Donation of Embryos & the Complex Family Tree

Embryo donation & family trees- I found an interesting article today that I thought might provoke some thoughts in both the industry and by those considering this option.  I have included the family tree diagram, which was very interesting and provocative; however, at the same time I felt that shows how diverse families are and how these individuals came together to create several beautiful families - without the children losing their sense of identity.  Let me know your thoughts. 

"Last winter, McLaughlin and her husband, Pat, were given the twins' embryos from a couple in California who had successfully birthed a son. With two children already, their family was complete.

But the California couple never anticipated that four frozen embryos would remain — scant specks in glass pipettes, each about a hundred cells in all and visible only to a microscope.

The McLaughlins are among at least 260 families nationwide each year who successfully have babies after embryo donation, sometimes called embryo adoption.

In the process, the couple have plunged headlong into the dicey ethical, religious and medical debate over the creation and fate of frozen embryos.

It's a debate that Jen McLaughlin, who is Catholic, has tackled with total certainty, grounded in a belief that the embryos are moral equivalents of children.

.....So much so that McLaughlin and the donors are pushing the bounds of a simmering ethical debate on embryo donation even further by rethinking what "family" really means and just how far their children's genetic bonds should go.

Embryo donation sometimes is an anonymous process, with donors and recipients engaging in a cloaked transaction through fertility labs that severs the likelihood of a future child's linking to a genetic past.

But these two couples insisted on an open process so the genetically related children — even the children who still may be born from the two remaining frozen embryos — would stay connected. They felt their children had a right to know their genetic heritage, no matter if their full and half siblings are raised by different parents in different circumstances and most did not come from the same womb."


The story continues, "Social scientists also aren't sure what may come of this. While research suggests open adoption is healthy in traditional circumstances, there is no research on how embryo adopted children may fare in open arrangements. And some worry that parents are imposing sibling relationships on the children without first giving them a choice.

That concern is shared even by some conservative groups that encourage adopting embryos but condemn the technology that made them.

"My concern always in these cases is the adults who are creating all of these confusing relationships, and the way they do it fairly nonchalantly," said Barbara Quigley, executive director of the Center for Bioethics and Culture Missouri.

McLaughlin says it's all very simple when you look into the sleeping faces of her twins.

"People are going to look at their photos and agree this is the right thing to do," she said.

All the studies in the world also aren't going to change the embryo donor's convictions about open adoption and donation.

"I think that most people who are researchers have never been adopted," she said. "If they haven't had that experience, they couldn't possibly know what it was like."

So, with tiny baby steps, everyone is moving ahead in this most modern of families, linked genetically and contractually, potentially for a lifetime."

Friday Legal Updates™ - Croatia Update, Embryos Mishaps, Stem Cell Lawsuit, & Maternity Leave

TGIF to all!   I certainly need the weekend to relax - and to stay warm.  It is freezing in Southern California (I know, it is not really freezing, but it is for me!). 

Washington - "A judge dismissed a case this week by a Christian adoption agency's challenge to Obama administration regulations expanding stem cell research.

The case arose from a decision by President Barack Obama to lift restraints on stem-cell research that were put in place by President George W. Bush.

Nightlight Christian Adoptions contended in a lawsuit that the government's new guidelines will decrease the number of human embryos available for adoption. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth called that assertion speculative. Donors, the judge said, still may choose to continue to store the embryos or give them to an adoption agency rather than donate them for research.

For Nightlight to have grounds to sue, Lamberth ruled, potential embryo donors have to choose to donate their embryos for research and not for adoption.

Nightlight helps individuals adopt human embryos that are being stored in fertilization clinics. Nightlight began the program in 1997, using some of more than 400,000 frozen embryos with infertile couples.

"We're considering filing an appeal," said Ron Stoddart, executive director of Nightlight Christian Adoptions of Anaheim Hills, Calif. "It's unfortunate that the court did not address the merits of the action and instead took the easy way out and said in essence that we were not affected by the new guidelines and therefore weren't entitled to sue."

UK - Two stories out of the UK today -

a.  Women Using Surrogates in Fight for Maternity Leave: "

Campaigners claim the authorities are discriminating against “rent-awomb” mothers and have submitted evidence to ministers warning against the practice. They are calling for a change in the law.

The Government published new guidelines on surrogacy last month which were aimed at improving the rights of surrogacy patients, but did not tackle maternity pay.

The current guidelines only allow women who undergo a successful pregnancy to paid leave. They get time off even if they are not the genetic parent.

But people who use a surrogate have no right to paid or unpaid leave to look after their newborn child.

