NSW govt 'stalling on sperm donor laws
November 4, 2007 - 9:24AM
The NSW government has been accused of sitting on its hands over law reforms surrounding sperm donorship.
Opposition health spokeswoman Jillian Skinner said the changes outlined on Sunday in the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) bill were first proposed by the Iemma government in 2003.
"Proposed new laws to assist donor children to know who their fathers are have been a long time coming," Ms Skinner said.
"The state government introduced draft legislation to Parliament in 2003 but has ignored the pleas to move on it ever since."
The ART bill required sperm donors to add their names to a register enabling their children to make contact once they turn 18.
NSW Health Minister Reba Meagher says the changes will bring NSW into line with other states.
"I have had representations from people in the past who have argued that they should have been able to find out who their donor fathers were and I have always been sympathetic to that view," Ms Meagher said.
"The rights of children will now be enshrined in the legislation so that any child born through ART will, after they turn 18, be able to know the details of their biological parents."
Ms Meagher said the changes would also cover women who donate ova, while the bill would require ART service providers to offer counselling to ensure all donors "understand the implications of the procedure".
Donors would not be obliged to have contact with their offspring, she said.
"In fact, the bill will offer additional protection for donors by providing that donated sperm and ova may only be used in a manner that complies with the donor's wishes.
"For example, a donor from a distinct ethnic community may stipulate that their donation is only to be offered to members of that community."
Ms Meagher said it was not expected to lead to a drop in sperm or ova donations.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
New Sperm storage for male cancer patients
Giving Male Cancer PatientsBetter Odds at Being a Dad
By KEVIN HELLIKERNovember 13, 2007;
Before David Goodack underwent cancer treatment at age 20, nobody suggested he preserve a sample of his sperm. Mr. Goodack himself didn't think of it, even though his physician warned that the necessary surgery could render him infertile -- as it did. "I was just thinking about surviving," says Mr. Goodack, a Kansas City, Mo., press foreman, now 44 and childless.
Since Mr. Goodack's surgery, hundreds of thousands of babies have been conceived with preserved samples of sperm. Yet a September article in the journal Cancer found that during the decade ended in 2005, only 18% of 821 young, male cancer patients had chosen to freeze samples of their sperm before undergoing treatment. Experts say the problem is that amid the terror of a cancer diagnosis, the only immediate concern too often is survival. At a time when survival is more the rule than the exception for young cancer patients, child-bearing options are an unnecessary casualty of treatment.
Now, two advocacy groups are teaming up with a for-profit sperm bank to make sperm-collection kits available across the country. The kits -- which will be distributed to oncology professionals nationwide starting this month -- contain the materials and instructions necessary for patients to produce a usable sperm sample at home or in the hospital. It includes a postage-paid package for fast delivery to Cryogenic Laboratories Inc., a Roseville, Minn., sperm bank, so no ice is needed for transport. Cryogenic Laboratories will charge $625 for processing and freezing the specimen for one year. The storage cost of each subsequent year -- frozen sperm can remain potent for decades -- is $280. In some cases, insurance will help defray that cost.
Of the 35,000 young men diagnosed with cancer each year, about 90% risk losing their fertility to chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. Cancer treatments sterilize men and women alike, but preserving the fertility of women is more complicated and expensive -- and more publicized.
The kit's arrival in oncology offices is designed to raise awareness. Major academic cancer centers are likely to offer fertility options. And men can on their own seek out one the many other storage facilities available -- particularly in big cities -- if they think of it. But about 80% of young men receiving cancer treatments do so in community hospitals, often in cities that lack sperm banks, says Lindsay Beck, founder of nonprofit Fertile Hope and the creator of the new kit. She adds that 20 states lack sperm banks altogether. In 2002, the Journal of Clinical Oncology published two surveys -- one showing that only 51% of 201 young, male cancer patients had been offered sperm banking, the other showing that 48% of 162 oncologists either never broached fertility with eligible male patients or did so less than 25% of the time.
"A lot of oncologists out there will see only a handful of adolescents or young adults a year, so they're not thinking about fertility," says Brandon Hayes-Lattin, an Oregon Health & Science University oncologist specializing in young-adult issues.
The kit, called Live:On, is also designed to eliminate a dilemma facing some men: whether to postpone treatment while pursuing sperm preservation. Gathering information about sperm preservation -- where and how to do it, how to ship off a specimen if no bank is nearby -- can take a few days. That could delay treatment of some fast-growing cancers. Armed with the kit soon to be available in oncologists' offices, however, a patient could preserve his child-bearing options in a matter of hours.
