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

Well, it is Friday again - TGIF to everyone.  Not alot on the legal front this week, despite the continuous chatter about the IVF blunders over in the UK, as I commented on this week in my blog entitled Embryo Mix-Up, Resulting Abortion, and Adequate Justice?.   But, I do not want to beat a dead horse, so today's singular topic is sperm donation.

California - The Ninth Circuit has determined that posthumous conception DOES NOT entitle one to survivor benefits.  In a case involving a 10 year old girl, her mother was trying to get Social Security Survivor Benefits for the girl who was conceived via sperm extracted from her just deceased husband in 1995.  

"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday the child, Brandalynn Vernoff, was not dependent on her father at the time of his death. In California, dependency is determined by the parent-child relationship rather than the marital status of the parents, according to the decision."

Further, the article stated, "

James Raetz, one of Gabriela Vernoff’s attorneys, said California has a system set up to protect sperm bank donors, and this case is an unintended consequence of the law.

Bruce Vernoff’s sperm was removed after his death, and there was no evidence of plans for a birth after the father’s death, according to court documents.

“That’s the big distinction,” Raetz said. “The court really hung on that.”

However, Raetz said, the couple did have plans for a baby.

“No matter what, she’s a single mom trying to raise her daughter,” he said."

Interestingly, I did not in another blog on this issue, that in Arizona the result may have been different. 

"In California, dependency is determined by the parent-child relationship rather than the marital status of the parents, according to the decision."

"While her appeal was pending, the Ninth Circuit decided Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2004), which held that a set of posthumously-conceived twins were the deemed dependents of their biological father and entitled to survivor benefits.

The administration subsequently issued an “acquiescence ruling” to the decision, noting that in the Ninth Circuit a child must be biologically related to the insured and the insured's child under applicable state law to be a deemed dependent.

Writing for the appellate court yesterday, Senior Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall explained that Gillett-Netting was based on Arizona state law, which recognizes "[e]very child [as] the legitimate child of its natural parents," but that California law does not equate natural parent status with biological parenthood."

"So, Gabriela tried to invoke "equal protection". After all, Bandalynn would have "rights" in Arizona she doesn't have in California, and other children in California get survivor benefits, but the court didn't go for it. "

What are your thoughts on this one?

Also, don't forget about registering for our conference - Erickson Law and Conceptual Options, a Center for Surrogacy & Egg Donation Announces European Conference on Surrogacy & Egg Donation  at http://www.surrogacy-eggdonation.com/geneve.convention.html

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

Science Daily posted a great article today that is food for thought for all of us in this field, as well as those participants in third party reproduction, whether it is the sperm donor, the egg donor, the embryo donor, the parents or the children themselves. 

It appears that the research points to a positive end result, but judge for yourselves.

"The study in Europe's leading reproductive medicine journal Human Reproduction, found that parents set out to find their children's donor and other donor siblings through feelings of curiosity and a desire to enhance their children's sense of identity, and without expecting any very close contact. However, once they had identified the donor and their children's donor siblings, they not only found the experiences of contacting and meeting the donor siblings very positive, but in many cases formed close and continuing bonds."

The article continues, "One of these papers is an editorial commentary by Dr Pim Janssens, an associate editor of Human Reproduction. Writing about Dr Freeman's study, he says: 'Overall, these findings suggest that knowledge of donor sibling families is a good thing, and that disclosure of the donor identity makes sense, and need not be a problem. They also suggest that for many parents and children, having only information about donors is not satisfactory – real encounters are the ultimate desire. Unexpectedly these findings might also lead us to question the importance of a common family history for the creation of 'family feeling'. After all, none of the donor families calling their donor sibling relatives shared anything but genes. Nonetheless, many said they felt intuitively bonded.'

Click Here for the Complete Article

Theresa M. Erickson, Esq.
Surrogacy & Egg Donation Center    
www.ConceptualOptions.com

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

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

The octuplet "mess" will just not want to go away, especially now with a sperm donor claiming to be involved in the mix as shown on Good Morning America.