Adoption leave is also unavailable, because it only applies where a child is newly placed by an adoption agency.

Fertility law firm Gamble and Ghevaert is writing to ministers demanding they tackle the problem.

Partner Natalie Gamble said surrogacy is still regarded as an “exotic rarity”, which means statutory maternity leave does not apply.

Ms Gamble said: “The lack of right to maternity leave is tied up with the fact the surrogate mother is regarded as the mother.

“In any other circumstances you would get maternity leave. Women aren't going to need a whole year. What would make sense is a system where you have some sort of sharing arrangement [for maternity leave].

“We also need to take account of our modern human rights and anti-discrimination laws which do not allow unfair treatment of minority groups, however small they are.”

More than 40 babies are born in Britain every year with the help of a surrogate. The majority are to women who are unable to carry their own baby for medical reasons.

There is opposition in Britain to surrogacy becoming a “commercial” transaction. Restrictions mean surrogates cannot be paid for their services, although they may receive expenses.

These restrictions have triggered a rise in couples going abroad. But foreign surrogacy can be fraught with problems and a baby can end up being “stateless”.

The surrogate mother also has the legal right to keep the child, even if it is not genetically related to her.

Surrogacy arrangements are not legally enforceable. This applies even if a contract has been signed and the expenses of the surrogate have been paid. In British law, the woman who gives birth is always treated as the mother."

b.  Women Fear that their babies are not theirs after lab errors: "IVF is gruelling, heartbreaking and harsh. It's a costly gamble in which you can stake a fortune, your health and your sanity, more often than not for nothing. The odds are stacked against you from the start. So at the time of my own embryo transfer, any fear of laboratory mix-ups was subsumed by anxiety over whether the damn thing was going to work or not. In the euphoria that came when I discovered that I was pregnant, I pushed to the back of my mind the dangerous possibilities surrounding a baby conceived outside your body.

One fertility counsellor – who does not want to be named – says that she deals with an increasing number of people who fear that the clinic may have made a mistake. "It's an issue for a lot of couples, particularly the women. Mothers need to be sure of that bond and it's not uncommon to experience doubt."

This uncertainty over maternity isn't something I share. My daughter couldn't look more like my son. It's the first thing everyone says when they peer into her pram. But anyone who has been through the process of IVF will be able to imagine the doubt, the corrosive guilt, that some parents experience.

Maria underwent IVF after several years of unexplained secondary infertility. She has a nine-year-old daughter, conceived naturally, and a two-year-old son, courtesy of IVF. "I felt almost straight away that my son was different. He doesn't look anything like any of us. We're both Mediterranean so we are all very dark and olive-skinned. My son has a pale, Celtic complexion and reddish hair. People often express surprise when they realise I'm his mother; someone even once asked me if he was adopted."

I ask her if her partner has the same doubts. "I think he does," she says, then amends this to: "I know he does. I've seen him looking at him with a strange expression on his face." But they've never discussed it? Maria is emphatic: "We couldn't. Having that conversation would be admitting something terrible. It's taken me a while to get to this point but he's ours, whatever. He's our son. We love him and that's that."

Another woman, Linda, has two children from IVF and says that she "strongly suspects" one of them isn't biologically hers. "I can't really explain it," she says, "it's just an instinctive thing. He smelt different as a baby, he looks different, he just is different. I love him – I love him to bits – but I feel more and more that he probably isn't mine."

For some, the temptation of a DNA test becomes overwhelming. Michelle, from Yorkshire, says she arranged one for her five-year-old daughter and then cancelled it the day before. "I decided I didn't want to know. The potential outcome was too frightening. I'd rather live with the not-knowing." Belinda did go as far as DNA testing her twin boys. "I was so sure, 100% sure, there had been a mistake. The clinic I went to was a shambles; the staff were so distracted; [the clinic] was later shut down after it failed an inspection. But the test turned out positive: they were ours. It was like finding out I was pregnant all over again."

Note:  From October 1, the HFEA has introduced new rules, which include stricter guidelines about the handling and storage of gametes and embryos. If these are adhered to, the hope is that these rare but devastating mistakes will vanish – and along with them any anxieties that parents might feel about their children.

Croatia - "The Croat parliament on Friday passed an amended law on in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) making it easier for couples to receive treatment to help them to conceive.

Under the revised law couples only have to sign a statement confirming they are in a relationship. Previously they had to prove before a court they had been together for three years.

The new law, however, will still ban the freezing of embryos despite strong criticism from the opposition and parents' groups.

"Freezing of embryos is the gold standard everywhere in Europe except in Croatia," deputy of the main opposition Social Democrats, Milanka Opacic, said before the vote.

