Pride Angel

Recent news has highlighted the issue of whether or not students should be encouraged to donate their eggs.

There was press coverage over the weekend about a UK egg donor agency which has been leafleting students at Cambridge University to try and recruit egg donors. The tabloid coverage was yawningly predictable - vulnerable young students being enticed to sell their eggs for £750 by a profit-making fertility business.

As ever, the true story behind the headlines is very different. The agency in question (Altrui) operates legally, helping parents to find egg donors in the face of donor shortages and supplementing the services otherwise exclusively provided by licensed fertility clinics. Let’s not forget that fertility clinics also profit from egg donation, and have done since the birth of IVF.

The story is, as far as the agency goes, just tabloid hot air. But what interests me is why the UK press seems to have such an aversion to students acting as egg donors. Medical students have long acted as sperm donors, and why not as egg donors too? On anyone’s measure, students at Cambridge University are a pretty bright lot, capable of understanding the risks and implications of donating eggs. The maximum allowed payment of £750 for egg donation expenses may seem attractive, but it is not much incentive once you know how much cost, time and effort is involved (the actual out of pocket costs of an egg donation cycle commonly run to this amount), and even if it is an incentive, so what? Wasn’t one of the reasons for the HFEA increasing the payment to egg donors from £250 to £750 last month to encourage more women to donate? Let’s have some honesty about this at least.

What is very important is that anyone considering egg donation fully understands the medical risks and the long term implications of helping to conceive a child who may wish to contact them in 18 years’ time. That is true for all egg donors, but where the donor is younger (which is possibly more likely with students, but not necessarily so) or more likely to be attracted by the headline payment, we have even more of a duty to take care. But no one in the UK would be allowed to donate eggs without counselling, information and clear medical advice about the risks. If students want to help others conceive having gone through this intensive preparation, why should they not make that choice?

Article: 14th May 2012 by NatalieGambleAssociates.

Would you be willing to help others by donating your eggs? You can donate to a couple or single woman of your choice at www.prideangel.com

The news has recently highlighted a number of high profile cases involving disputes within lesbian families and alternative family structures. Primarily these concern fathers or known donors seeking more of a relationship with their child than they originally wished for. However, another interesting and sadly increasing area we are witnessing is the breakdown of relationships in two-mother lesbian parent families.

As with any relationship breakdown, issues to be dealt with include division of the finances, any civil partnership dissolution and with whom any children will live (as well as contact with the non-resident parent). But these types of divorce cases have a more complex dynamic, with difficult legal and social questions arising from the mismatched biological (and often legal) status of the two female parents.

To date there has been very little judicial guidance as to how much weight the family court will place on the importance of being a birth mother in divorce proceedings, and whether in such cases the birth history and biological link should be considered more important than the relationship between the non-birth mother and the child.

Of course every case is unique, but the two main cases so far where the court has considered and explored these issues in principle make for very interesting reading.

The first case was that of Re G [2006] UKHL 43 which involved a difficult dispute about where the children conceived by a lesbian couple through artificial insemination should live following their separation. The High Court and Court of Appeal ruled that the non-birth mother should have primary care of the two children (mainly because the birth mother had behaved badly and removed the children to Cornwall deliberately to obstruct her former partner’s relationship with the children). However, in a landmark judgment the House of Lords ruled that the lower courts had not given sufficient weight to the fact that the birth mother was the biological mother of the children and ordered that the children should continue to live with her. The House of Lords expressly stated that the lower courts had placed too much weight on the behaviour of the birth mother and not enough on the biological basis of her relationship. This was a ‘significant consideration which was of importance’. Being the birth mother is, it seems, significant.

The more recent case of T v B [2010] EWHC 1444 (Fam) involved a lesbian couple who were not civil partners but had lived together for many years and had undergone fertility treatment to conceive a child together. Once the child was born they both undertook the role of parents. Although the law at the time did not recognise the non-birth mother as a legal parent, she sought – and was given by the court – parental responsibility, which meant she had full legal authority to take decisions as a parent and to be involved in her child’s care. Following separation the birth mother applied to the courts for financial provision from the non-birth mother. The court ruled that as the non-birth mother was not a legal parent she had no financial obligation despite the fact that she had to all intents and purposes been a ‘parent’ to them from the very start. The court was somewhat constrained by the wording of the law (and its frustration was evident) but it was clear in this case that whether you were a birth mother or not was deeply significant.