Cryogenic Laboratories will donate an unspecified percentage of its storage fees to its two partners in the effort, the Lance Armstrong Foundation and Fertile Hope, an organization dedicated to increasing fertility options for young cancer patients. Through Fertile Hope, financially strapped patients can apply for discounts.
Success rates for conceiving babies with preserved sperm vary according to technique. The September journal of Cancer article reported that of those young men who tried using their specimens for procreation, 36.4% succeeded with intrauterine insemination and 50% succeeded with two more-expensive techniques -- in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The Lance Armstrong Foundation says that its namesake, the world-renowned cyclist, owes his three children to sperm samples preserved before he underwent cancer treatment.
• Email: healthjournal@wsj.com
By KEVIN HELLIKERNovember 13, 2007;
Before David Goodack underwent cancer treatment at age 20, nobody suggested he preserve a sample of his sperm. Mr. Goodack himself didn't think of it, even though his physician warned that the necessary surgery could render him infertile -- as it did. "I was just thinking about surviving," says Mr. Goodack, a Kansas City, Mo., press foreman, now 44 and childless.
Since Mr. Goodack's surgery, hundreds of thousands of babies have been conceived with preserved samples of sperm. Yet a September article in the journal Cancer found that during the decade ended in 2005, only 18% of 821 young, male cancer patients had chosen to freeze samples of their sperm before undergoing treatment. Experts say the problem is that amid the terror of a cancer diagnosis, the only immediate concern too often is survival. At a time when survival is more the rule than the exception for young cancer patients, child-bearing options are an unnecessary casualty of treatment.
Now, two advocacy groups are teaming up with a for-profit sperm bank to make sperm-collection kits available across the country. The kits -- which will be distributed to oncology professionals nationwide starting this month -- contain the materials and instructions necessary for patients to produce a usable sperm sample at home or in the hospital. It includes a postage-paid package for fast delivery to Cryogenic Laboratories Inc., a Roseville, Minn., sperm bank, so no ice is needed for transport. Cryogenic Laboratories will charge $625 for processing and freezing the specimen for one year. The storage cost of each subsequent year -- frozen sperm can remain potent for decades -- is $280. In some cases, insurance will help defray that cost.
Of the 35,000 young men diagnosed with cancer each year, about 90% risk losing their fertility to chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. Cancer treatments sterilize men and women alike, but preserving the fertility of women is more complicated and expensive -- and more publicized.
The kit's arrival in oncology offices is designed to raise awareness. Major academic cancer centers are likely to offer fertility options. And men can on their own seek out one the many other storage facilities available -- particularly in big cities -- if they think of it. But about 80% of young men receiving cancer treatments do so in community hospitals, often in cities that lack sperm banks, says Lindsay Beck, founder of nonprofit Fertile Hope and the creator of the new kit. She adds that 20 states lack sperm banks altogether. In 2002, the Journal of Clinical Oncology published two surveys -- one showing that only 51% of 201 young, male cancer patients had been offered sperm banking, the other showing that 48% of 162 oncologists either never broached fertility with eligible male patients or did so less than 25% of the time.
"A lot of oncologists out there will see only a handful of adolescents or young adults a year, so they're not thinking about fertility," says Brandon Hayes-Lattin, an Oregon Health & Science University oncologist specializing in young-adult issues.
The kit, called Live:On, is also designed to eliminate a dilemma facing some men: whether to postpone treatment while pursuing sperm preservation. Gathering information about sperm preservation -- where and how to do it, how to ship off a specimen if no bank is nearby -- can take a few days. That could delay treatment of some fast-growing cancers. Armed with the kit soon to be available in oncologists' offices, however, a patient could preserve his child-bearing options in a matter of hours.
Cryogenic Laboratories will donate an unspecified percentage of its storage fees to its two partners in the effort, the Lance Armstrong Foundation and Fertile Hope, an organization dedicated to increasing fertility options for young cancer patients. Through Fertile Hope, financially strapped patients can apply for discounts.
Success rates for conceiving babies with preserved sperm vary according to technique. The September journal of Cancer article reported that of those young men who tried using their specimens for procreation, 36.4% succeeded with intrauterine insemination and 50% succeeded with two more-expensive techniques -- in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The Lance Armstrong Foundation says that its namesake, the world-renowned cyclist, owes his three children to sperm samples preserved before he underwent cancer treatment.
