British Columbia (Canada) judge says anonymity for sperm, egg donors is unconstitutional

Olivia Pratten poses for a photo outside the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2010. Pratten, a woman born as a result of donor insemination, has won her lawsuit seeking to end the anonymity of sperm and egg donors in British Columbia. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward

Original Story: By Dene Moore, The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER — A woman born as a result of donor insemination has won her legal battle seeking to end anonymity for sperm and egg donors in British Columbia.

Olivia Pratten was born in 1982 as a result of donor insemination.

After fruitless efforts to obtain records about the sperm donor, Pratten launched the lawsuit against the provincial government, arguing that the province's adoption laws discriminated against donor offspring like herself because they don't allow them the same ability to learn their genetic roots as adopted children.
In a ruling released Thursday, B.C. Supreme Court Judge Elaine Adair agreed.

Anonymous donation, she wrote, "is harmful to the child, and it is not in the best interests of donor offspring," Adair wrote in her ruling, which found sections of the B.C. Adoption Act and Adoption Regulations unconstitutional.

The law was revised in 1996 to allow adopted children the right to information about their biological parents, but it does not include children born of reproductive donations.

Adoptive children and donor offspring are similar in their need to know and have a connection to their biological roots, the judge said.

The ruling gives the B.C. government 15 months to amend the law to address donor offspring and grants a permanent injunction against the destruction of donor records in the province.
"I'm thrilled," Pratten said from Toronto. "It's finally validation of what people like myself have been saying for years."

The decision won't help Pratten to find out the identity of the donor whose sperm allowed her parents to conceive.

But the 29-year-old journalist, who works for The Canadian Press, said that's not why she pursued the long legal battle.

"I've always known that my records were probably destroyed. It was more about changing the policies going forward," she said.

"It was never just about me. It was about helping other people and using my situation, that was a negative, and turning it into a positive so no one else would have to experience having their records destroyed.
"I felt a responsibility to be public with this."
Pratten had the support of her mom and dad, who accompanied her to court every day for the hearings last fall.

"I'm not related to my dad but he's my dad," she said. "This is a victory for them as well because finally what they were saying 20 years ago has been heard and recognized as being accurate."
Pratten's lawyer, Joseph Arvay, said the end result of the decision is that anonymous egg and sperm donation will no longer be permitted in B.C.

"This case represents a monumental victory for our client, Olivia Pratten, and all the donor offspring she represents who have for too long been disadvantaged by their exclusion from the legislative landscape which has promoted and perpetuated prejudice and stereotyping and caused them grave harm," he said in a statement.

The ruling has no weight outside the province, but Pratten said she has been contacted by other donor offspring who have declared their intention to pursue similar legal action to force change elsewhere.
The Attorney General of B.C., the defendant in the case, had no immediate comment on the ruling.
"The court just delivered the decision today on this very complex matter. We will need time to carefully study the decision, decide what its implications are and what the next steps should be, including whether we will appeal," said a statement from the ministry.

Lawyers for the government argued that practices have changed significantly since Pratten was born. Today, a woman seeking donor insemination in B.C. can get detailed social and medical information on the donor even if the donation is anonymous.

There is simply no constitutional right, the government argued, for a person to know their origins or genetic heritage while there is a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

The judge noted that anonymous donation remains the choice of many would-be parents who want control over what their child knows, when they know and who might be involved in their child's life.
"But, based on the evidence in this case, I have concluded that anonymity is not in the child’s best interests," Adair wrote.

"Strong and positive relationships with social parents do not satisfy or eliminate the desire and need of donor offspring to know where they came from, and their need to know their origins is just as powerful and real as those of adoptees."

10 Popular Sayings that Hurt People with Infertility - Infographic: Fertility Nation, Abbie Waters

10 Popular Sayings That Hurt People With Infertility – INFOGRAPHIC

by Abbie Waters of www.fertilitynation.com in Female Infertility, Male Infertility

 
When was the last time someone gave you instructions on how to reproduce?

If you answered “never” I’ll bet you’re not dealing with infertility.

