognize marriages performed in other states where same-sex marriages are legal.

Supporters and people opposed to gay marriage have been in court battles for years, with voters in the state approving Proposition 8 in last year's election. Proposition 8 was a ballot proposition that defines marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Louisiana -   A hearing was held Tuesday in the case of in-vitro fertilization labeling problems at Ochsner Medical Center that led the hospital to suspend its in-vitro program indefinitely.

The judge was asked to decide whether Ochsner should be prohibited from communicating with in-vitro patients who don't have lawyers. A ruling is expected next week.

Attorneys for two couples who are suing the clinic don't want other patients who may have been affected by the mislabeling practices to be allowed to communicate with Ochsner directly, unless they've been advised they may need to contact a lawyer first. A hearing was held Tuesday in the case of in-vitro fertilization labeling problems at Ochsner Medical Center that led the hospital to suspend its in-vitro program indefinitely.

 

The judge was asked to decide whether Ochsner should be prohibited from communicating with in-vitro patients who don't have lawyers. A ruling is expected next week.

 

Attorneys for two couples who are suing the clinic don't want other patients who may have been affected by the mislabeling practices to be allowed to communicate with Ochsner directly, unless they've been advised they may need to contact a lawyer first.

New York - Feminists Choosing Life of New York (FCLNY) filed suit Friday in New York State Supreme Court (Albany) to block the use of taxpayer funds to pay women recruited to donate their eggs for embryonic stem cell research.

FCLNY Executive Director, Wendy McVeigh stated: "New York State has the responsibility to protect women. Instead, the state is using taxpayers' dollars to entice young, economically vulnerable women to experiment in this medically risky procedure."

New York State is the first governmental entity anywhere in the U.S. to approve taxpayer money to pay women to undergo an invasive procedure to harvest eggs for embryonic stem cell research.

The legal complaint was filed on October 9, 2009 in Feminists Choosing Life of New York v. Empire State Stem Cell Board.  In part, the complaint states, "The Payment for Eggs Program provides significant monetary inducements to women to engage in this painful and risky procedure, which in part disproportionately appeals to economically vulnerable women...(it)...fails to satisfactorily provide for informed consent and other safeguards to ensure adequate disclosure to women of the risks of egg harvesting."
 

THERESA ERICKSON ON EMBRYO MIXUP

Enjoy, and let me know your thoughts! 

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/6086410/15814600

Theresa Erickson
Egg Donation Lawyer
www.ericksonlaw.net

The American Fertility Association Responds to Alleged Embryo Mix-Up Case in Ohio

September 24, 2009 - An Ohio woman, 40 year old Carolyn Savage, claims a fertility clinic implanted the wrong embryo and that the baby she’s due to deliver the first week in October is not hers.  Several media reports state Savage and her husband plan to give the baby boy to his biological parents.  The name of the clinic is not being released in this very rare alleged case. 

The AFA is issuing the following statements regarding the matter:

Medical:
“If the facts in the Ohio case are concordant with media reports, it’s a very unfortunate circumstance for all concerned, a result not to be minimized or trivialized. The story is newsworthy, however, because it is an extremely rare event.
In 2007, there were 132,262 IVF cycles performed in the United States (Fresh, Frozen and Donor Egg, per the CDC) in which more than 300,000 embryos were placed into the intended recipients. Embryology laboratories have extremely rigorous procedures to maximally ensure public safety and the health of our patients and their children born of IVF.
The Ohio case is rarer than 1 in a million and I speculate that human error, not malintent, will prove to be the root cause. I have every confidence that each IVF program in the country will review their procedures and discuss this case to reinforce what we already know, that the work we do each and every day is very special and that the hundreds of thousands of patients we help each year are counting on us to do our best every day.”
-Alan Penzias, MD, Member, AFA Board of Directors

Legal:
“Unfortunately, due to the acknowledged negligence of the IVF Physician and clinic, this Ohio couple, by choosing to proceed with the pregnancy, is obligated to afford the other couple the legal rights to this little boy.  Any case, such as this that would go before a court of law, would likely grant full legal and physical custody to the other couple without any visitation to the Ohio couple.  They appear to be aware of this – such an unfortunate event for all parties involved.”
-Theresa Erickson, Esq., Member, AFA Board of Directors; Member, AFA Legal Advisory Council

Mental:
“As a psychotherapist and co-chair of The American Fertility Association, patients receiving treatments live in fear of this happening to them.  The AFA continues to encourage patients to become educated consumers and ask their treatment providers about their procedures for safeguarding their genetic materials. Programs are required to have in place strict guidelines that are overseen by numerous state and federal agencies requiring very specific procedures to be practiced and in place by each reproductive center.
These incidents are rare and patients should feel assured that the majority of centers follow these rigorous guidelines.  When these rare accidents do occur, it can be not only psychologically devastating to the couples involved in this mix-up but emotional damaging to the thousands of patients who are currently receiving or starting fertility treatments. We at the AFA hope that the media will allow these couples, the children involved, and the baby yet to be born to privately get the support that they need to cope with this emotionally difficult experience.”
-Patricia Mendell, LCSW, Co-Chair, AFA Board of Directors

The American Fertility Association, a 501 (c) (3) national non-profit organization is a lifetime resource for infertility prevention, reproductive health and family building.
http://www.theafa.org or .