• Email: healthjournal@wsj.com
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Potential new regulations for surrogacy in India
New laws to rein in 'womb business'31 Oct 2007, 0057 hrs IST,Mahendra Kumar Singh,TNN
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Govt_mulls_laws_to_regulate_surrogacy/articleshow/2503791.cmNEW
DELHI: Foreigners lining up to rent a womb in India will soon have to face legal regulations being planned by the ministry of women and child development (WCD). Surrogacy, an area unregulated till now, meant that childless couples from abroad as well as in the country could get away with renting a womb at terms often to the disadvantage of a needy women who stood the chance of being exploited. Women and child development minister Renuka Chaudhary said that the ministry was considering a law to regulate the business of surrogate motherhood and sperm banks on the lines of similar laws in other countries. Women's organisations have long been demanding a law on surrogate motherhood and hiring of wombs in India. "The sensitive issue of surrogacy in the absence of laws or regulations has become a free playing field for unscrupulous intermediaries who lure and push uneducated and poor women into surrogate motherhood," a WCD ministry official said, emphasising the need for the law. It is argued that there was every possibility of misuse of children born out of surrogacy for terrorism, prostitution or unethical genetic engineering research as the foreigners who pay for the child would not have any emotional bonding with the kid. India is emerging as a major destination for surrogacy as childless couples from US and Europe are lured by the prospect of a surrogate child for around Rs 100,000 ($2,250) to Rs 225,000 ($5,060) each pregnancy compared with some $40,000 or even more in the US. Many say the country can become a centre of "reproductive tourism". There is no law in India surrounding surrogacy. However, the Indian Council of Medical Reseach (ICMR) has framed national guidelines in 2005 to regulate surrogacy. The clinics that provide ART facilities take recourse to the guidelines that state that the surrogate mother has to sign a contract with the childless couple. But even then, it is not clear whether such a contract has any legal sanctity. "The rights of the surrogate mother over a baby she carries and issues like if mother dies during pregnancy remains unclear," said an official. And, the real problem arises after the birth of the baby. In the absence of any clear laws on the issue, foreigners are unable to get legal assistance when it comes to taking their child back to their home country.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Govt_mulls_laws_to_regulate_surrogacy/articleshow/2503791.cmNEW
DELHI: Foreigners lining up to rent a womb in India will soon have to face legal regulations being planned by the ministry of women and child development (WCD). Surrogacy, an area unregulated till now, meant that childless couples from abroad as well as in the country could get away with renting a womb at terms often to the disadvantage of a needy women who stood the chance of being exploited. Women and child development minister Renuka Chaudhary said that the ministry was considering a law to regulate the business of surrogate motherhood and sperm banks on the lines of similar laws in other countries. Women's organisations have long been demanding a law on surrogate motherhood and hiring of wombs in India. "The sensitive issue of surrogacy in the absence of laws or regulations has become a free playing field for unscrupulous intermediaries who lure and push uneducated and poor women into surrogate motherhood," a WCD ministry official said, emphasising the need for the law. It is argued that there was every possibility of misuse of children born out of surrogacy for terrorism, prostitution or unethical genetic engineering research as the foreigners who pay for the child would not have any emotional bonding with the kid. India is emerging as a major destination for surrogacy as childless couples from US and Europe are lured by the prospect of a surrogate child for around Rs 100,000 ($2,250) to Rs 225,000 ($5,060) each pregnancy compared with some $40,000 or even more in the US. Many say the country can become a centre of "reproductive tourism". There is no law in India surrounding surrogacy. However, the Indian Council of Medical Reseach (ICMR) has framed national guidelines in 2005 to regulate surrogacy. The clinics that provide ART facilities take recourse to the guidelines that state that the surrogate mother has to sign a contract with the childless couple. But even then, it is not clear whether such a contract has any legal sanctity. "The rights of the surrogate mother over a baby she carries and issues like if mother dies during pregnancy remains unclear," said an official. And, the real problem arises after the birth of the baby. In the absence of any clear laws on the issue, foreigners are unable to get legal assistance when it comes to taking their child back to their home country.
Parents deceived in UK surrogacy
Judge warns agencies after surrogate mother dupes couples to keep babies· Judge rules that woman hands over boy to father· Compulsive desire to parent led to deception
Clare Dyer, legal editorWednesday October 31, 2007The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,,2202095,00.html
A high court judge has issued a stern warning to surrogacy agencies to carry out more stringent background checks after it emerged that a surrogate mother had deliberately duped two couples into believing she had miscarried their babies.
The woman, named only as Mrs P, entered into the surrogacy deals and conceived using sperm from the two fathers with the intention of keeping the two children for herself, the judge ruled. One of the children was nearly four years old when her father learned of her existence.