She accused Health Minister Darko Milinovic of denying couples access to the best means of overcoming fertility.

Until the new law, which was adopted in its unamended form in July, the freezing of embryos had been used by Croatia's doctors in IVF treatments.

The former Yugoslav republic's original legislation dated back to 1978, the year that the world's first test-tube baby was born. At that time freezing of embryos did not yet exist as a fertility technique.

Under the new law, children conceived by donated eggs or sperm will also be able to obtain information about his or her biological parents when they reach 18 if donors have given their prior agreement."

Anger over Croatian Law & IVF Blunders

Good Monday Morning to all!   Today's focus in Europe, specifically Croatia, where they have some of the strictest IVF laws.  At this point the legistlature has voted to restrict IVF treatment to married couples and only those who can prove that they have been together for at least three years.  Furthermore, they are also prohibiting the freezing of embryos left over from any treatment.   Donors of eggs and sperm can also no longer be anonymous, and the information can be accessed at the age of 18 by the child. 

Critics claim that this new legislation is going to stop IVF treatment all across the country.  The President has referred the legislation to the Constitutional Court, where childless couples and individuals will have to wait until next April for a hearing. 

In the UK, a leading IVF lawyer is appalled at the latest figures regarding IVF clinic blunders just released by HFEA.  "Figures released yesterday by the HFEA under the Freedom of Information Act showed a catalogue of blunders at some of the countrys top IVF clinics, including staff dropping embryos, eggs and sperm on the floor or samples being mistakenly thrown out with the rubbish. Failed storage equipment also meant that frozen embryos and sperm samples thawed which could in some cases lead to a familys last chance of having a natural child of their own being lost. "

"The figures show that between April 2005 and March 2006 140 incidents and near misses were reported to the HFEA. Of these 91 were categorised as Grade A being the most severe with 38 Grade B incidents and 11 near miss incidents. The report Driving Improvement which is available from the HFEA website here confirmed that the most serious incidents include the loss of gametes (eggs or sperm) and embryos through dropping dishes or tripping or accidental disposal and that equipment failure compromised viable embryos."

This is certainly a tragedy for all patients involved. 

"Muiris Lyons added I have acted for a number of people who have lost gametes or embryos in claims against the clinics involved. The recent report shows the scale of the problem which has plainly affected a significant number of people.

The most serious IVF blunder in the UK occurred in Leeds in 2002 when mixed race babies were born to a white couple after a womans eggs were fertilised with the wrong man's sperm."

"The case gave rise to the recent acclaimed Channel 4 docu-drama Born with Two Mothers "Born with Two Mothers" in which Muiris appeared as himself advising one of the couples involved in the mix-up. The plot device was also used in the third series of hit American show Desperate Housewives which aired on Channel 4for the first time in the UK last week where childless couple Gabrielle and Carlos Solis were the victims of an IVF clinic blunder which resulted in their surrogate mother giving birth to a black child following an embryo mix-up."

Ouch! 

Custody and Care of Your Genetic Property

The role of a trustee is expanding.  Trusts are evolving to harness medical advances. With the use of stem cells and other genetic material babies born today are expected to live over 100 years.

As part of this evolution, new state laws now make extracting live sperm from a dead body for later reproductive use legal. Cryobanks around the country are receiving customer deposits of frozen reproductive cells which include stem cells, cord blood, sperm, eggs and embryos. The courts have held that genetic material is property, like securities and may be bought, sold or transferred.

Unclaimed and abandoned property or genetic material in these banks, including sperm or embryos can be used to create a child through in vitro fertilization (IVF) without the knowledge or consent of the owner. This child, if conceived by a former wife or ex-girlfirend may have rights to an ultimate inheritance from the owners estate.

To account for this material, estate planners have begun to recommend adding provisions to their client’s trusts to be sure this property is managed properly after death – requiring trustees to understand this new language and take on new responsibilities.

Frozen Heirs

The process begins by storing sperm or an egg with the idea that a child may be born after the death of one of the parents. In the past, a child would be born after the death of his or her parent only if the father died during the pregnancy or the mother died during delivery. Most state’s laws account for this and protect an after born child to permit that child to inherit from the deceased father or mother. In other words, a child conceived during the parents’ lives is protected and is considered a lawful heir.

In 1999 everything changed with the birth of Brandalynn Vernoff, the first known child in the United States conceived with the sperm of a dead man. Brandalynn’s father, Bruce Vernoff, was only 35 when he died in 1995 from an accidental overdose of prescription medications. Thirty hours later, at the behest of Vernoff’s grief-shattered family, a doctor extracted five vials of Vernoff’s sperm and stored them in a sperm bank. In 1999, using advanced reproductive technology, a team of specialists posthumously fertilized Bruce’s widows’ eggs. The result was Brandalynn who arrived March 17, 1999 – almost four years after her father drew his last breath.

