Egg Donor & Surrogacy Consulting Blog : Egg Donation & Surrogacy Consulting : Conceptual Options : Theresa Erickson : Embryo Donation, In-Vitro Fertilization

Good Morning and TGIF to all!   Hope you are well.   Morning radio show starts in about an hour, so here are your Friday Legal Updates.  They are mostly international stories with a federal law suit just filed also added.  Enjoy!

United States - Federal Law Suit Filed to block federally funded human embryo reserach.  "A group of plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to "enjoin and overturn the controversial guidelines for public funding of embryonic stem cell research that the National Institutes of Health issued on July 7, 2009," according to a press statement...."

It will be interesting to watch this suit play out.  What are your thoughts on stem cell research?

UK - Two directors of a fertility company appeared in court yesterday accused of illegally delivering sperm to women by courier.  They are to appear in court next month.  This is a test case under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of "procuring sperm".  They face two years in jail. 

Australia - A couple must battle the courts to adopt their own son.  I blogged on this case already, but I wanted to repost as I really feel for this couple.  Grandma carried her grandson for her daughter.  Apparently, surrogacy law in NSW has not kept up with science. 

Poland - A surrogate mother is fighting for custody of the child that she gave birth to for another couple from Warsaw.  Polish law does not regulate surrogacy, and despite a written agreement, this looks like a battle for this couple with their gestational carrier.

Uruguay - Uruguay is one step closer to becoming the first country in Latin America to permit same-sex couples to adopt children.  Uruguay had authorized same-sex civil unions last year.

New Zealand - Parents of surrogate born daughter battle to bring her home from Thailand.  The couple is heartbroken as the little girl is the daughter of the Thai surrogate in New Zealand, but the couple are her parents in Thailand.  The couple claims to sought legal advice, but this unfortunately looks like another issue with fertility tourism in certain countries.

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After reading an interesting commentary posted on MSNBC involving a gentleman that claims to have sold his kidney for $20,000.00 to another man in New York who had no chance of living without it, I started thinking about how this story may or may not be used against egg and sperm donation solely on the basis of compensation (this is not meant to address any issues regarding medical procedures, duress, the rights of donor conceived children, etc. in this post - we will address that at another time).

It appears that this gentleman and the New York man concocted a story to cover what was truly happening so that the doctors would proceed with the donation.  In fact, they claimed to be cousins and an intermediary was used.

Now, the paying for the donation of organs has been outlawed in the US for quite some time, while the UK has just set in place a new law banning of private organ transplants from dead donors to allay fears that prospective recipients can buy their way to the front of the line.

They even submitted a government-commissioned report that recommended that organs donated within the state-run National Health Service should stay within the public health system, even though very few Britons have private transplants.  In fact, the new rules will mainly stop overseas patients from coming to Britain and paying privately for a transplant. 

On the other hand, gamete donation for compensation has also been banned in several countries, such as Canada, for quite some time, but where do we draw line between what we can be compensated for and what not?  What about participating in a research program for a new drug or therapy?

Now, let’s get back to this gentleman from Israel, who believes that he has done something great and earned money along the way.  And, he does have two kidneys, doesn’t he?  (Personally, I would like to keep both of mine as a back-up, but that is just me.)  Does he have the right to sell something that he can function without? 

I did submit my vote in an online poll (I will not divulge my answer), and this is the current standing as of now:
 
1. Yes, absolutely. It's dangerous and unfair to go outside the approved system for organ donation – 20.3%.
2. No. I think people who need an organ should be able to pursue all options – 70.8%.
3. I don't know. It's a complex topic – 8.9%.

This topic, although dealing with organs versus gametes and the process in which they are obtained, is certainly going to continue to be debated; however, I want to know what you think?  Where do we draw the law on what can be compensated for and what cannot be compensated for?  And, why do we care?  I do not have the answer; I am just asking the questions.  Let me know what you think?

Subscribe to my blog here

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Well, another week has come and gone, but for those of us who are Americans, next week is the 4th of July, which means family celebrations for most.  Today, I want to tell those who are still longing for a family of their own that there is hope.  Be patient, get educated, and hang in there. 

Now, onto the updates:

Iowa - Dead Iowan Father's Child - will his daughter receive survivor benefits.  In a case similar to the one that I addressed here in California last week on my blog, her mother is trying to fight for Social Security Survivor Benefits for Byrnn, now 6, conceived through IVF two years after her father died.  Again, this result is based on 150 year old Iowa law, as in the California and Arizona case, but her mother is challenging the decision - and she intends to take it all the way to the US Supreme Court. 