Mrs P already had three children of her own by different fathers but was motivated by "a compulsive desire to bear further children", Mr Justice Coleridge said. It was only when her own eldest daughter, 19, blew the whistle to the surrogacy agency, that the two couples learned the miscarriages had never happened.
The judge said surrogacy arrangements were now a feature of contemporary life. "When all goes according to plan they are a way of remedying the agony of childlessness. However, when the arrangements do not go according to plan the result, in human and legal terms is, putting it simply, a mess," the judge said.
He added: "As this case illustrates, women who put themselves forward for this role are very exceptional and may well have real unmet psychological needs of their own. When the arrangements go wrong the cost in terms of appalling emotional pain for the parties is huge.
"I would urge all agencies to ensure their checks into the background of all parties to these essentially artificial child birth arrangements are as thorough as they can be."
The elder of the two children born by surrogacy, a girl, was about to turn four when Mrs P's daughter told the agency that had set up the deal of her mother's deception.
Her true father , who had paid £850, and his wife decided not to apply to have her live with them but sought a court order for contact with her.
He later reached an agreement with Mrs P that the girl would be told at the appropriate time who her real father was and be allowed to see him.
The father of the second child, a boy, discovered just before his birth in December 2005 that there had been no miscarriage. He and his wife took the case to court, fighting Mrs P and her husband for the right to bring up the boy.
The judge said: "I make no secret of, or apology for, the fact that I have found this a particularly difficult case to decide." He ordered that the boy, by then 18 months old, should be handed over to his real father and his wife.
The ruling was handed down last July but the case was heard behind closed doors and the judgment was made public yesterday.
The judge said that the Ps had been good parents to the boy but had deliberately embarked on surrogacy with the object of having another child for their family and had never intended to hand the baby over. Mr P had had a vasectomy and the couple had investigated adoption and fertility treatment. All their actions were consonant with "a desperate desire to parent more children by fair means, or failing that, foul".
The question was which set of parents would be better for the boy's upbringing in the long term, and after a protracted legal battle, the judge chose the natural father, called J during the proceedings.
"When I confront that question and answer it I am driven to the conclusion, awful though it is from the Ps point of view, that he will thrive best in the Js' care," the judge said.
Mrs P and her husband, who were given the right to regular contact with the boy, launched an immediate appeal. But the appeal court upheld Mr Justice Coleridge's ruling and the Js took the boy to live with them in Leeds.
Mr Justice Coleridge said he had to resolve whether from the start the Ps had deceived the other two couples and never had any intention of honouring the surrogacy arrangements. This was important, he said, "because the children themselves are entitled to know in the future the factual background to their unusual conception".
He came to "the clear conclusion" that they "set out to deceive" both couples.
Surrogacy Child's best interests key in disputes
Surrogacy arrangements are legal in Britain and are regulated by the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. A surrogate mother may not be paid for the baby but may only be given "reasonable expenses" of undertaking the pregnancy and birth. The amount is not defined but is left to the surrogate and the commissioning couple to agree.
No surrogacy agreement is binding, so the mother may change her mind and decide she wants to keep the baby. If the commissioning couple disagrees, the case will have to go to court. In most cases the commissioning father and the surrogate mother will both be genetic parents, so they will have an equal claim. The courts will be reluctant to move a child who has bonded with the surrogate mother, but the decision will come down to where the child's best interests lie.
Clare Dyer, legal editorWednesday October 31, 2007The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,,2202095,00.html
A high court judge has issued a stern warning to surrogacy agencies to carry out more stringent background checks after it emerged that a surrogate mother had deliberately duped two couples into believing she had miscarried their babies.
The woman, named only as Mrs P, entered into the surrogacy deals and conceived using sperm from the two fathers with the intention of keeping the two children for herself, the judge ruled. One of the children was nearly four years old when her father learned of her existence.
Mrs P already had three children of her own by different fathers but was motivated by "a compulsive desire to bear further children", Mr Justice Coleridge said. It was only when her own eldest daughter, 19, blew the whistle to the surrogacy agency, that the two couples learned the miscarriages had never happened.
The judge said surrogacy arrangements were now a feature of contemporary life. "When all goes according to plan they are a way of remedying the agony of childlessness. However, when the arrangements do not go according to plan the result, in human and legal terms is, putting it simply, a mess," the judge said.
He added: "As this case illustrates, women who put themselves forward for this role are very exceptional and may well have real unmet psychological needs of their own. When the arrangements go wrong the cost in terms of appalling emotional pain for the parties is huge.