This is called posthumous conception. It is now possible and with the use cryopreservation, a family can complete its family formation objectives after the death of one on the parents.

But there are still pieces of this puzzle that need to be understood. First, how does a trustee arrange for collection of live sperm from their dead clients corpse? And, second, what inheritance rights does a posthumously conceived child have from their father’s estate?

First, as trustee, you should know, in advance, if the medical powers of attorney require the executor or trustee of the estate have sperm extracted and cryopreserved. Of course, you can avoid all of this ahead of your clients death by advising them to deposit eggs or sperm in a cryobank.

Hurry, We Need a Urologist

I interviewed Theresa M. Erickson, an astute and knowledgeable family formation lawyer based in San Diego, California. Erickson says, depending where you are “finding someone to extract sperm from a corpse may prove difficult.” She added, “most urologists are reluctant to perform the procedure.” Sperm is not preserved indefinitely in a dead body. It should be extracted within 36 hours or less. Although she said, ”one doctor told her that it can be good for up to one week.”

Therefore, for the trustee, when you receive one of these trusts, be sure you have a willing urologist available on-call as you never know when your client may suffer an accidental death. You might start by asking for a referral from Los Angeles Urologist Dr. Cappy Rothman, the physician who extracted the sperm in the Vernoff case. He is also a co-founder of the California Cryobank.

Once you have multiple vials of your deceased clients sperm, you as trustee, will need to get it deposited into a cryobank. To get clear on this, I interviewed Scott Brown, from the California Cryobank, America’s biggest and oldest sperm bank. Brown says is easy to make a deposit. This is usually handled though the physician that collected the sample. However, they will take a direct deposit from a trust company on behalf of their trust client. Opening an account and making a deposit is not like depositing money with Bank of America. Brown says you should have your attorney draw up an agreement. This agreement should be clear as to who is the sperms owner.

The next step for the family it to decide what to do with the sperm. This decision has to be made quickly. California laws say the sperm must create a child within 2 years from the death of the donor, or the child will not have an entitlement to an inheritance. It is legal to use the use the sperm beyond two years, but the child will not see any money from the estate.

All of these thorny issues involving family formation after death of a spouse should be spelled out long before the death of a family member. I found one estate planning law firm in Denver that deals with these issues head on. I interviewed Teresa C. Baird, last week. Her firm, Fairfield and Woods, PC  provided a sample trust provision for attorneys to address the inheritance rights of posthumously conceived children.

Barid gives her clients an intake questionnaire before drafting a will or trust. Baird always asks the question about cryo banking genetic materials — “its good practice.” She also asks, “what would you like to happen in the event of your death, would you like sperm or eggs deposited into a cryobank?”

Baird says the legal authority in this area is ”murky” at this time, but will likely be better defined as this practice increases. Baird says, “it is essential that planning take place, beginning with an critical conversation,  as very few courts have addressed these questions.”

Questions of Control

Both attorney’s Erickson and Baird agree that genetic property or materials need to be accounted for both before and after death.

While alive, any deposits made in the cryobank need to be correctly titled to either the owner of the material or the trust that governs its disposition. Therefore, when an estate planner creates at trust provision that requires the redemption of sperm or embryos from a cryobank it is important that the trustee have proper standing with the depository.

Brown from the California Cryobank says the instructions as to what to do with the material must come from the owner or the person who has a power of attorney. While alive this agreement should have specifics as to who has the right to contribute and withdraw these materials.

In following the death of the owner of such material it is important to specify in any trust provision that, in the case of sperm, that it be used only by a specific individual and for a limited time period.  Erickson pointed out that in a case where a celebrity or multi-millionaire that had former wives or girlfriends “you don’t want them coming forward and claiming the sperm and therefore a right to a child and its rightful inheritance.”

In addition to what may be available to a trust company client for legal remedies there are certain measures that the owner of sperm should do to keep track of his genetic property.

A Mischievous Mistress

Here is a hypothetical situation that might exist in the absence of controls of sperm. Let’s say you have a client who is 70 years old and is worth $100 million. He is married, has three children and a wife. In addition to his family life he has several mistresses, one of which has a hidden agenda.

As our multi-millionaire has frequent sexual relations with his mistress he is strict about using a condom.