When the court are considering cases involving disputes about care arrangements for children, the court has a range of factors it has to take into consideration. These include: the child’s age, sex and background; their physical, emotional, educational needs; the effect of any change in circumstances; their ascertainable wishes and feelings; any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering and how capable each parent is in meeting the child’s needs. The welfare of the child will be the court’s paramount consideration and any decision made by the court will be based on what the court considers to be in the child’s best interests. In practice this gives a lot of flexibility, although it is clear that the court is inclined to place weight on the importance of the biological link with the birth mother. In relation to child maintenance questions, this bias is more institutional, with clear legal rules which make only legal parents (and their spouses) financially responsible.

On 6 April 2009 the law in the UK changed to allow two mothers to be named on the birth certificate, recognising them both as the legal parents and giving them both financial responsibility for their children. It is notable that both of the birth mother vs non-birth mother cases have involved children born before this legal change. Whether or not the new law will give greater weight to the non-birth mother’s position waits to be seen (although this will certainly be the case in relation to financial questions). Things are likely to be muddied further by the increasing blurring of the lines between birth and biological parenthood for lesbian couples. We are certainly seeing more egg swapping cases, where an egg has been taken from the non birth mother, fertilised and then transferred to the birth mother. Where parents in these situations separate, will the birth mother or the biological mother be the one with the upper hand?

Same-sex divorces are undoubtedly legally complex where children are involved. In a dispute over a child within an alternative family structure, an argument often run is the importance of the biological link, and the genetic identity of the child. With changes to the law and even more complex family structures emerging, it will be interesting to see how the court responds.

Article: by Sarah Wood-Heath of NatalieGambleAssociates; originally published 8th May 2012 www.bionews.org.uk

Like most people, I always look forward to the longer daylight hours of spring. This year though, I await it with a particular eagerness, because the lighter mornings will bring an end to frantic half-conscious scrabbling around in the dark for the thermometer, torch, pen and notepad. I’m not sure quite how she does it, but whilst I am still fumbling around on my bedside table sending the random paraphernalia of my nocturnal life in all directions, I invariably hear the smug BEEP of my partner’s thermometer: waking temperature taken, job done.

Never mind the life transformation new parents undergo; we’re already experiencing a whole new world – and language – of BBT, ICI and FSH among others. Our collection of monthly charts is growing and a daily analysis of the ups and downs usually leads to me wondering whether typing “=OVULATION” into an Excel spread sheet might be worth a try. I’ve prodded and pondered on the texture of parts of my body I barely knew existed. And the Sarah Waters and Emma Donoghue novels have been shelved in favour of titles which usually include the words “lesbian” and then “insemination”, “conception” and/or "pregnancy”. The Americanisms – it seems most are from over the Atlantic – get a bit tedious, but we’re lucky such publications exist at all – I don’t suppose anyone looking for such material ten years ago would have had much success.

One result of finding myself in a happy long-term lesbian relationship that I could not perhaps have predicted, was a serious interest in sperm. And I no longer find myself performing a dramatic squirm of disgust when the word is mentioned – spermatozoa (yes I’ve learnt the full name, and you need to trust me on this – that I just typed it with a serious and thoughtful expression on my face, no eeugh face or sperm squirm now). Try as I might though, I think I’ll always struggle a bit with looking at things from a scientific viewpoint; I need some frame of reference and sperm have become for me the athletes I’ll be following this year. It’s all about having a well-formed shape and getting up some speed as far as I can see. And if they do it in time for a gold medal in London this year, well, all the better – we’re ready for you.

Because it’s amazing how your mind-set changes, and how in six months you can go from “we’d better start discussing the baby question before it’s too late to decide” to “right, where’s the sperm and when do we start?” It seems to happen so gradually, with each smug thermometer BEEP, you find yourself not only in the new world of BBT, ICI and FSH but wondering whether it’s too early to talk about which bedroom he or she would have, which high-chair seems like a good buy and will we get chance to go back to the gay book shop in London for that children’s book about the kids who have two mummies and/or two daddies or should we get it now? (We decided pre-definite sperm donor was a bit soon.) So the life transformation is already well underway – perhaps when we actually have a baby, this process will have made us so ready that we’ll barely notice it slip into our lives. Yes, parents reading this, I’m joking – I know – or rather, perhaps more to the point, I really have NO IDEA!