"I would urge all agencies to ensure their checks into the background of all parties to these essentially artificial child birth arrangements are as thorough as they can be."
The elder of the two children born by surrogacy, a girl, was about to turn four when Mrs P's daughter told the agency that had set up the deal of her mother's deception.
Her true father , who had paid £850, and his wife decided not to apply to have her live with them but sought a court order for contact with her.
He later reached an agreement with Mrs P that the girl would be told at the appropriate time who her real father was and be allowed to see him.
The father of the second child, a boy, discovered just before his birth in December 2005 that there had been no miscarriage. He and his wife took the case to court, fighting Mrs P and her husband for the right to bring up the boy.
The judge said: "I make no secret of, or apology for, the fact that I have found this a particularly difficult case to decide." He ordered that the boy, by then 18 months old, should be handed over to his real father and his wife.
The ruling was handed down last July but the case was heard behind closed doors and the judgment was made public yesterday.
The judge said that the Ps had been good parents to the boy but had deliberately embarked on surrogacy with the object of having another child for their family and had never intended to hand the baby over. Mr P had had a vasectomy and the couple had investigated adoption and fertility treatment. All their actions were consonant with "a desperate desire to parent more children by fair means, or failing that, foul".
The question was which set of parents would be better for the boy's upbringing in the long term, and after a protracted legal battle, the judge chose the natural father, called J during the proceedings.
"When I confront that question and answer it I am driven to the conclusion, awful though it is from the Ps point of view, that he will thrive best in the Js' care," the judge said.
Mrs P and her husband, who were given the right to regular contact with the boy, launched an immediate appeal. But the appeal court upheld Mr Justice Coleridge's ruling and the Js took the boy to live with them in Leeds.
Mr Justice Coleridge said he had to resolve whether from the start the Ps had deceived the other two couples and never had any intention of honouring the surrogacy arrangements. This was important, he said, "because the children themselves are entitled to know in the future the factual background to their unusual conception".
He came to "the clear conclusion" that they "set out to deceive" both couples.
Surrogacy Child's best interests key in disputes
Surrogacy arrangements are legal in Britain and are regulated by the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. A surrogate mother may not be paid for the baby but may only be given "reasonable expenses" of undertaking the pregnancy and birth. The amount is not defined but is left to the surrogate and the commissioning couple to agree.
No surrogacy agreement is binding, so the mother may change her mind and decide she wants to keep the baby. If the commissioning couple disagrees, the case will have to go to court. In most cases the commissioning father and the surrogate mother will both be genetic parents, so they will have an equal claim. The courts will be reluctant to move a child who has bonded with the surrogate mother, but the decision will come down to where the child's best interests lie.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Another surrogacy story in India...
60-year-old Indian Woman Delivers Daughter’s Twins
She is now both a mother and a grandmother. It is as strange as strange can go in a country like India.
http://www.medindia.net/news/60-year-old-Indian-Woman-Delivers-Daughters-Twins-27298-1.htm
Yes, a 60-year-old woman in Pune in western India, has delivered twins fertilized out of her own daughter’s ovum. The children were born on Sep.21, according to Dr Sunita Tandulwadkar, head of the In Vitro Fertilization department at the clinic where the whole dramatic episode took place. The daughter was suffering from genital cancer and had to go in for surrogacy. But neither she nor her husband would settle for a surrogate mother from outside their family. And the girl’s mother came forward to bear and deliver. Dr Tandulwadkar noted that usually surrogate mothers happened to be young and hence this once was indeed exceptional. The family was told that a number of injections would be administered and besides there were risks involved. And, as it happened, not one, but two embryos were to be implanted in her womb. But the old woman didn’t flinch right through, observed Dr.Tandulwadkar appreciatively, almost overawed by the old woman’s determination. The pregnancy was uneventful in first six months but later the surrogate mother developed high blood pressure. For almost 32 weeks the woman could pull on with her pregnancy, but her old age and physical condition in general made it impossible to continue carrying the foetuses any further. “Considering her age and her status of hypertension, a decision for a Caesarian was taken. Finally two male babies—1.7 kg and 1.4 kg—were delivered,” said Dr.Tandulwadkar. The twins are healthy, reports say. Source-Medindia
She is now both a mother and a grandmother. It is as strange as strange can go in a country like India.