My take on this - make certain estate planning documents are in order for the future use of your genetic material, although it would not have made a difference in this particular case. 

Michigan - Michigan Lawmakers Prepare Bills to Monitor the activities surrounding the donation and destruction of embryos.  The one bill in particular is called the Embryo Research and Fertility Clinic Transparency Act (Senate Bills 647-652)

New York - Fertility Authority has received investments totalling $500,000.00. 

"7.3 Million Americans struggle with fertility issues and are looking for quality information and support that only www.fertilityauthority.com provides. The $4 Billion fertility industry is without a "go-to" source for accurate and up-to-the minute content. FertilityAuthority.com was launched on February 25, 2009 and has not looked back. CEO Gina Bartasi says, "Our goal has always been to provide the best fertility content on the web, and users are recognizing the quality of our site. Investors have witnessed our early success and want to be a part of our future growth."

The funds will be used to enhance the site's technology, boost revenue capabilities, generate additional content and continue to aggressively build traffic. Bartasi has not ruled out an institutional raise adding "Our clients are asking us for custom websites, online appointment booking software, expanded video content and additional technological innovation that will help their businesses grow. Our focus is to serve their needs and exceed their expectations". New clients that have already put their confidence in FertilityAuthority.com include several prominent regional fertility centers as well as specialty pharmaceutical firms Columbia Laboratories and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. "

United Kingdom - Why Am I Dark, Daddy?  Another IVF blunder in the UK haunts another family. 

"When ten-year-old Michael Williams climbs into his father Keith's arms for a goodnight cuddle, he will often ask the same dreaded question: 'Why am I brown?' Looking up into his father's blue eyes and taking in his light brown hair and fair skin, his son will then ask: 'How can I make myself lighter, like you?'

Keith doesn't know how to answer these questions, so he'll make a joke about how Michael was delivered by a stork or that he was found under a gooseberry bush. Anything to avoid having to tell him the truth.

For the reality is that not only was Michael conceived via IVF using donor sperm, but there was a terrible mix-up when the wrong sperm was mistakenly used by the hospital fertility clinic the couple attended in their hope of becoming parents. "

Canada - Canadian Donor Offspring has created an initiative in response to the lawsuit filed by Olivia Pratten back in October of 2008.  The site is an attempt to fundraise on her behalf, as well as others in her situation.  The site is located here.  What are your thoughts on this issue?

Subscribe to my blog here.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I read this great blog post by Donor Concierge, and I was impressed by the woman's candor.  I wanted to share this with all of you as Gail has done and get your thoughts on the subject.  As I have also been a donor, I have no problems allowing the children to have contact with me in the future in order to discover who they.   I am not willing to have any relationship beyond that, but I am willing to share with them any information that may help them in their own journey through life.  What do you think?

"Egg Donation: Why I gave up my right to remain anonymous
By Laura Witjens, Chair of the National Gamete Donation Trust, egg donor and mother 08 June 2009

Following a change in the law that came into force on 1 April 2005, British people conceived using donated egg, sperm or embryos can ask for identifying information about the donor when they reach the age of 18. Here Laura Witjens, egg donor and mother of two, writes about why she elected to remove her anonymity and potentially become identifiable to any children born from her donation.

I'll never know what made me watch breakfast television that morning. Being a single working mother with two one-year olds, it was a luxury I could ill afford. But I did, and one of the items changed my life forever. The same day, I contacted a fertility clinic and told them I wanted to be an egg donor.

It was the year 2000 and discussions about the removal of anonymity from egg and sperm donors were only just taking place between patient groups and other fertility organisations. For me, at the time just a willing and partly-informed donor, the notion of being known to any resulting offspring wasn't even a blip on the radar. The counsellor who I saw at the clinic was satisfied I knew what I was doing and, other than the known medical ones, no other long-term implications were discussed. Some months later the deed was done: 13 healthy follicles were harvested and I left the clinic with the feeling I'd done something momentous. Just how momentous, I only found out years later.

Not satisfied with the information available, as well as certain parts of the process, I made another life changing step. I contacted the National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT) and asked if I could volunteer. I became a Trustee and, motivated by the pending removal of anonymity and differences of opinion with other Trustees, I went on to become the Chair. It's a position I've held for the last six years and in this time I've taken part in many gamete donation discussions.