At the end of each episode the mistress politely removes the condom filled with semen, takes it into the bathroom, and flushes the toilet. But instead of discarding the condom with the semen, she stores it in a plastic bag. After he leaves, she promptly takes it down to a cryobank and deposits it under her name.

Over the span of a ten year relationship she may have made dozens of deposits.

Then one day the multi-millionaire suddenly dies. He is not around to make any claim one way or another to have fathered another child but our mischievous mistress becomes impregnated with the multi-millionaire’s sperm, announces to the estate she is pregnant with his child. Her lawyers come to the trustee perhaps you, to  include her child in the class of beneficiaries for distributions to his children. At the end of the it is her word against the estates as to what the intent of the deceased client.

Of course this is a hypothetical but it can happen. There are two things that might be done when advising a multi-million dollar client:  1) Make certain that estate planning documents are crystal clear who are and are not legitimate children, entitled to the inheritance.  2) If one is having an affair it might be a good idea to take your soiled condom out the door with you!

As reproductive medical technology improves and more genetic property including sperm, eggs, embryos, stem cells and more get stored at cryobanks there will become an ever so important requirement for trust administrators to understand this new science and to be thoroughly familiar with how to both control and manage your client’s genetic property.

Jerry Cooper, senior editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Steven Maimes contributed to the research.

The Single Embryo Debate Continues

The New York Times brought up the ever evolving debate regarding multiple births and single embryo transfers.   In fact, it is my opinion that the piece was meant to blame some of the rising health care costs on the IVF patients themselves.  Yet, what I don't believe they addressed well enough was the flip side of this industry that involves the use of stimulation medications by OB/GYNs in order to obtain a pregnancy without the supervision of an IVF doctor.   As in the case of "Jon and Kate plus Eight" and other high order multiples, they are often the result of the use of medications such as Clomid (excluding the "Octomom" of course) and interuterine insemination. 

The piece does, however,  address the painful choice that the patients, as well as their doctors, must make in balancing their desire to have a healthy children against statistics that are often not in their favor.  However, why is the IVF patient who is expending large sums of money and often betting it all on one cycle being targeted?  Again, what about the use of these stimulation medications without the counseling that is often required by IVF clinics in order to make certain that these patients understand the true definition of selective reduction and its risks?  Then again, as was addressed by E.E. Evans in the piece, "Three in a Casket," even if the patients are counseled, they often reject their own physician's advice to reduce. 

Truly, this is a national debate, which is one that is likely not to go away; however, there is a much bigger issue that involves the lack of medical insurance coverage for fertility treatments.  How can the government or state legislatures regulate an industry that is not covered in some degree by the insurance companies?  Yes, they can restrict the practice of one embryo per women of a certain age, but only if there is some coverage for IVF cycles, as in the UK.  For now, these treatments are costly, and the likely solution is to bring the IVF physicians in on the risk by offering free storage and/or no subsequent frozen embryo transfer fees.

We need to continue this debate.   

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

Friday Legal Updates - California Bill, Chicago Scammer, Ohio (oh, my), Michigan & embryos, DC & same sex couples, & International Issues

Hello!   I am back after a two week hiatus on my Friday Legal Updates, but it is summer so the wheels of justice turn slowly, as does legislation.  Either way, here are today's updates for the last few weeks:

California - The California Legislature is getting back into the Prop 8 fight with a bill that would recognize those same-sex marriages performed legally outside of California before the measure had passed.  SB54 also intends to ensure that gay and lesbian couples who have been married legally in other states and countries since November 5th when Prop 8 became official can receive all the rights and obligations that opposite sex Californian couples enjoy.

Illinois - More couples are coming out of the woodwork regarding a surrogate who had scammed them into believing that she was pregnant with their baby.  Beware!

Ohio - A Republican lawmaker in Ohio is re-introducing a bill that would give a man the final choice on whether the woman he got pregnant can have an abortion.  I am so "impressed" that a man can force a woman to keep the baby, but the bill mentions nothing about forcing him to be a good father or provide financial stability. 

DC - A new DC law is making it alot easier for a newborn to have two moms at birth.  Lesbians who create a child via artificial insemination will no longer have to adopt their children that have been born to their partners.  A similar law is to go into effect in New Mexico in 2010.  This is a huge step for same sex couples, as they do not have to go through the time consuming and expensive legal process that is not required of heterosexual couples who use artificial insemination. 

Croatia - Croatia continues to tighten their laws on fertility treatments by forbiding the freezing of embryos.  It also limits the number of embryos used to three and for unmarried couples, they must prove that they have been together for at least three years. 

Romania - 30 Israelis were detained in an egg trafficking case.  It sounds like the issue is on its way to being resolved from more recent reports; however, I certainly hope that this is not an issue of human trafficking. 