http://www.medindia.net/news/60-year-old-Indian-Woman-Delivers-Daughters-Twins-27298-1.htm
Yes, a 60-year-old woman in Pune in western India, has delivered twins fertilized out of her own daughter’s ovum. The children were born on Sep.21, according to Dr Sunita Tandulwadkar, head of the In Vitro Fertilization department at the clinic where the whole dramatic episode took place. The daughter was suffering from genital cancer and had to go in for surrogacy. But neither she nor her husband would settle for a surrogate mother from outside their family. And the girl’s mother came forward to bear and deliver. Dr Tandulwadkar noted that usually surrogate mothers happened to be young and hence this once was indeed exceptional. The family was told that a number of injections would be administered and besides there were risks involved. And, as it happened, not one, but two embryos were to be implanted in her womb. But the old woman didn’t flinch right through, observed Dr.Tandulwadkar appreciatively, almost overawed by the old woman’s determination. The pregnancy was uneventful in first six months but later the surrogate mother developed high blood pressure. For almost 32 weeks the woman could pull on with her pregnancy, but her old age and physical condition in general made it impossible to continue carrying the foetuses any further. “Considering her age and her status of hypertension, a decision for a Caesarian was taken. Finally two male babies—1.7 kg and 1.4 kg—were delivered,” said Dr.Tandulwadkar. The twins are healthy, reports say. Source-Medindia
Surrogacy in India
Two women and a baby-
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1071017/asp/atleisure/story_8444169.asp
Chaos reigns in the surrogacy market in the absence of a law on surrogacy, Reena Martins discovers
Malini Aggarwal (name changed) wanted a baby — and thought that Sarita was the answer to her problem. The 42-year-old upper middle class Mumbai professional couldn’t carry a baby to full term and was ecstatic when Sarita, a 23-year-old slum dweller, agreed to rent her womb.
All was quiet — until the twelfth week, when Sarita threatened to abort Malini’s baby if she did not cough up an additional Rs 1,00,000. The Aggarwals had no choice but to concede. A new contract was signed between the two, spelling out a revised compensation of Rs 3.5 lakh to be paid to Sarita.
In Mumbai, Dr Nikhil Datar, a gynaecologist and medico legal consultant, was confronted with a case where a 40-something upper middle class couple had to pay an additional Rs 1 lakh when the surrogate insisted on keeping one of the couple’s twins she was carrying. Her rationale: “I was paid to carry only one child.”
The last couple of years have been seeing more and more women fulfilling their dreams of motherhood, through both related and unknown women. Dr Indira Hinduja, an infertility specialist in Mumbai, says that among her patients, the number of couples opting for surrogates has doubled in the last five years.
The high financial stakes — most couples agree to pay the surrogate mother several lakhs — and the absence of a law governing the practice of surrogacy have, however, rendered these deals increasingly fragile. Money is often a point of dispute, and there are occasions when surrogate mothers are reluctant to completely break off ties. Dr Hinduja speaks of cases where the surrogate mothers insist on seeing the children they’ve borne every birthday.
Lawyers and couples hiring surrogates try to draw up contracts that they hope will be foolproof. But contracts can always be breached — as Mumbai High Court lawyer Amit Karkhanis, who tried to broker peace between the Aggarwals and Sarita, discovered a few weeks ago.
The law itself can pose a problem. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act deems an agreement unlawful if it defeats the provisions of other laws; causes injury to a person or property; or if the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. In the present scenario, the final call rests with the courts, which could consider surrogacy “a moral wrong, even if an ethical right,” says Dr Gopinath Shenoy, a Mumbai gynaecologist and former judge of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai suburban district.
The National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART (Assisted Reproductive Techniques) Clinics in India, which include dos and don’ts on the issue of surrogacy, are yet to be enshrined in legislation. The guidelines, drafted in 2001, are currently undergoing some last minute revisions by Dr Hinduja, a member of the National Advisory Committee for ART.
But even if the guidelines become law, the odds could favour the surrogate. “After all, a woman who carries the child can be the lawful mother — nobody can refuse her that,” says Dr Hinduja.
As per the guidelines, a surrogate aborting another couple’s child in the first trimester of pregnancy will have to refund the couple the money paid to her while she carried their unborn child. However, according to the guidelines, an abortion between the 12th and 20th weeks of pregnancy, under the “medical advice of two medical practitioners,” made mandatory by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, would absolve her from returning the money given to her.
The guidelines are, however, mum on the issue of compensation for the surrogate or her family if she gets injured or dies because of complications caused by the pregnancy or childbirth.
“Surrogates do not always envisage the possible risks related to the various minor surgical procedures in IVF (in vitro fertilisation) that they would have to undergo, however minor,” says Dr Datar. One of the commonest of these procedures is the cutting back of embryos, to prevent multiple pregnancies.