I firmly believe in leading by example, a philosophy I carry through to my work as a business woman and as Chair of the NGDT. So, with such an emotive subject, how could I lead an organisation without putting my money where my mouth was? If I truly believed in the identity of the donor being disclosed to the donor-conceived person, the legislation at the time of my donation shouldn't have been relevant to me. I knew that re-registering as a known donor with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) might be futile, since the family created out of my donation would never realise that their donor was willing to be known. Still, it was a matter of principle for me, and one that required substantial soul searching.

I asked myself the many questions that many donors in my position might ask: Can I empathise so much with these people that I'm prepared to open my door, my life, my family at a time that suits them? At the same time, can I be distant enough and accept that whilst I am prepared to make important steps towards that person's wellbeing, I will never find out if indeed they are well? More importantly, how would my children deal with this? They had absolutely no say in my choice to become a donor, but it's known that many donor-conceived people are more curious about their half-siblings than their donor. In other words, it wouldn't be me they were after; they would want to meet my own 'flesh and blood' children.

Through the NGDT I had access to donor-conceived young adults, donor conception parents and various fertility professionals. But not surprisingly the act I was contemplating was, and to a large extent still is, uncharted territory. It seemed no one could help me find the answers I needed. As not just a donor but also heading the NGDT, I did not just want to accept it - I had to wholeheartedly support and embrace it.

My answers came through my children. By then my seven year old daughter and son were developing into individuals with their own quirks, traits and habits. I divorced their father when they were one and remarried when they were four. In other words, I have my own social experiment going on with twins fathered by one man, raised by another.

My children have taken on habits from both men. Unlike donor parents, however, I know where this comes from and can share that with them when appropriate. This may seem rather trivial from the outside, but I know from experience that it does matter to them.

I donated to help other people less fortunate than myself. I went through weeks of unpleasant injections and examinations, believing I was doing the right thing. 'Doing the right thing' has been my drive through all of this: being a donor, leading the NGDT, raising awareness. And now doing the right thing means giving the children I helped to conceive access to information about me.

I have since re-registered and am happy to make myself available to the child born out of my donation. If I can help to give them understanding about themselves I will gladly help. It may seem like a little thing, but I know from experience it could mean the world to them."

Subscribe to my blog here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today's Friday Legal Update involves an interesting article regarding the Octo-Mom.  Not only does is discuss my opinion, as well as the opinion of theASRM featuring Sean Tipton, but it truly highlights the need for legal representation and the proper consents that need to be in line between yourself, the donor and your physician.  I think that the story of the Octo-Mom is teaching us again courtesy of RadarOnline....how ironic!  Let me know your thoughts.

"In an exclusive video with RadarOnline.com, Nadya Suleman revealed that she never asked her sperm donor for permission to use their frozen embryos-embryos that would eventually become her octuplets. While all of the Octomom's 14 children share the same bio-dad, Nadya exclusively told RadarOnline.com on Wednesday evening that she "begged" the man to help her conceive her first six kids. When it came to the octuplets, she said, "I went behind his back and used them all. He didn't want me to. I feel so much guilt for that.

"RadarOnline.com asked experts whether Suleman's decision was ethical-or legal. Sean B. Tipton, the director of public relations for the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, explained that men typically sign away most of their rights when they donate sperm. "They almost always relinquish all control over the process," he said. "It's very important that donors understand that they're relinquishing those rights."

Suleman's most recent pregnancy clearly violated other ASRM guidelines, though. The group holds that women under 35 should not be implanted with more than two embryos at once. Nadya was 33 when she was willingly implanted with eight embryos. "We've had guidelines on embryo transfer for years, and we keep ratcheting those down," Tipton said. "Multiple births are dangerous for the mother and the babies."

So could Suleman's donor take legal action against the Octomom? "It's a really sticky situation," attorney Theresa Erickson, founder of the California Family Planning Law Firm, told RadarOnline.com. "It's unlawful for anyone to use sperm, eggs, or embryos for any purpose beyond those on a consent form." If there was no written agreement between Suleman and the donor-or if the agreement included a timetable for the use of the sperm or restricted the freezing of embryos-he could have a case.

"If she asked for more [sperm] later, and another consent form wasn't signed, it's a gray area," Erickson added. "And if she lied to him or manipulated him, that might be a problem." The Octomom has said that her donor "would lose everything" if he came forward. Because of this, Erickson says that we'll likely never know whether she violated the law "unless the medical board investigates or she sues [the doctor] for malpractice. But I doubt that, because she got the eight babies she wanted." (Photo: WENN)"

Subscribe to my blog here

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link