Subscribe to my blog here.  

Friday Legal Updates - Surrogate Children, Georgia Embryo Law, IVF Treatments, Foreign Adoptions, & Embryo Mix-Ups

Hello and TGIF!  Sorry I missed you last week, but I was away relaxing on vacation in Hawaii.  We have quite a few updates today, so please comment on those that are interesting or those that make you want to respond.  Happy Friday!

California/Texas - Court Tosses Claim by Children Born to a Surrogate - The District Court of Appeal yesterday threw out the claims of 15 year old twins born to a surrogate mother against the Texas estate of their biological father asserting breach of the surrogacy agreement due to the father's failure to support them as time barred.  The actual story sounds like a scene from the show "Dallas," so be sure to read the link above. 

Georgia - The new law allowing families to adopt embryos is now in effect in Georgia.  The law aims to prevent embryo donors from later asserting legal rights to children born from embryo adoption.  Personally, I think that this will make embryo donation more costly, but we shall see. 

Federal - A Federal Appeals Court has ruled that a woman cannot be fired for absenteeism related to fertility treatments.  The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that Title VII does prohibit an employer from doing so.  A trial is still pending so we will have to see what happens as this case progresses.

Federal - Congress is introducing a bi-partisan bill, entitled FACE Act (S. 1359), which intends to eliminate many of the hurdles internationally adopted children of American citizens currently face before they can come home to the US, which is often a lengthy and expensive process. 

UK - Chairman of British Fertility Society warns that IVF mix-ups "will continue."  In fact, he is not certain if the new systems being put into place will help, as human error is always a possibility.  He did not that the number of mix-ups were small; however, he needs to think more of those that it has affected versus the number.  Don't you think?

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.

Friday Legal Updates - Surrogate Insurance, Colorado Legislation, Georgia Embryo Adoption Bill, Lost Embryos & Surrogacy

Happy Memorial Day Weekend to all Americans - whether here or overseas!  I plan on taking off early today and spending Monday at home with my family. 

Well, here are this week's legal updates.  Enjoy!

Los Angeles, CA - New Life Agency Continues to Trial Against Beitler Services in Pursuit of Payments fro Surrogate Maternity Claims - Press Release Here

Colorado - Colorado Gay Couples Ok'd to Adopt - new legislation allows joint adoption of children by unmarried couples.  Colorado is now the 10th state in the country to allow such second parent adoptions.

Georgia -The governor has signed and passed the nation's first embryo adoption bill on May 18th.  What do you think of this law and how it will affect those opting for embryo adoption/donation?  What about the additional costs?

Massachusetts - Quincy Couple sue Boston Hospital over destroyed embryos - oops!  This is not good. 

"Destruction of the embryos amounts to gross negligence on the part of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and several members of its staff, the suit filed Thursday in Norfolk County Superior Court contends.

In a statement, the hospital said: ‘‘We are deeply sorry; we informed the couple as soon as we became aware and have apologized to our patient and her husband. We hold ourselves responsible for not ensuring the proper care of our patient’s embryos. We are improving our policies and procedures, adding an increased level of oversight to prevent this from happening again.’’

Julie Norton was diagnosed with rectal-colon cancer in 2001 at age 29, less than a year after the couple married.

The Nortons were told that the surgery and radiation and chemotherapy treatments Julie Norton had to undergo would greatly diminish her ability to have children, according to the suit.

The Nortons consulted with Dr. Elizabeth Ginsburg, the director of the hospital’s in vitro fertilization and assisted reproductive technology programs, and decided to harvest some of Norton’s eggs and cryo-preserve them after they were fertilized. "

Queensland, AU - Altruistic Surrogacy to be decriminalized - this is a move to make it easier for gay and lesbian couples to become parents. 

Friday Legal Updates - Embryos, Surrogacy, & Reproductive Tourism Revisited-

Happy Friday to one and all!  I am excited about spending a weekend in Los Angeles.  There have been some interesting articles posted over the last week from over the world.  Read and give me your thoughts.  Have a great weekend to all.

Montana - Lesbian Custody Case - Another case of "you are not the parent" explained in detail by Julie Shapiro, who has a great blog with alot of information on many legal issues.  Of course, one of the women did not adopt the children, which would likely not be allowed in Montana, and the other woman wants full custody.  It is another unfortunate case that is even bringing in the Alliance Defense Fund, who opposes gay/lesbian rights.  So, go figure.  It is before the Montana Supreme Court, so we will keep an eye on this one. 