While the revised guidelines no longer bear the clause that put the onus of a surrogate’s safety entirely on her, not everybody is relieved. “This could result in a blame game between the parties,” says Dr Nayana Patel, an infertility specialist in Anand, Gujarat, who worries about the “legal position” of her clinic, should anything “go wrong with the health of the surrogate”.
The guidelines go to great lengths to protect the surrogate and the unborn child from HIV — forbidding the surrogate from sharing syringes, undergoing blood transfusion from uncertified blood banks and even abstaining from sex during pregnancy. Neither she nor her husband can have an extramarital relationship during the pregnancy, or for six months before signing up to be a surrogate.
Before putting them through IVF procedures, ART clinics say they test surrogates twice within a span of three to six months for HIV — which is the window period during which the virus could evade detection.
But a surrogate could turn HIV positive during pregnancy. And not all clinics insist on testing during this period. Some experts, like Dr Kamala Selvaraj, an infertility specialist in Chennai, use the weapon of fear to keep surrogates free of possible infection.
“They’re told that they would lose the baby if they have sex during pregnancy,” she says. Risk, clearly, is one constant in the contract between a surrogate and the biological couple. “But the contract ultimately rests on trust,” says Anamika, a 23-year-old Kathak teacher in Calcutta who hopes to be a surrogate for the second time. The ART guidelines do not permit her to lend her womb more than thrice.
Legal sanction or not, surrogates like Anamika are soon finding their way into the list of noble professionals. “I tell women that it is an honourable profession,” says Dr Selvaraj. “It is better and pays more than the Rs 3,000 to Rs 5,000 a month that one gets in an office,” she adds.
And as long as the law is with them.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1071017/asp/atleisure/story_8444169.asp
Chaos reigns in the surrogacy market in the absence of a law on surrogacy, Reena Martins discovers
Malini Aggarwal (name changed) wanted a baby — and thought that Sarita was the answer to her problem. The 42-year-old upper middle class Mumbai professional couldn’t carry a baby to full term and was ecstatic when Sarita, a 23-year-old slum dweller, agreed to rent her womb.
All was quiet — until the twelfth week, when Sarita threatened to abort Malini’s baby if she did not cough up an additional Rs 1,00,000. The Aggarwals had no choice but to concede. A new contract was signed between the two, spelling out a revised compensation of Rs 3.5 lakh to be paid to Sarita.
In Mumbai, Dr Nikhil Datar, a gynaecologist and medico legal consultant, was confronted with a case where a 40-something upper middle class couple had to pay an additional Rs 1 lakh when the surrogate insisted on keeping one of the couple’s twins she was carrying. Her rationale: “I was paid to carry only one child.”
The last couple of years have been seeing more and more women fulfilling their dreams of motherhood, through both related and unknown women. Dr Indira Hinduja, an infertility specialist in Mumbai, says that among her patients, the number of couples opting for surrogates has doubled in the last five years.
The high financial stakes — most couples agree to pay the surrogate mother several lakhs — and the absence of a law governing the practice of surrogacy have, however, rendered these deals increasingly fragile. Money is often a point of dispute, and there are occasions when surrogate mothers are reluctant to completely break off ties. Dr Hinduja speaks of cases where the surrogate mothers insist on seeing the children they’ve borne every birthday.
Lawyers and couples hiring surrogates try to draw up contracts that they hope will be foolproof. But contracts can always be breached — as Mumbai High Court lawyer Amit Karkhanis, who tried to broker peace between the Aggarwals and Sarita, discovered a few weeks ago.
The law itself can pose a problem. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act deems an agreement unlawful if it defeats the provisions of other laws; causes injury to a person or property; or if the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. In the present scenario, the final call rests with the courts, which could consider surrogacy “a moral wrong, even if an ethical right,” says Dr Gopinath Shenoy, a Mumbai gynaecologist and former judge of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai suburban district.
The National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART (Assisted Reproductive Techniques) Clinics in India, which include dos and don’ts on the issue of surrogacy, are yet to be enshrined in legislation. The guidelines, drafted in 2001, are currently undergoing some last minute revisions by Dr Hinduja, a member of the National Advisory Committee for ART.
But even if the guidelines become law, the odds could favour the surrogate. “After all, a woman who carries the child can be the lawful mother — nobody can refuse her that,” says Dr Hinduja.
As per the guidelines, a surrogate aborting another couple’s child in the first trimester of pregnancy will have to refund the couple the money paid to her while she carried their unborn child. However, according to the guidelines, an abortion between the 12th and 20th weeks of pregnancy, under the “medical advice of two medical practitioners,” made mandatory by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, would absolve her from returning the money given to her.