Brian Armentrout
Communications Director

brian@theafa.org

Alan Penzias, MD

apenzias@bostonivf.com

Theresa Erickson, Esq.

terickson@ericksonlaw.net

Patricia Mendell, LCSW

pmendell@aol.com

Woman Implanted with Wrong Embryo & Carrying Baby to Term for Couple

A woman in Ohio was implanted with the wrong embryo eight months ago, and she and her husband decided to keep the pregnancy, despite the fact that they know that they will be saying "hello and goodbye" at the same time to the child that is not theirs. 

According to the couple, when they received the call from the doctor telling them that they were pregnant, the doctor also told them in the same sentence that it was the wrong embryo.  The doctor gave them the option to abort; however, they could not go against their religious beliefs.  I find this couple to be an honorable couple, and I hope that their journey ends well.  It appears that they intend to use their remaining embryos in a gestational carrier very soon, as the woman can no longer carry. 

A very sad story, and we hope them, as well as the child and his family, the best.  As for the IVF doctor and clinic, it was honorable that they informed the couple right away unlike Dr. Katz in California, who has since lost his license and who did not inform the woman until the child was 10 months old.  Unfortunately, providing the information right away still does not take away the damage that was done.

I am not sure what to say on this one.  I think this couple is incredible, but what an experience.  What do you think?

Subscribe to my blog here

Botched IVF Procedure at Clinic Finally Settles & Yet Another is Filed

The San Francisco Gate recently reported the following:

"A San Mateo County couple filed suit against a San Francisco fertility clinic this week, claiming the doctors implanted the wrong sperm into the woman's eggs and then destroyed the embryos without consent.

According to the complaint, filed Monday in San Francisco Superior Court, Katie Aschero, 31, of El Granada underwent egg retrieval in February in an effort to have a child with her husband, Robert, via invitro fertilization.

The Ascheros later learned that seven of the 13 viable embryos had been inseminated with another man's sperm and that the clinic's staff destroyed those embryos in violation of the couple's contract with Laurel Fertility Care in San Francisco, the complaint said.

The Ascheros' attorney, Nancy Hersh, said the clinic's decision to discard the embryos violated their contract."

[Editor's Note: This post was originally based upon a National Law Journal article.  Laurel Fertility Care has disputed some of the reporting by the National Law Journal; therefore, we are removing the disputed information in order to keep our readers from being influenced by material that may not be correct.]

Friday Legal Updates - Florida Personhood, UK Update, Wisconsin Surrogacy Insurance, & Croatia

Wow, can you believe that summer is officially over already?  I can't because of the blistering heat here in Southern California; however, another Friday is upon us with some legal updates for your thoughts and comments.

Florida - Last November, Colorado pro-life groups placed a ballot measure before the voters in order to extend "personhood" to the moment of conception.  This amendment was rejected by 73% of the voters in Colorado; however, the groups have now set their sites on Florida.  The new amendment would define even a newly formed embryo as a person.  The implications of this becoming law is an issue those suffering from infertility and living in Florida need to consider. 

Wisconsin - Two women have filed a case in Wisconsin where their insurers have denied them maternity coverage due to the fact that they were surrogates.  This issue is now before the State Supreme Court, so we will have to wait and see how this one ends and if it will have implications elsewhere. 

UK - Women whose embryos were to be destroyed in the next few weeks have been given an extension.  With the new HFEA of 2008, which comes into force on October 1, everyone with embryos in storage will be able to keep them there for a decade versus the previous law of 5 years.  "These new rules will come into effect on October 1 and I will be seeking to make an Order to Parliament to ensure this applies to embryos that are 'out of time' on that date."

Professor Lisa Jardine, chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), said: "I am delighted that the Government has listened and made this common-sense decision.

"This will be an enormous relief to all of those people who faced the heartbreak of seeing their embryos destroyed all because of a matter of timing. We will be contacting clinics immediately so that they can inform the patients concerned and make appropriate arrangements for the continued storage of their embryos."

Croatia - The government moved Thursday to amend a law involving IVF after strong criticism from human rights and parents groups over its criteria for couples entitled to treatment. 