National - Single Embryo Transfer: Why Not Put All Your Eggs in One Basket?  Great article by Dr. Petok via the American Fertility Association.  A great response to the Octomom debacle and the move towards fewer embryos being transferred. 

Australia - Incubated Embryos Destroyed after Sydney IVF Malfunction.   This is a sad situation - I certainly hope that the end result is good for all of these patients. 

Ireland - Irish Couples Face an Uphill Struggle with Surrogacy Laws.  Surrogacy at home in Ireland is almost impossible, even though there are no laws banning such practices.  There is an adoption required, which makes this possibility virtually impossible unless it involves a family member.  And, with changes in the law in the UK in 2005, that country is no longer an option as it was in the past. 

Singapore - Singapore is now allowing reimbursement for altruistic living organ donations.  The regulations and requirements will ultimately fall in the hands of the medical ethics boards in order to determine who is a healthy donor and who is acting altruistically.  The Health Ministry now also has a plan in place as to how this will be done.  Is this a step in the right direction?  What do you think? 

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

FRIDAY LEGAL UPDATES - Gay Rights, Fertility, Embryos, Georgia Legislation, Surrogacy & India

Today's updates are short but sweet, as I am swamped today!

Here they are in shortened form:

Connecticut - The State lawmakers are considering updating state law to conform with a court ruling that allows that allows same-sex marriages, opponents of gay marriage fear their effort will go too far to promote homosexuality.

Massachusetts - A former Massachusetts woman has pleaded guilty to mail fraud and other charges for selling fertility drugs on the internet

Georgia - Update: Success as Georgia Legislation SB 169 is stripped of prohibition on cryopreservation of embryos.

Israel - Israel grants work leave for a gay man for the birth of his son via a surrogate.

New Zealand - Separated couple in dispute over frozen embryos that they created together in 2000.  No children have resulted from the other embryos; however, the woman wants to try again, despite the fact that they are separated.  The male partner will not permit her to use them or to donate them to another couple.  

India - Regulators are now pushing surrogacy legislation as the business continues to grow daily

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

Georgia Bill Requiring Oversight on IVF Likely Dead Until Next Year

According to Medical News Today and National Partnership, it looks as if the Georgia bill (SB169) is “dead” until next year.  We had all suspected that this would happen, but again, we need to remain vigilant, as they may try and slip it through next year. 

This Georgia bill was the first attempt in the US to restrict the number of embryos implanted into a woman following IVF, and is now being following by Missouri.  Critics, such as Resolve and AFA, feel that the bills will produce devastating effects on those who want to have children but cannot without the help of IVF.

I am certain that this topic will be greatly debated at ASRM this year, and I look forward to being a part of that.  I would also like to know what your thoughts on this are and how you can help this sort of “reactive” legislation from being enacted in your own state?

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

Georgia Embryo Legislation Update - Resolve.org

In order to keep everyone posted on the situation on the ground in Georgia, Resolve has updated us with the following information, as the Georgia legislature has yet to update their site.

"UPDATE!  The Special Subcommittee formed last week to provide time to study SB 169 met this morning at 9:30 a.m. for 30 minutes.  A new version of SB 169 was introduced.  The new version was voted on by the full HHS Committee at 10:30 a.m. this morning and the bill passed by a vote of 7-6.  The revised SB 169 bill will now go to the Rules Committee where further changes may be made, then to the full Senate for a vote, perhaps as early as Wednesday.  The revised SB 169 bill has not been posted online but RESOLVE will post a link to the revised bill as soon as possible. "

Ladies and Gentleman of Georgia, we need to continue contacting the legislature in the State of Georgia to let them know this needs to be stopped for the sake of families everywhere.

 

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

FRIDAY LEGAL UPDATES - Lesbian Couple Suing for Access to IVF & Woman Suing for Loss of Last Embryo

Unfortunately, due to my attendance at the Donor Egg Meeting in South Carolina, today’s updates are minimal. Hopefully, this conference will give me plenty to blog about next week, so stay tuned.

UK - Lesbians Want Access to IVF from NHS. The Sun is reporting the following: “Caroline Harris and Julie McMullan claimed discrimination and breach of human rights after they were rejected for IVF treatment. They say they suffered “distress and anxiety” — and ran up a bill of £11,000 paying for private care.

They want a judge to review the decision by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde .  The couple, whose challenge is backed by equality officials, also want the health board to order fertility treatment for Caroline.

NHS chiefs insist the service, which costs £3,300 a time, is for couples who have tried in vain to conceive in the normal way. In papers lodged at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, they claim Caroline and Julie do not fit the definition of an infertile couple.

But the women claim official rules do not mention that only same-sex couples can get treatment.”