So there you are: mittens and bootees might have a job to do sometime next winter, and as for my partner and I, we’ve got our eyes on the gold this summer, and next time the lighter mornings are on the way, perhaps we’ll be welcoming them with a new member of the family. And the nocturnal noise level might just have risen above that smug thermometer BEEP.

Article:by Lindsey, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom, 10th May 2012

Read more about gay and lesbian fertility journeys at www.prideangel.com

A recruitment drive aimed at gay men has contributed to a significant reduction in the waiting times for Australian women seeking a sperm donor in their bid to have a baby, according to a leading IVF specialist. But women who delay reproduction are more likely than ever to encounter difficulties, experts say. IVF Australia spokesman Professor Michael Chapman said Australian women were waiting up to 18 months for donor sperm about a year ago

The waiting time was now about eight weeks, thanks largely to imrproved supply from overseas clinics and to a local donor drive that targeted gay men. Professor Chapman said improved adherence by US sperm banks to Australia’s strict legal requirements had helped to slash times. Donors must give consent so any child resulting from the donation can make contact once they turn 18. Similarly, a recent advertising campaign by IVF Australia in the gay media had resulted in an increase in inquiries and, subsequently, much-needed donors, he said. However, the demand in Australia for donors has steadily risen as women who put off having children suddenly find themselves emotionally or financially ready, yet unable to fall pregnant as easily as hoped - if at all.

Perils of putting it off
According to a recent study of 1010 women aged 18-44 years, more of them know someone in their circle trying to fall pregnant — and failing — than don’t. More surprisingly, these women of childbearing age remained ambivalent about - or oblivious to - their own decreasing chances of conceiving, the survey by pregnancy test maker Clearblue found. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirm that women are delaying pregnancy, with the average age at which women fall pregnant for the first time rising from 27.5 years in 1990 to 28.9 years in 2010. Since 2005, more women aged 35-39 years have given birth than have women aged 20-24 years, the ABS figures show. IVF experts concur that both the number and the average age of women seeking help from fertility clinics has increased. Dr David Molloy of the Queensland Fertility Group said while the age of women seeking help getting pregnant at his Brisbane clinic had steadily risen, success rates had struggled to keep pace. "There’s a misconception that infertility clinics can cure you getting older. We can’t," he said. "Pregnancy rates drop quite dramatically once you hit 39-40, and start to reduce from 35. Certainly we can help patients get pregnant in those age groups, but the success rates are lower and there’s no major cure."

New research
Research published over the weekend suggests that babies conceived using commonly available fertility treatments are almost 50 per cent more likely to have a birth defect than those conceived naturally. In the most comprehensive study of its kind in the world, researchers from the University of Adelaide's Robinson Institute compared the risk of major birth defects for each of the reproductive therapies commonly available internationally, including IVF, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and ovulation induction. "The unadjusted risk of any birth defect in pregnancies involving assisted conception was 8.3 per cent, compared with 5.8 per cent for pregnancies not involving assisted conception," said Associate Professor Michael Davies, the lead author of the study published on Saturday in the New England Journal of Medicine. The risk of birth defects for IVF was 7.2 per cent, while the rate for ICSI - a procedure used to overcome male infertility in which a sperm is injected into an egg - was even higher at 9.9 per cent (139 defects).

No substitute for good planning
Dr Molloy said Queensland had led the country in pioneering such recent technology such as oocyte (egg) freezing and AMH (Anti-Mullerian Hormone) testing - "a measure of how many eggs you have left" - but they were no substitute for good planning and prioritisation. "It doesn’t get around the problem of reproductive ageing completely," he said. "What you don’t want to be is 39 with 39-year-old DNA in your eggs and not many eggs left. "And you don’t want to be 31 and thinking you can delay getting pregnant. At 31 you have lovely DNA but if your egg stocks are very poor it’s still going to be harder to get pregnant and you mightn’t be able to fit your two children in. "The DNA ageing that goes on between 35 and 45 still happens, but if you’ve got fewer eggs then you’ve got a double whammy and your back to the wall." Professor Chapman said the average age of the patients seeking help at his New South Wales fertility clinic was "now 37 years of age, so half of them are over 37". He said while the news that more than half of women trying to have a baby were now aged over 30 was alarming enough from a scientific perspective, "more importantly, the percentage of women over 35 trying to have babies has climbed quite dramatically". "More women are putting off faster than science is able to reverse it. The sad part is that we don’t know how to reverse the inexorable decline in egg quality over time. That’s the conundrum," he said. "The truth is, even with multiple attempts, with all the technology that we have, less than 50 per cent of women over 40 will end up having a baby."