The guidelines are, however, mum on the issue of compensation for the surrogate or her family if she gets injured or dies because of complications caused by the pregnancy or childbirth.
“Surrogates do not always envisage the possible risks related to the various minor surgical procedures in IVF (in vitro fertilisation) that they would have to undergo, however minor,” says Dr Datar. One of the commonest of these procedures is the cutting back of embryos, to prevent multiple pregnancies.
While the revised guidelines no longer bear the clause that put the onus of a surrogate’s safety entirely on her, not everybody is relieved. “This could result in a blame game between the parties,” says Dr Nayana Patel, an infertility specialist in Anand, Gujarat, who worries about the “legal position” of her clinic, should anything “go wrong with the health of the surrogate”.
The guidelines go to great lengths to protect the surrogate and the unborn child from HIV — forbidding the surrogate from sharing syringes, undergoing blood transfusion from uncertified blood banks and even abstaining from sex during pregnancy. Neither she nor her husband can have an extramarital relationship during the pregnancy, or for six months before signing up to be a surrogate.
Before putting them through IVF procedures, ART clinics say they test surrogates twice within a span of three to six months for HIV — which is the window period during which the virus could evade detection.
But a surrogate could turn HIV positive during pregnancy. And not all clinics insist on testing during this period. Some experts, like Dr Kamala Selvaraj, an infertility specialist in Chennai, use the weapon of fear to keep surrogates free of possible infection.
“They’re told that they would lose the baby if they have sex during pregnancy,” she says. Risk, clearly, is one constant in the contract between a surrogate and the biological couple. “But the contract ultimately rests on trust,” says Anamika, a 23-year-old Kathak teacher in Calcutta who hopes to be a surrogate for the second time. The ART guidelines do not permit her to lend her womb more than thrice.
Legal sanction or not, surrogates like Anamika are soon finding their way into the list of noble professionals. “I tell women that it is an honourable profession,” says Dr Selvaraj. “It is better and pays more than the Rs 3,000 to Rs 5,000 a month that one gets in an office,” she adds.
And as long as the law is with them.
Freezing Eggs- Getting closer!
Freezing eggs: A delicate race to turn back the clock
Unlike sperm, human eggs are difficult to preserve, but researchers say they are getting closer to success.
Unlike sperm, human eggs are difficult to preserve, but researchers say they are getting closer to success.
Josephine Marcotty, Star Tribune
Sperm are different than eggs. They are easy to acquire, and they are never in short supply. And they can be frozen, which is a huge advantage when it comes to infertility.
That last distinction, however, may soon change. Researchers say they are only a few years from figuring out how to freeze eggs. And if they do, it could revolutionize women's reproductive lives as much as the birth control pill did 40 years ago. Egg freezing would not only allow women much greater freedom in choosing egg donors, but they could also preserve their own eggs, making the biological clock a thing of the past.
"It will detoxify the whole thing," said Steve Snyder, an attorney who runs a Maple Grove infertility agency called International Assisted Reproduction Center.
Sperm freezing and banking have been possible since the 1950s. Today, there are about a dozen large sperm banks in the United States that pay donors about $75 per time. For years the banks have offered increasingly sophisticated, searchable donor databases that include photos, detailed personal and medical histories, and audio interviews. Customers, either single women or infertile men, need only pick their donor and pay a few hundred dollars, and a few days later receive a vial of frozen sperm in the mail.
Human egg cells, on the other hand, are finicky. They are the largest of all human cells and contain a lot of water. When frozen, the water crystalizes, usually destroying the cell's structure. Experts say that pregnancy rates from frozen eggs are less than 20 percent, though some claim higher success rates.
But researchers say that they are getting closer to new ways to safely freeze mature eggs. Already at least two companies are promoting themselves as "egg banks," where women can either deposit their own frozen eggs or buy those provided by other women.
Researchers at Northwestern University in Chicago recently won a five-year, $26 million federal research grant to study both how to freeze ovarian tissue and how to ripen immature human eggs outside the body. The grant, which will be shared among five research institutions, is dedicated to preserving fertility for young female cancer patients whose ovaries are often destroyed by radiation and chemotherapy.
The potential, however, may be much larger than that.
"When you graduate from college, instead of getting a car, you would have your eggs frozen," said Marla Libraty, vice president of marketing for Extend Fertility, a three-year-old Boston-based egg bank that charges about $15,000 to women who want to freeze eggs for later use. So far it has about 100 customers, she said, but the number is growing. "This will transform the way we look at having babies," she said
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)