Furthermore, “Last night, the Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland — who are backing the women — said that “discrimination of this type is unlawful.”

Spokeswoman Lynn Welsh added: ‘It will not be tolerated in a fair society. Equality means that while no one has an absolute right to receive treatment, the services provided by the NHS have to be available to everyone equally.’

A full hearing is expected at a later date. “

Click Here for Complete Article

Australia – An Australian woman claims her fertility lost her last embryo, thereby thwarting her chances at motherhood – and she is suing for pain and suffering. The article provides details as follows: “The woman, said to be in her late 40s, alleges Melbourne IVF staff allowed her potential baby to be destroyed.

She claims to have paid storage fees for years to preserve on ice the last of 13 embryos created during infertility treatment in 2003 and 2004.

But the embryo allegedly couldn't be found for a final round of treatment in 2007.

The woman has launched legal action in the County Court against Melbourne IVF, which is expected to defend the claim.

Court documents filed by the woman's lawyers this week claim the would-be mom started IVF treatment in October 2003.

A total of 31 eggs were harvested and 13 of the resulting embryos were frozen, the suit says.

The woman alleges Melbourne IVF's Dr. Geoffrey Clarke assured her one embryo would be kept in storage for later use.”

Click Here for Complete Article

Click Here for Another Article On This Case

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

 

Ireland Supreme Court Begins Hearing on the Use of Embryos After Divorce

With all of the news surrounding the octuplets, I figured I would let the dust settle for a while and address the couple in Ireland fighting over their embryos. 

As reported by the IrishTimes.com, "A man who separated from his wife after agreeing to her undergoing fertility treatment is prevented both by the Constitution and various documents signed by him from stopping her having the remaining embryos implanted in her womb with a view to becoming pregnant again, the Supreme Court was told today.

The State, because of the 1983 constitutional amendment requiring it to protect and indicate the right to life of the unborn, must facilitate the implantation of the remaining embryos, Gerard Hogan SC, for the woman, said.

Asked by Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman if the State is always required to facilitate implantation of viable embryos, counsel said he was not arguing women could be coerced into carrying embryos.

In this case, the woman could not be denied implantation as she wanted to provide “a home” for the embryos. Her attitude was a “highly relevant factor” in determining the extent of the State’s obligations towards these particular embryos."

How do you think the court should rule?  As for me, having written on behalf of Randy Roman in the case of Roman v. Roman for the US Supreme Court, my vote is for the husband.

Click Here for the Complete Article

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

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

Friday Legal Updates - Embryo Dispute, Donor Conceived Children & Those Octuplets

Well, we have quite a day in legal news today. So, let’s start with the notorious octuplets –

As Sarah Palin, whether you like her or not, would say “Joe, say it isn’t so” to this one. This week I reported that this mother of eight should not be judged until “we have walked in her shoes,” but today all of the news outlets (such as LA Times, GMA, Today, etc.) are reporting that she already has six kids and reproductive technologies were used, whether IVF, Clomid, or some other means. 

Karen Hammond of the AFA stated “I congratulate this lady for having the fortitude to carry octuplets to viability, but in a sense, this birth represents a failure of infertility treatment. The majority of such high-order multiple pregnancies end with loss of all the infants, and multiple pregnancy poses dangers for the mother as well,” says Hammond.

Even Fox News made a great argument stating that the focus should not be on why she did not selective reduce, but why, if the story is true, did her physician place eight, yes 8, embryos into her uterus. I certainly hope that it was not an American physician – what will the ASRM say or do about this? Either way, I am concerned about regulation due to the actions of a few if embryos were transferred.

I think that the jury is out on this one until we get all of the facts, but here is the update. Let’s see how it turns out. What do you think? 

Now, as for the donor conceived case filed in Canada, the court has ruled as follows:

“For the first time in Canada a court has ruled on the legitimacy of a donor contract in determining the competing parental rights of a lesbian couple and a gay man who was the sperm donor.

The precedent-setting court ruling that the agreement is not enforceable could open the door for a child to have three or four recognized parents in "known donor" situations.”

At the same time, it may also have a chilling effect on lesbian couples seeking a specific donor and who want their child to know the identity of the father.

The legal dispute involves a lesbian couple in Toronto and a gay man who agreed to be their sperm donor and play an active role as a parent.

Click Here for the Complete Article

And, finally, we have a woman who has died leaving three frozen embryos. It is stated that her fiancé, who sperm was used, wants to use his sister as a carrier.   The dead woman’s mother is poised to fight that this is not her daughter’s wishes. We will see where this one goes. 

Click Here for the Complete Article

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