If you answered “last Tuesday”, I’ll bet you’ve got a fertility doctor on speed dial…and are familiar with the dual frustration of coping with infertility and the rude comments of others.

By itself, infertility is an emotionally painful disease. But throw in the “well-intentioned” comments of friends and in-laws offering “advice” and that pain and hurt swells up like a water balloon straining to burst.

I made this infographic because I want people to know that the things they say to couples struggling with infertility ad undergoing fertility treatments like IVF — even “helpful tips” — can cause hurt feelings.

Supporting people with infertility is easy: all you have to do is listen and try to empathize.


Via: FertilityNation.com

Number of Eggs Retrieved Helps Predict IVF Success: Study - US News and World Report

 

Original Article Link: Number of Eggs Retrieved Helps Predict IVF Success: Study - US News and World Report

WEDNESDAY, May 11 (HealthDay News) -- Retrieving about 15 eggs from a woman's ovaries in a single in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle offers the best chance of achieving a live birth while avoiding complications from fertility medications, according to a new study.

Researchers analyzed more than 400,000 IVF cycles in the United Kingdom between 1991 and 2008 and found a strong association between live birth rates and the number of eggs retrieved in one cycle.

The live birth rate rose with an increasing number of eggs up to about 15, leveled off between 15 and 20 eggs, and declined steadily beyond 20 eggs.

The study appears online in the journal Human Reproduction. "Our data show that around 15 eggs may be the best number to aim for in an IVF cycle in order to maximize the chances of a live birth while minimizing the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), which is associated with a high number of eggs, usually over 20," Dr. Arri Coomarasamy, a clinical reader and consultant in reproductive medicine and surgery at the University of Birmingham, said in a journal news release.

"Mild stimulation protocols aim to retrieve less than six to eight eggs; a standard stimulation should aim for 10-15 eggs, and we believe this is what is associated with the best IVF outcomes," said Coomarasamy. "When the egg number exceeds 20, the risk of OHSS becomes high."

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome can occur when women are given hormone drugs to stimulate the production of eggs for collection for IVF cycles. Abdominal pain, swelling, nausea and vomiting often appear in mild or moderate OHSS. In rare, severe cases, OHSS can be a life-threatening medical emergency.

My Take: Catholic Church should reverse opposition to in vitro fertilization - CNN blog post

My Take: Catholic Church should reverse opposition to in vitro fertilization
 

 

 Editor's note: Sean Savage is coauthor of "Inconceivable: A Medical Mistake, the Baby We Couldn't Keep, and Our Choice to Deliver the Ultimate Gift" and a cradle Catholic who lives in Sylvania, Ohio, with his wife and three children.

 By Sean Savage, Special to CNN


According to the Roman Catholic Church, the only moral route to conceiving a child is through sexual intercourse. As a Catholic, I find the church's position to be discriminatory against couples who have medical conditions that prevent them from conceiving in that manner.

I never intended to challenge the church when my wife and I pursued in vitro fertilization in an effort to expand our family after a decade of unsuccessful infertility treatments. We loved our two boys and we'd always wanted a big family. After a successful IVF procedure in 2007 brought us our daughter in 2008, we tried again so that we could fulfill our commitment to give every embryo we created a chance at life.

When a fertility center made a critical error by transferring another couple's embryos to my wife, we were thrust into an unusual pregnancy and eventually found ourselves at the center of an intense media storm. On September 24, 2009, the day Carolyn gave birth to a very loved baby boy, who was immediately turned over to his genetic parents, the Catholic Diocese of Toledo released a statement to The Toledo Blade condemning IVF as "morally unacceptable."

Because we were the focus of the news, we felt as though the diocese was really condemning us.
The statement hurt Carolyn and me tremendously. We had hoped for the church's support and prayer on one of the hardest days we've ever faced.

Carolyn and I have always believed in our stewardship responsibilities to the church. I'd given thousands of hours over the years to coaching youth through my local parish, have raised funds for Catholic churches and schools and have given charitably to church causes. Carolyn had dedicated her career to teaching and working as a principal in Catholic schools.