"Under the amendments forwarded to parliament, couples will now only have to sign a notarised statement confirming they are in a relationship rather than have to prove before a court they have been together for three years, Health Minister Darko Milinovic told a cabinet session.

Also as part of the changes, children conceived by donated eggs or sperm will now be allowed to obtain information about his or her biological parents once turning 18 only if donors have given their prior agreement.

However provisions in the law which ban the freezing of embryos will not be altered.

Croatia's original legislation on medically assisted reproduction dates back to 1978, when the world's first test-tube baby was born. The former Yugoslav republic had its first IVF baby five years later."

Subscribe to my blog here.  

The American Fertility Association & The Frozen Embryo Dilemma

With so much in the press these days about donor anonymity and how to handle that in the future, I wanted to post an article from the AFA that also talks about how to deal with the future issues in ART.  Enjoy, and let me know your thoughts!

"A Matter of Privacy, Responsibility and Choice

It’s a private issue gone very public. It’s a complex web of personal philosophy, religious orientation and social conscience about which everybody, and we mean everybody, has a strong opinion. But the fact is, and should be, what you do with the frozen embryos you don’t use is your decision and yours alone.

Of course it never feels like the quite right time to discuss this touchy topic.

Maybe you’re taking your first steps on the infertility treatment path. Along with all the mind-numbingly complicated instructions, you’re handed a form asking you what to do with excess embryos before you have a single one.

Maybe you already beat the odds. With absolute devotion, you danced the assisted reproduction tango, created viable embryos and made a baby. Or two or three. Your family is complete. Your head is bursting with school, soccer, recitals and bedtimes. Frozen embryos?

Or maybe you’ve given up on treatment, leaving behind the heartbreak, the disappointment and possibly, a few fertilized eggs. You’ve moved on.

So chances are pretty good that those embryos, protected in liquid nitrogen, aren’t at the top of your to-do list. None of us who have experienced infertility anticipates having any embryos, let alone extras. After we’re done with ART, we tend to ignore or deny the delicate question of disposition of the unexpected surplus.

At some point, though, all of us with cryopreserved embryos will have to make a final and forever decision about them. It’s not easy. They’re our unique responsibility and our unique burden. Because while our embryos remain suspended in time, we don’t.

Hence, this fact sheet, a guide to anticipating some of the quandaries we confront and exploring the choices we have.

The Options

A good initial cryopresevation consent agreement usually outlines three disposition choices:

  • Thawing without intent to transfer. Lucinda Veeck, M.L.T.,D.Sc., Director of Embryology at the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility in New York City, says at her program, 53% of the 364 patients who have gone through with their choice have elected this option.
  • Donation for research. While raging controversy and federal limits have restricted directed giving to stem cell research, there are myriad other well-accepted research initiatives, such as staining for DNA and genetic analysis that rely on embryos. And despite the ban on federal funding for stem cell work, privately funded institutions are moving forward. Reports Dr. Michael Alper of Boston IVF, one such center, “There is no shortage of donations.
    At CRMI, Dr. Veeck reports that about 41% of patients have gone the research route.
  • Donation to other infertile people. Logistically and emotionally complex, donation for transfer has its own guidelines established by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. It’s a many-layered effort by both the donors and recipients, requiring a six-month quarantine of the embryo, blood and genetic testing and retesting of donors, blood tests for the recipients. Both parties must sign informed consent documents addressing relinquishment and acceptance of parental rights should children result, as well as liability, among other things. Whether or not it is an anonymous transaction, both donors and recipients are strongly urged to get psychological counseling.
    “We’ve only donated embryos from two patients because of the difficulties inherent to follow-up testing,” remarks Dr. Veeck. “And in the 6% group desiring to donate, most have not actually given away their embryos yet.”

How Was I Supposed To Know?

These days, even before there’s an embryo, there’s the consent form. That daunting document demanding that a patient know, ahead of time, what to do with remaining embryos…if there are any. For infertile people, that’s one incomprehensibly huge “if.”

So hopeful patients fill in the blanks with the best intentions. The rub is that when it actually comes time to act on that initial agreement, people often find that first choice isn’t the one they want after all. It’s important to remember that first consent form is not the actual disposition form. You can shift gears at any time.

Changes of heart happen for a million different reasons: divorce, the death of a spouse, economic hardship, a multiple birth after the first cycle. Sometimes the partners in a relationship simply aren’t on the same page – one may want more children, the other has no interest. One partner may see the embryos as their potential children, the other regards them as left over sperm and eggs.

Inevitably, life’s constant evolution leads to embryos that sit, sometimes for an embarrassingly long time.