However, there were several articles over the last few days that I think will help everyone take a look at the real costs of multiples births, as well as how this one case may end up forcing the industry to take a good look at itself. 

The first one is through the New York Times, and it takes a hard look at the fertility industry.  They think that the octuplets' birth is a real wake up call:

"The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the association of fertility doctors, even adopted guidelines in 2008 encouraging the transfer of only one embryo for women under 35, and no more than two, except in extraordinary circumstances. The guidelines allow more for older women, up to a maximum of five.

But unlike some other countries, the United States has no laws to enforce those guidelines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a surveillance system that collects data on fertility clinics, but reporting is voluntary and there are no government sanctions for not reporting.

As a result, experts say many doctors are still implanting too many embryos to increase the chance of pregnancy. Only 11 percent of in vitro procedures in the United States involve single embryos, according to 2006 data from the C.D.C."

Click Here for the Complete Article

Furthermore, in Newsweek, an article by Dr. Mark Evans talks about the other side of multiple births - selective reduction.  He states the following:

"When I first heard that a California woman had given birth to octuplets after undergoing in vitro fertilization, I couldn't believe it. As the details of Nadia Suleman's story emerged, it became only more incredible. As it turned out, a clinic transferred six embryos (two of which later split into identical twins) to Suleman, who had six children already, meaning she was extremely fertile. I have nothing against IVF. More than 2 million women worldwide have children because of it. But with the increase in fertility treatments, the U.S. birthrate of twins has more than doubled in the past 30 years. Overlooked in the happy news, though, are the troubling surges in neonatal deaths, developmental disabilities and other long-term problems.

For those reasons, doctors prefer to avoid multiple births. But with each cycle of IVF costing more than $10,000, there's enormous pressure to get patients pregnant—fast. Guidelines of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technologies say that in women under 35, usually only one or two embryos should be transferred to the uterus in any cycle. The U.S. average is 2.4. A third of such pregnancies result in twins, and 4.3 percent yield triplets or more. In women over 35, the overall pregnancy rate falls dramatically, and the proportion of multiples goes up."

He goes on to talk about the criticism that he receives regarding selective reduction as a solution in some cases:

"Of course, selective reduction can be an agonizing decision for a parent, but most of the couples who come to me have had a longstanding infertility problem. For them, selective reduction is just one more hurdle to deal with. But they are better able to cope when they know the facts: a woman with a quadruple pregnancy has about a 25 percent chance of losing all four babies, but she can decrease the loss rate to about 5 percent by reducing to twins. The risks of prematurity, cerebral palsy and genetic abnormalities (if tested) are all reduced, too.

Reduction will always be controversial. A woman has an abortion because she wants—for whatever reason—to not have a child. But women who have reductions are often desperate to have children. In high-risk situations, reduction may be the best way—sometimes the only way—for that to happen. I realize that in the minds of pro-lifers, this reasoning is flawed. But if performing this procedure means that couples who have suffered years of anguish can have their own healthy children, I'll take all the criticism I get."

Click Here for Complete Article
 

Theresa M. Erickson, Esq.
Surrogacy & Egg Donation Center    
www.ConceptualOptions.com

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

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

 In conjunction with ASRM's meeting last week, a report was released stating that pressue for open-identity sperm donation is building here in the U.S: 

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 14 -- Studies of people conceived with donated sperm suggest that many do not support the practice of anonymous sperm donation.

Roughly a third of people who know they were conceived by open-identity sperm donors make a request for the donor's identity by the time they turn 20, according to the world's first study on this subject.

However, it is likely that other offspring will make the request at an older age, predicted Joanna Scheib, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis.

In addition, they provided action points as follows:

Action Points  

• Explain to interested patients that most donor-conceived children want information about their donor's identity. 
   
• Note that this information was published as an abstract and presented orally at a conference. These data and conclusions should be considered to be preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

        Click Here for the Complete Article

Cl

Cl

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

For the first time in Vancouver, a class action suit was brought to attempt to change the laws regarding sperm donor’s anonymity last week. The plaintiff is Olivia Pratten, the daughter of an anonymous sperm donor who is attempting to get information about her biological father before the medical records are destroyed.