It takes time
Professor Chapman said a large number of women failed to realise that falling pregnant often took time, the very thing hindering the chances of a woman over the age of 37 conceiving. "What we haven’t been able to get through to people is that getting pregnant doesn’t happen the day you want to be pregnant," he said. "The human body at its peak in the mid-20s produces a pregnancy rate of only around 15 to 20 per cent a month. To actually have a good chance of getting pregnant, you have to keep going for a number of months - 12 months - before you maximize your chance of falling pregnant naturally. "In women who are older, that natural cycle rate drops. At 35, it’s probably more like 10-12 per cent and by 40, that rate per cycle of falling naturally is probably around 5 per cent. "Cumulatively, a rate of 5 per cent over 12 months gives you a better than 50-50 chance of getting pregnant at 40, but if you’re the 50 per cent that hasn’t gotten pregnant, another year has gone by - another year of decline in the quality of your eggs and the number of eggs has occurred."

Why women struggle with fertility
Professor Chapman said the most common reason he saw for women not getting pregnant after 38 was the quality of their eggs. As a result, he said, more people were using fertility treatment. Despite the repeated warnings from experts, the Clearblue survey found that only 4 per cent of women currently in their best childbearing years saw having a baby as a top priority in their lives. Job security and income was the main concern of 48 per cent of those surveyed, with only 5 per cent admitting to significant stress at the thought of not being able to conceive. Yet nearly half of Australian women have experienced difficulty in falling pregnant — and there are more than twice as many women (450,000) trying to conceive as are pregnant (190,000), according to the study. And seven out of 10 women admit to wanting to have children in their life — when the time is right. Ninety per cent of women could see the benefits in having kids early, however the sentiment was outweighed by the reasons for delaying motherhood.

Of those surveyed:

•74 per cent felt the need to be financially secure;
•50 per cent wanted to be in a loving relationship; and
•51 per cent wanted time to travel and fulfil life experiences free of children.

White-collar women's expectations
Professor Chapman said that an overwhelming majority of women who sought help at his clinic were "white-collar professionals" whose driven nature and high expectations of themselves extended in the realm of reproduction. "When they get to us, they are the desperate ones, and therefore emotion gets in the way of reality. I can tell a woman that she’s got a less-than 1 per cent chance of success with IVF and she says 'I still want to go through with it'," Prof Chapman said. "They don’t want to be in a situation in 10 years' time looking back and saying 'I never tried'. They wouldn’t get to the point of coming to a clinic and then being confronted with some pretty harsh facts and [not] keep on going." He added: "Their expectation will be that they will have a baby." Dr Molloy said that apart from the career women and couples who put off child-bearing, he increasingly treated women who had simply failed to secure a commitment from partners in time. "You see an awful lot of women who invest 10 years in a live-in relationship and they say in their mid-30s 'we need to get moving' and the guy is out the door. All of a sudden they’re trapped," he said. "It takes a while to re-establish a baby-making relationship. That’s a big commitment. The interview process for that could be a couple of years. So these women do get time trapped in these relationships. In a way there’s a shame that there isn’t a higher level of commitment - marriage, home and a commitment to children. "I bet you know people like that."

Sperm donor option
Dr Molloy said sperm donation was one option for women in this situation and in the face of shortages in recent years, Queensland clinics had actively targeted the gay community as a source of sperm donation for several years. "We've had the gay population coming from NSW and particularly Victoria, where the laws are draconian - you have to have a police check before you can go to an IVF clinic and donate sperm," he said. "We were the second unit in the country to import US sperm - started doing it 7 years ago." Queensland Fertility Group had also led the country in "reproductive insurance", namely egg-freezing, he said. "We've had more pregnancies from egg freezing than all the other IVF units in the country combined," he said.

Willing donors
Advertising representative Scott McKeown is among those gay men who would willingly donate sperm to a fertility clinic for use by women - "straight, lesbian or bisexual” – wanting to start a family. While Mr McKeown cannot himself donate for medical reasons, he said gay men were prime and willing candidates for sperm donation, as they were unlikely to be deterred by laws requiring a donor to agree to being contacted by the child once the child turns 18. “The difference between gay guys and straight men in wanting to be a sperm donor is, we are not going to create a complication for ourselves or a future partner and kids, more often than not," he said. “We’re not going to have to deal with a future wife or husband, and those kids, and then someone knocking on the door or making a phone call years later, because it’s less likely that we’re going to have that kind of lifestyle.” He added that for many gay men – just as it was with heterosexual brethren – “it would kind of be nice - as you get older to actually see someone, possibly see yourself in their face and actually say, well the surname may not pass on but maybe my genes will live on”. “It’s the basic human driver for both men and women - why we live, and how we came about anyway. What a nice thing to leave,” he said.