“People have them frozen and then forget about them,” says Dr. David Hoffman, Medical Director at IVF Florida/Reproductive Associates in Margate, Florida. “But they still don’t want to get rid of them. I don’t think patients think of a frozen embryo as a person, but it’s tough to let go.”

Dr. Veeck adds, “Many patients respond by doing nothing. They continue paying for storage fees rather than make a decision. And I think that’s the appropriate thing until they’re quite sure what they want to do.”

Behind the Choices

The language of disposition seems straightforward and precise. In fact, most people are sandbagged by how profoundly affected, confused and conflicted they are when it comes time to commit.

So, most elect to do nothing. Make no mistake; doing nothing is making a decision. Endless postponements means someone else-a family member or the clinic—may get stuck on the horns of what is rightfully your dilemma.

Overwhelmingly, frozen embryos are intended for use by the couples that created them. But IVF centers around the country report that the sheer number in storage is putting a squeeze on space, with some embryos in residence for a decade or more. Increasingly, centers are attempting to contact patients who haven’t been active for several years. It can be an onerous and difficult task, and on occasion, pointless.

At CRMI, Dr. Veeck puts the abandonment rate at about 10%. That’s after three registered letters, using search agencies and making countless phone calls.

Not all clinics have the wherewithal or the intention of going to such lengths. But most clinics will not dispose of embryos without an explicit, legal go-ahead from patients.
For the most part, says Dr. Hoffman, “couples usually pop up out of nowhere” when they’re notified that unless they respond, the embryos will be discarded.

Contrary to all the hype, Dr. Hoffman notes there are “very few not spoken for. The government thinks there are huge numbers out there. But there aren’t a lot of abandoned embryos at all.”

In other words, the vast majority of us with excess embryos are left to wrestle with our personal convictions and moral codes.

What Gives Meaning

For some people, contributing their embryos to research in an effort to help others gives them a sense that their assisted reproductive efforts have lasting value. “It’s a way of giving back to medicine and it makes them feel good,” says Dr. Alper of Boston IVF.

For others non-viable thawing provides closure. “It’s interesting, but people are very relieved when their embryos are discarded,” observes Adele Kauffman, Ph.D., and program psychologist at Reproductive Science Center in Waltham and Boston. “Embryos in the freezer are unfinished business. Once it’s done, they feel they’ve come full circle.”

Still others, impelled by altruism, empathy, or religious beliefs to help other infertile people, want to offer their frozen fertilized eggs for transfer.

“Initially, I thought it would be the option everyone would choose,” says Dr. Veeck at CRMI. “But when they think that they might have offspring out there and not know them or how they’re going to be brought up, they usually reconsider.”

In a recently published article, Dr. Craig Syrop at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, notes that

Of 365 couples with embryos stored after two years, 12% “indicated a willingness to donate to other couples (was) nearly equal to the desire of couples to donate to research.” But, he finds, when faced with the “reality of clinic visits for counseling, STD testing, and informed consent before embryos are donated and utilized” interest wanes and research outstrips donation to others by nearly 2 to 1.

The Donation Drama

Embryo donation for transfer is a media magnet, drawing tremendous attention when some began referring to transfer donation as “embryo adoption.” It is not.

“Adoption is a specific legal framework with specific guidelines around parental rights and obligations and applies to only living children,” says Susan Crockin, a Boston area attorney specializing in reproductive matters. She calls donation for transfer a “positive, but limited” option. She notes that five states have laws on the books dealing with this form of embryo donation, but nowhere is it the legal equivalent of adoption.

While the federal government is on the cusp of launching public education campaign advocating “embryo adoption,” Crockin calls it a misnomer that may make people feel good but “glosses over the legal reality.” At a minimum she recommends a legal agreement between donor and recipient; and consider, in those states without an embryo donation law, that the recipients go to court to have themselves declared the parents of a resulting offspring to avert the risk of custodial claims by the genetic parents or the extended family.

However, things blur on the psychosocial front where, psychologists say, the adoption parallel is stronger.

Embryo donors and recipients should expect that resulting offspring will want information about their genealogy, their genetic makeup, and their biological parents. Donors must be prepared for the possibility of a knock on their door one day even if the transaction was strictly anonymous. As decades of experience with adoption have shown, kids will come searching. Furthermore, laws protecting anonymity are subject to change.

“We’re in uncharted territory here,” said Dr. Elaine Gordon, a Los Angeles psychologist. Dr. Gordon says she’s getting more inquiries about embryo donation for transfer but many go nowhere.

“They find it too complicated and overwhelming in terms of what’s required,” she observes. “If they’re going to do it right, does it mean engaging in a relationship with the recipient couple and do they want to participate in that?”