Currently, the laws in Canada are that gamete donor’s medical files can be destroyed after six years;  however, Pratten in her suit is attempting to overturn this law so that she may learn pertinent medical information. Additionally, Pratten is arguing that this law violates the rights of those conceived using gamete donation.

On Tuesday, a British Columbia judge issued an injunction to stop the destruction of any medical records related to artificial insemination. This is of course being appealed as we speak. However, if this decision is to be upheld what would that mean for the donor’s anonymity? Could Canada eventually become like the UK where donors are not anonymous? Also if that were to happen, would there be a decrease in those willing to donate their gametes?

Click Here for Link

Click Here for Link

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

Fertility and Sterility magazine recently published physiological research done in Israel regarding single mothers who have conceived children through the use of both a sperm donor and an egg donor. The team of researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wanted to look at single women from age 36 to 50 who conceived children using the assistance of an egg donor and sperm donor and determine whether or not they would tell their children how they were conceived and if the children exhibited any emotional and/or behavioral difficulties.

In Israel the identity of all egg donors and sperm donor are kept confidential by law, which means the children would not be able to find out that they were conceived via egg and sperm donation without their mother’s informing them. The researchers found that most of the women planned on telling their children that they were conceived through the use of a sperm donor by the time they turn 18, but were most likely not going to inform them that they had also been conceived with the use of an egg donor.

I wonder if this has something to do with societal and cultural ideas about motherhood and familial bonding, yet the research did not go into this. Additionally, the study also revealed that there was minimal, if any, impact on parenting and the children’s development through the use of assisted reproduction. What are your thoughts?

Click Here for Complete Article

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

A study came out recently that looked at the success rates of men who provided semen specimen's collected at the IVF Center compared to men who collected at home.

Malmo University Hospital in Lund took 379 men ranging in age from 20 to 58 years old.  They had 106 of the men stay home to collect a specimen while the remaining men went to the IVF Center.  The researchers compared the sperm count and "motility", how they look under the microscope, both crucial factors in successful fertilization of an egg.  The home-collected sample had about 63% more sperm, which were about 54% more often of the highest-grade motility.

It has been determined that the men at the clinics suffered from "acute psychological stress" because of noise, hospital atmosphere, space limitation and the absence of their wife.

Home is where the heart is!

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

So often we talk about infertility with women, but what happens when it's male infertility?  I have provided some basic information about cryobanks (sperm banks). 

There are two main motives that drive donors:

1.  Donations from fertile men who are preserving their reproductive options.  Men will bank their sperm if they are about to undergo surgery, cancer treatment or have a low sperm count.   These are men who want to be able to achieve parenthood at a later time in their life.

2.  Donations from men who contribute for financial reasons.  Men who donate to help infertile couples achieve a family.

If you think it is difficult to get into an Ivy League school, try becoming a sperm donor!  Less than 5 percent of all candidates will be accepted as a donor.  The screening process is vigorous and takes about three (3) months to complete.  Samples and donors are screening continually for sexually transmitted diseases and genetic issues.  Additionally, all donors are screened for cystic fibrosis and undergo chromosome analysis.

Donors may choose to be anonymous or ID Consent Donors.  Anonymous donors are willing provide descriptive details about themselves and their family history with the understanding that they will never have direct communication with the recipients of their sperm or future offspring.  ID Consent donors agree to allow the sperm bank to release identifying information about themselves to the offspring once they reach 18 years of age.  ID Consent Donor are not required to meet the offspring;  the program is designed to provide genetic information to the offspring.

Once the donation has been made, the sperm samples are prepared with a solution that minimizes damage during the freezing and thawing processes.  The samples are frozen using liquid nitrogen. 

Previously frozen sperm doesn't live as long inside a woman's uterus as fresh sperm.  Thawed sperm lives up to 24 hours while fresh sperm can live for 3 - 5 days.  There is no additional risk for birth defects using donated sperm.   

If you require additional information about this, please contact a local cryobank.

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