Instead of support, the church branded us in a very public way with the apparently shameful letters IVF. Why couldn't the church recognize our journey for what it was - an affirmation of the sanctity of life? Their negative response motivated me to look closer at the issue.

I believe there is an ethical path a couple can take when pursuing IVF and I ask the Roman Catholic Church to consider adopting a new doctrine that provides moral guidance for Catholic couples on how to do so.
While I share many concerns with the Catholic Church about abuses within the science of IVF, I disagree with a number of points the church makes on the issue. The church spelled out its stance in Donum Vitae, a 1987 doctrine on biomedical issues released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - an office then led by Cardinal Joseph Ratziner, who is now Pope Benedict XVI - and in 2008's Dignitas Personae, another influential church document.

The original doctrine states that "even if it (IVF) is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is deprived of its proper perfection; namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act." Dignitas Personae echoes this position by stating "human procreation is a personal act of a husband and wife, which is not capable of substitution."

I am personally opposed to the intentional destruction and discarding of unwanted embryos and understand why this is condemned by the church. But to state that a child born of IVF is less perfect than a child created through sexual intercourse is absurd. Is the church truly claiming that our beautiful and innocent daughter, conceived through an IVF procedure, is somehow "less" because of how her physical life began? In her, Carolyn and I see God's precious creation.

Of course, the creation of a child through a conjugal act is the preferred method because it is the most natural, least expensive and least stressful. But that shouldn't mean it should be the only acceptable route to conception.

What about Catholic men and women who have legitimate medical conditions, like endometriosis, which Carolyn has and which caused infertility despite efforts at surgical intervention?

Carolyn and I would have been happy to save thousands of dollars and a decade of emotional ups and downs by conceiving the "old-fashioned way," but that wasn't possible. We turn to medicine for a litany of medical maladies and impairments, but infertile Catholics are supposed to avoid treating a medical condition which prevents them from building or expanding their family?

Yes, adoption is a wonderful option for the couples who decide it's right for them, but adoption should never be forced on anyone.

The Donum Vitae doctrine also states that "in vitro fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo."

The term "illicit" has such a grave connotation and to use it in this context seems quite out of place. Should a couple that seeks a child through IVF, and that does so with a commitment to allow every embryo a chance at life, be considered to be participating in an illicit activity?

The most perplexing and pejorative language from Donum Vitae is that "marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child... the child has the right, as already mentioned to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents and has the right to be respected as a person from the moment of conception."

Babies born of IVF are here because their parents loved, respected and longed for these children well before conception. These children could not get here through the conjugal love of their parents and it took a very deep love, respect, and commitment to pursue the medical treatment needed to conceive through IVF. There is no doubt in my mind that God is working through loving parents and ethical doctors to allow these children to come into this world.

Now for the ironic in Donum Vitae: "Scientists are to be encouraged to continue their research with the aim of preventing causes of sterility and of being able to remedy them so that sterile couples will be able to procreate in full respect for their own personal dignity and that of the child to be born."

So although there are solutions for sterile couples today, those should not be sought because they are outside of the conjugal act? If Carolyn and I were to wait until the scientific advances described in this statement before pursuing additional children, we would not have our daughter - or the opportunity to welcome two more children into this world this August.

If science can advance to the point that all procreation can happen within the confines of the conjugal act, that would be incredible. But what do couples do while waiting the years and probable decades before these advances come to fruition?

The challenge for the church is to see the beauty in the science and that there is a path within IVF that is worthy of God's grace and approval.

The church's presence in this field could help limit abuses and disregard for human life through advocacy, education, and support. Perhaps it could provide counselors as couples pursue IVF and face many technical and nuanced decisions. And maybe the church could help couples navigate even more complex situations, like embryo adoption.

Carolyn and I were victims of the worst IVF mistake on record. But we remain proponents of the science and understand the good that is done by God through ethical physicians in this industry. We value and support the sanctity of life, even if it's created with the help of IVF.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Sean Savage.

Posted by: The Editors - CNN Belief Blog