She suggests that “responsibly done” ovum donation might provide the best model, with both parties entering into a “contract detailing terms of contact, if any, and information disclosed and exchanged. If the two parties can come to a meeting of the minds, the exchange can take place, facilitated by psychological, medical and legal experts.”

Embryo Donation Programs

There are several embryo donation programs, including the Christian faith-based agency, Snowflakes, that promotes “adoption.” At the root, all the programs facilitate matching donors with potential recipients and work through the details of the exchange.

“We’re a private (non-sectarian) agency and we liaise between the recipient and the donor,” explains Eileen Dover, executive director of Genesis Family Services in Holly Pond, Alabama.

Recipients send in a $100 application fee, list their requirements and are put on a waiting list until the right match pops up. The total agency cost to recipients is $1,800 but they’re also responsible for shipping, donor medical testing, notary feels, and a flat $250 attorney fee. Donors, who also can specify requirements for a receiving family, fill in a standard questionnaire, including medical history. Genesis’ simple-language but comprehensive contract requires adherence to the ASRM guidelines, but the agency leaves that to the donor’s doctor.

While Genesis doesn’t require psychological counseling, the contract calls for recipients to pay for up to three sessions for the donor, if the donor chooses. Dover also says, “we ask recipients to get counseling as well, but that’s their responsibility.”

Genesis advocates closed donations but will go with client’s wishes for open ones.

“We try to encourage transferring four embryos,” says Dover. “If you have 10 embryos (eggs that are fertilized, frozen but haven’t started dividing yet), you may get four to six that live through the thawing process. If they’re blastocysts (5-day-old embryos), there’s a darn good chance they’re going to do well and I don’t think any physician would do more than two or three.”

In Fullerton, California, Snowflakes operates on the assumption that this is an adoption. “In our program, we focus on the end result which is the child. That’s the same in all adoptions,” says JoAnn Eiman, a Snowflakes spokesperson.

The Christian faith-based agency requires recipient families undergo a homestudy, a fundamental process in traditional adoption, but controversial in embryo donation for transfer. As Eiman explains it, about 20% of the homestudy is about child abuse and Department of Justice background checks. “The other 80% is preparing the parent for a non-genetically linked child,” she says. The agency does both closed and open donations, depending on the preferences of the parties.

Snowflakes fees to recipients are about $4,000 for the matching, legal contract, shipping, coordination, rematching if required and lifetime support.

Begun in 1997, the first Snowflakes baby was born in 1998. In 1999 there were a couple of matches but no births. But by 2002 there were a total of 18 babies born and this year, Snowflakes expects another 23.

Do donors who’ve gone this far change their minds? “Most don’t but it happens,” said Eiman. “Typically when the donor couple gets a profile on the adoptive family they say ‘Oh my goodness, this is real. They’re going to take them and raise them.’ When they get the packet that’s when it hits them.”

It’s a whole new world, agrees Dover at Genesis. “It remains to be seen whether (donors) really get that they’re going to have children out there. They say, ‘Yes, I understand.’ But what’s going to happen 20 years down the road? I think about that when I’m whiting out the records and I think someday someone might want to look at that.”

When It’s All Too Confusing

Okay. We’re all pretty clear that the “what is to be done” with extra frozen embryos is at best confusing. The American Fertility Association strongly urges that you weigh the following to help ease the strain:

  1. Nobody has control over your embryos but you.
  2. You are not obligated to stick with your first decision or your second or third. The no-turning-back point comes only after you’ve formally and legally relinquished ownership of your embryos.
  3. Know that it is absolutely fine to wait as long as it takes for you to make the decision that feels right for you. No government, social or religious entity should force you into taking an action that, in your gut, you know is a personal mistake. Because you will have to live with this decision forever.
  4. Donating to other couples is a real and generous alternative. The AFA recommends you thoroughly explore the legal, psychological and emotional implications and potential long-term ramifications. You must feel confident that you can deal with the possible outcomes down the road.
  5. Thawing without intent to transfer is a perfectly reasonable option that most couples do choose, finding it provides the unexpected relief of closure. Yes, there may very well be grief and counseling or support that can serve you well.

We at The American Fertility Association will continue to report, write and provide you with as much information about this topic as we can. But, as one of the leading patient advocate groups, The AFA is always available to you, to answer questions, provide support and referrals. Please call our toll-free number (888) 917-3777. It always helps to talk with those who’ve been through it, too. "

Subscribe to my blog here.

Three women have IVF embryos destroyed after doctors fertilize them with wrong men's sperm

In the UK, it appears that an IVF clinic has fertilized three women's eggs with the wrong men's sperm.  Ouch, is all that I can say!  Thankfully, these embryos were not implanted, and the mistake was discovered before that occurred. 