Article: 8th May 2012 www.brisbanetimes.com.au

Willing to donate sperm to single, infertile or lesbian couples? register here for Free www.prideangel.com

Fertility clinics are facing demands to restrict the most popular form of IVF after a shocking new report linked it to an increased risk of birth defects. The study created a major alert after revealing the ICSI treatment, used by 23,000 women in the UK every year, creates a ‘sky high’ chance of having a baby with serious abnormalities.

The procedure, which involves injecting a single sperm into an egg, is used in both the NHS and the private sector, and now represents more than half of all IVF treatments. But it is more expensive than standard IVF, raising fears some clinics may be promoting it to increase profits. Scientists behind the latest survey of 300,000 births found that one child in ten born following ICSI has a defect – twice the level of the general population – but that standard IVF has no extra risks compared with natural births.

Following the report, other experts called for clinics to use ICSI only when there was no medical alternative, and demanded a national database of children born from IVF be set up urgently. Women who undergo the most popular IVF treatment in Britain are twice as likely to have babies with birth defects as the rest of the population, the shocking new survey revealed.

Women who undergo the ICSI process, in which a single sperm is injected into an egg, are more likely to have a baby with problems including cleft palate, heart and lung conditions, cerebral palsy and blood disorders. The extensive research found that ten in every 100 births from ICSI had a defect, compared with five in 100 natural births. But other forms of IVF are no more risky than natural conception. When other factors such as the mother’s age, smoking habits and underlying health problems are taken into account, the ICSI treatment is linked to a 57 per cent increase in birth defects, compared to natural conception.

The treatment was designed to help infertile men become fathers, but has become the dominant IVF process, accounting for 52 per cent of all such treatments carried out in this country. More than 23,000 women were treated using the technique in 2010, when 6,500 babies were born as a result. Previous studies have raised concerns over birth defects from all forms of IVF, but the new research, published yesterday in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, concludes that the abnormalities stem specifically from using the ICSI method. The study’s author, Professor Michael Davies from the University of Adelaide, said: ‘We know from the study that standard IVF is safe. But we also now know that with ICSI, the risk is sky high.’

Last night, British doctors said ICSI was too widely used and said it should only be offered if there is no alternative. They also suggested its popularity was caused by clinics promoting the treatment for commercial profit, as it costs an additional £1,000 on top of the £2,500 fee for standard IVF. Scientists also called for a national register of births for all IVF treatments to be established to allow research into long-term effects. Prof Davies said ICSI – intracytoplasmic sperm injection – effectively creates children from single sperm that Nature might have weeded out as unsuitable.

By contrast, in standard IVF, eggs are placed in a dish with a sperm sample and allowed to be fertilise naturally which means it is still the strongest sperm which reaches the egg. Infertility consultant Gedis Grudzinskas said: ‘The use of ICSI has increased in the UK over recent years and in some centres it is used universally. That’s irresponsible and this study should cause those centres to rethink their policy. ‘Some of these ICSI decisions could be commercially driven, although I would hope not.’

Dr Alastair Sutcliffe, an expert on the effects of IVF in children, added: ‘I’m against the widespread increasing unrestricted use of ICSI because it’s hardly a Darwinian way of reproducing. Now this paper’s come out, those who are close to the wind on this issue might think twice.’ Part of the popularity of ICSI is because it has a conception rate of just under 30 per cent, compared to around 25 per cent for standard IVF. Figures from regulators, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), show that fewer than half of couples using ICSI do so because of male infertility.

In one large unit, the London Women’s Clinic, 83 per cent of IVFs were ICSIs. But medical director Peter Bowen-Simpkins denied it was offered to generate profit. He said: ‘That’s an inevitable criticism, but many of our patients are single women and same sex couples using frozen donor sperm which means ICSI will be more successful.’ The new research paper, one of the most comprehensive ever, looked at 300,000 births in South Australia over 16 years, including 6,100 from fertility treatment. It found 8.3 per cent of babies born from any fertility treatment had some defect, compared with 5.8 per cent of those conceived naturally.