As stated in the UK publication Mail Online:

Subscribe to my blog at: http://www.surrogacyeggdonorblog.com/subscribe.html

"In this case, the mistake was spotted within a few hours of the wrong sperm being put into each dish at Guy's Hospital in South-East London. The couples were told immediately.

Two years ago a watchdog concluded that the Assisted Conception Unit at Guy's was carrying out procedures it described as 'risky'. A report from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority warned that embryologists at the hospital were running the risk of confusing sperm samples from different men by preparing them in the same container.

Yesterday Sue Avery, a former chairman of the Association of Clinical Embryologists, described the latest revelation as 'very serious'."

In addition, "Josephine Quintavalle, from the campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said yesterday: 'It is shocking that this can happen. These mistakes should be very hard to make - but it seems that they are in fact made rather easily.

'It is not as if the people who deal with the eggs and sperm are on a production line, churning out hundreds of embryos a day.

'They are dealing with very few and each one is incredibly important."

FRIDAY LEGAL UPDATES - State of Georgia Still On Legislative Alert, Missouri Targeting Fertility Treatments, New York Denies Couple Right to Sperm, UK Allowing Second Parent, South Korean Egg Donor Lawsuit, & Ireland

Georgia – Update from this week’s legislation n Georgia. SB169 has already been addressed at the subcommittee level, and they have made some decisions, although not certain what they are at this time. In fact, this went through much quicker through subcommittee than others had suspected – which is why I told everyone yesterday that the “best defense is a good offense.” Now is definitely not the time to sit back and wait. 

The legislature is also hearing bill HB388 today, which effectively would to change the definition of "child" to include a human embryo. 

As for SB 204, it is expected to be heard next week, which effectively would make embryo donation follow the same rules as adoption. 

Missouri – Rep. Dr. Rob Schaaf, a Republican, has proposed state legislation intended to prevent any woman undergoing IVF there from following the “Octomom’s” example. His bill, HB810, if passed would limit the number of embryos a physician can implant into a woman as delineated in the guidelines via the ASRM guidelines. Of course, this bill will then subject doctors in the state to discipline by the Missouri Board of Registration if the rule is violated. The legislation does not prevent physicians from recommending that women can seek fertility treatment outside of the state. ASRM supports this bill.

New YorkA New York Appeals Court has denied a couple the right to their son’s sperm in order to have a grandchild with the help of a surrogate mother. The son left sperm samples back in 1997, but ordered them destroyed if he died since his intent was to father a child if he survived his cancer, which he did not. A judge stated that state law bars the use of stored semen by a surrogate without certain blood tests, which can no longer be done.

UK – According to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology authority, a single woman can name “almost anyone” as a second parent after IVF, man or woman, so long as they agree. This new Act goes into effect on April 6 and the only restrictions will be naming a blood relative or lack of consent by the person. This Act nows opens the doors to lesbians both being named on the birth certificate, which is a big step. Sperm donors cannot be named unless they consent.

Korea – The South District Court in South Korea rejected a lawsuit about the egg donation procedures used in the cloning research of disgraced former Seoul National University researcher Woo Suk Hwang. Two women who had donated eggs through the University brought he lawsuit against the Korean government, MizMedi Hospital and Hangyang University Hospital. The government’s case again Hwang continues.

IrelandThe Supreme Court rejected a woman’s request for the right to make additional submissions in a appeal to determine the fate of three frozen embryos between her and her estranged husband. This woman contentions involve the issue that an embryo is an “unborn.”   The case itself between the couple remains open. 

Subscribe to my blog here

Now Is Not The Time to Stand Down in Georgia - Now Is The Time To Keep the Discussion Going

It appears that the Georgia legislature has "tabled" the legislation of Senate Bill 169 for now by sending it to a subcommittee for more research.  With research, it appears that they are going to have the legislation lay low until we don't notice.  Apparently, the backlash against the legislation was more than they can handle at this time -  (sarcasm intended)

As I said yesterday, this legislation is scary to say the least.  In fact, after a more thorough review of the bill today, I discovered that it was intended to also eliminate all forms of payment to gamete donors, which potentially can eliminate this option for many people.  

Furthermore, after reading an article by Laura Douglas-Brown, Editor for the Southern Voice, I found that it also limited ART to gay couples and individuals by throwing in a small piece as follows:

"The creation of an in vitro human embryo shall be solely for the purpose of initiating a human pregnancy by means of transfer to the uterus of a human female for the treatment of human infertility." [emphasis added]  Her article can be found at  Octomom' endangers lesbian, gay parents in Georgia.

So, essentially, the moral of today's story is that we need to keep on top of this issue before it restricts everyone's right to procreate.

Also, see the following article from Slate: Hijacking the octuplets backlash to restrict IVF

 

 

Creating Designer Children Causes Stir in IVF Community

A Los Angeles Clinic, and not the octuplet doctor if you must ask, is now offering their patients the "option" to select genetic traits to those who want it - eye color, hair color, skin color, freckles.  Is this a marketing ploy, or is this really possible?  I understand the concept of PGD, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, but does it really provide the opportunity for this sort of selection? 

When I first read the articles, I was immediately concerned, as I knew that this sort of "weird science" would cause quite a stir, which we really do not need right now in the IVF community after the octuplet mess.

Well, read for yourselves, and let me know what you think.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "A Los Angeles clinic says it will soon help couples select both gender and physical traits in a baby when they undergo a form of fertility treatment. The clinic, Fertility Institutes, says it has received "half a dozen" requests for the service, which is based on a procedure called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD." 

"While PGD has long been used for the medical purpose of averting life-threatening diseases in children, the science behind it has quietly progressed to the point that it could potentially be used to create designer babies. It isn't clear that Fertility Institutes can yet deliver on its claims of trait selection. But the growth of PGD, unfettered by any state or federal regulations in the U.S., has accelerated genetic knowledge swiftly enough that pre-selecting cosmetic traits in a baby is no longer the stuff of science fiction.

'It's technically feasible and it can be done,' says Mark Hughes, a pioneer of the PGD process and director of Genesis Genetics Institute, a large fertility laboratory in Detroit. However, he adds that 'no legitimate lab would get into it and, if they did, they'd be ostracized.'

But Fertility Institutes disagrees. 'This is cosmetic medicine,' says Jeff Steinberg, director of the clinic that is advertising gender and physical trait selection on its Web site. 'Others are frightened by the criticism but we have no problems with it."

Click Here for Complete Article in the WSJ

Click Here for Complete Article in BBC News

Theresa M. Erickson, Esq.
Surrogacy Lawyer & Egg Donation Lawyer 
www.EricksonLaw.net

Subscribe to my blog at: http://www.surrogacyeggdonorblog.com/subscribe.html

 

North Dakota House Gives Fertilized Eggs Human Status

News just out of North Dakota - we have a bill pending that intends to give a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being.  It appears that the intention is to put a complete ban on abortion in that state.  However, based on the field that I am in, I am concerned what it will do to the infertile couple/person with embryos frozen in that state.  What are your thoughts after reading below?

"BISMARCK, N.D. -- A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being, a step that would essentially ban abortion in the state.

The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

Representatives voted 51-41 to approve the measure Tuesday. It now moves to the North Dakota Senate for its review.

The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

The measure's sponsor, Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, said the legislation did not automatically ban abortion. Ruby has introduced bills in previous sessions of the Legislature to prohibit abortion in North Dakota.

"This language is not as aggressive as the direct ban legislation that I've proposed in the past," Ruby said during House floor debate on Tuesday. "This is very simply defining when life begins, and giving that life some protections under our Constitution - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Critics of the measure say it will cost millions of dollars to defend. Ruby said the state has been willing to go to bat for other principles that were less important.

In Oklahoma, meanwhile, a state House committee Tuesday approved legislation that would prohibit physicians from performing abortions solely on account of the gender of a woman's fetus, even though the measure's author said there is no evidence the practice has ever occurred in the state.

The legislation passed 20-2 by the House Public Health Committee. The bill now goes to the full House for consideration.

The author of the bill, Rep. Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa, said it is designed to stop couples from using the gender of a fetus as a reason to get an abortion. Sullivan said a doctor would be prohibited from performing an abortion if the mother specifically said the fetus' sex was the reason.

However, he said there is no evidence the practice has occurred in Oklahoma. "I haven't received any definite information that proves it," Sullivan said."

Click Here for Complete Article at Fox News

Theresa M. Erickson, Esq.
Surrogacy Lawyer & Egg Donation Lawyer 
www.EricksonLaw.net

Subscribe to my blog at: http://www.surrogacyeggdonorblog.com/subscribe.html

 

The Coming War over our Embryos - Slate Weighs In

Slate has written a very provocative article regarding the fate of embryos in the US and where potential legislation may be moving. 

"Last week at the White House, President Bush showcased embryo adoption as an alternative to embryonic stem-cell research. The event alarmed the in vitro fertilization industry. Proponents of embryo adoption "have an explicit political agenda to actually take away choices from infertility patients," an industry spokesman told the New York Times.

Actually, an explicit agenda is what pro-lifers don't yet have. Already overwhelmed by patient advocates in the fight over stem cells, they have no death wish to confront the millions of Americans whose families have tried IVF. Promoting embryo adoption—finding somebody to rescue surplus embryos so IVF couples can go on making them and leaving them behind—is an attempt to avoid that confrontation. But last week's House debate over stem cells signaled that the confrontation is coming. Pro-lifers don't think anyone, including a parent, has the right to doom an embryo to death. They're on a collision course with IVF."
 
I am interested to hear what others have to say on this issue, especially those patients now facing this issue in their own lives. 
 
 
Theresa M. Erickson, Esq.
Surrogacy Lawyer & Egg Donation Lawyer 
www.EricksonLaw.net

Leftover Embryos - What Shall You Do With Them?

Duke University Medical Center released a new study this week regarding embryo donation for research. They found in their study that more than 41% of patients who had finished fertility treatments and had leftover embryos would rather donate them to research than to another couple.

These findings are significant considering that the national debate regarding research using stem cells and embryos is highly controversial. However, the patients that said they would donate their excess embryos to research said that they would rather donate to research because they did not want the embryos to become children in families other than their own.

Additionally, these patients also said that donating the excess embryos to research was easier than simply destroying the embryos outright. Could this mean that the nation’s feelings about stem cell and embryo research are changing?

Click Here for Complete Article

Study Regarding Paternal Age Affecting Embryo Quality & Implantation

The Reproductive Bio Medicine journal recently published a huge study for the area of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. This study was conducted by a group of Spanish researchers and is considered to be the largest and most comprehensive study regarding the effect of male aging and its effect on assisted reproductive technologies.

Following their extensive research, they found that male aging does not have any negative impact on the resulting embryo quality or the implantation rate for these resulting embryos. This is a very interesting study considering that it was believed that like female aging, male aging also had an effect on embryos and their implantation rate when using Assisted Reproductive Technologies.

However, it would be interesting to look at this study more closely and to see exactly what their findings were to compare to the same results from a study based upon female again and its effect on ART. What are your thoughts?

Click Here for Complete Article

ASRM - Single Embryo Transfers in the US?

At the ASRM’s annual meeting in San Francisco this year most of the speakers and participants spoke about the push towards only implanting one embryo at a time within the US, which is the standard throughout Europe.

However, some practitioners warned that this should only be pushed, as ASRM recommends, for patients under the age of 35 who have not had a failed previous cycle of IVF. If this was adopted in the US it is believed that it would save a total of $1 billion in healthcare costs from the adverse affects of multiple pregnancies.

However, it could also cost patients an extra $100 million to achieve the same pregnancy rates as with the multiple embryo transfer. Which is better? What are your thoughts?

Click Here for the Complete Article

Embryos - What shall we do with the remaining created through IVF?

As the LA Times recently reported deciding what to do with excess embryos is a daunting task for many individuals and couples who have gone through fertility treatments and achieved a healthy pregnancy.

Additionally, if you decide to donate your cryopreserved embryos to research it is often a lot easier said than done, especially in states that do not allow embryos to be used in medical research. However, even if you are donating your embryos in a state that allows embryos to be used for research it is still a daunting task with a lot of paperwork that needs to be completed.

Because of all of the paperwork many clinics report that couples and/or individuals are more likely to discard their excess embryos because that is the “easier” option. Yet, for some donating or discarding is not even an option because they feel that they would be donating or discarding a “child,” which, if that is your belief, only makes this decision all the more difficult.

However, if these embryos were to be donated to science there are numerous maladies that are being researched to find a cure for and these embryos could help find those cures.

Click Here for Complete Article

Illinois Court Declares that Destruction of Frozen Embryos not Wrongful Death

On Friday, the Illinois Court of Appeals ruled that couples cannot sue for wrongful death when their embryos have been destroyed by a fertility clinic. Whether or not the destruction was intentional or accidental, the court of appeals stated that the laws do not extend to the preservation of embryos outside of the womb.

This could be a huge ruling in the field of reproductive law and embryo disposition cases in the United States because this court would not compare an embryo to a fetus when considering wrongful death. Hopefully, with this ruling the court will have a concise opinion that solidifies their ruling for the rest of the United States’ courts to use when hearing these types of cases.

Click Here for Complete Article

San Diego Scientists Make First Human Embryo Clone

It is amazing, yet scary at the same time.  It is incredible how far this technology is taking us!

By Rick Weiss

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 17, 2008; 6:16 PM

 

Scientists at a California company reported yesterday they had created the first mature cloned human embryos from single skin cells taken from adults, a significant advance toward the goal of growing personalized stem cells for patients suffering from various diseases.

 Remainder of Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011700324.html?hpid=topnews

 

Court: Embryo implanted in mother's womb after father's death not an heir

This article is interesting, as it clearly shows us that we are moving forward each day into a brave new world.

See article:  http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2008/01/11/News/344782.html