But when they took into account other factors, standard IVF was no more risky than naturally conception. In contrast, ICSI babies did have a high risk of defects, even after these factors were taken into account. Out of 939 single babies born from ICSI, 91 were found later to have a birth defect – a rate of 9.9 per cent. The researchers said in general ICSI babies were therefore 57 per cent more likely to have an abnormality than those born after standard IVF or conceived naturally. But that figure could be as much as 90 per cent in a worst-case scenario. The risk of cerebral palsy also doubled following ICSI treatment, although it was still rare (0.4 per cent compared to 0.2 per cent conceived naturally).

Prof Davies, who did not call for the technique to be abandoned, said it was unclear whether the increased birth defects following ICSI was down to a problem inherent in the technique, or because of the quality of sperm used, which could carry damaged DNA. He said: ‘There are some seriously defective sperm that can be selected and there are many occasions when that sperm could never naturally fertilise an egg. But we can’t jump to that conclusion straight away. ‘This is a technology that’s operating at the absolutely limits of available knowledge, which does open up a debate about how fast should some of these things be implemented.’

Advice on the HFEA website has not been updated since March 2009. It says: ‘Although some research suggests that fertility treatment may be associated with an increased incidence of birth defects, this risk remains low. ‘Research to date does not show with absolute certainty that any increased risk is due to fertility treatment. Other causes cannot be discounted, including underlying sub-fertility in the parents, their age and unexplored factors.’

Last night the regulator said it has ‘no plans’ to update its guidance as a result of the latest research. A spokeswoman said: ‘Research into the area is ongoing and, to make sure patients understand the risks of fertility treatment, we keep research of this kind under review.’ The question all couples must now ask: Do you REALLY need this procedure? Researchers said children born via ICSI were 57 per cent more likely to have an abnormality than those born by standard IVF.

Unless you’ve had personal experience of infertility, it isn’t easy to understand how devastating it can be to find that you’re not able to become pregnant naturally or the lengths to which you would go in order to have a much-longed-for baby. Couples who are trying unsuccessfully to conceive are faced with an ever-expanding fertility industry offering everything from the latest high-tech treatments to the wackiest complementary therapies.

ICSI, the focus of the new research, was developed in the early Nineties and has been a huge step forward in the treatment of male infertility. It has allowed men who once would never have been able to have their own genetic children to become fathers. ICSI has been so successful that some clinics now use it widely, and may offer it even when there isn’t a male fertility problem. Cynics might suggest that this is because ICSI is a more expensive treatment and makes the specialists more money, but it’s also true that some clinics believe they get better success rates when they use ICSI.

So what should couples do if they’re about to embark on fertility treatment in the light of this new research? The message for anyone having standard IVF is extremely positive and reassuring, but there may be more concerns for those who have been recommended ICSI. Talking it through with your fertility specialist is a good idea, and if you’re considering ICSI as an optional add-on to your treatment, you may want to think about whether you really need it. For couples where there is a male factor fertility problem and ICSI is the only possibility, the real risks are still small, and ICSI has produced many thousands of healthy babies.

What’s more, one interesting result from the research was that when embryos created using ICSI were frozen, the risks were reduced. It has been suggested that only the most robust embryos will survive the freezing and thawing process. The researchers themselves haven’t concluded that couples who need ICSI for male fertility problems should not go ahead with the treatment, but have shown that considering freezing embryos before having them transferred is something couples may want to think about. This particular research paper is actually a good news story for fertility patients, as it has found that babies born after standard IVF treatment have no greater risk of problems than those conceived naturally.

Infertility is tough, and one of the best ways to help yourself get through it is to ensure that you are well-informed. If you’ve got concerns about any aspect of infertility or treatment, it’s always advisable to raise them with a doctor or fertility specialist who will be able to offer the best advice for your individual situation.

Article: 5th May 2012 www.dailymail.co.uk

Read more about IVF, ICSI and alternatives to fertility treatment at www.prideangel.com

A TV production company ‘Garden Productions’, have approached us, as they are in the process of making a new groundbreaking documentary series for Channel 4.

The series is concentrating on people who are about to make a very significant life-changing decision and they are keen to explore the area of fertility and parenting within the series.

As part of their research they would very much like to reach out to couples and individuals who are thinking about starting a family through sperm donation, IVF or egg sharing, but are still at a point where they are not entirely sure if they want to proceed and may be exploring other methods as well.

At this stage they keen to reach out to couples (both same sex and heterosexual) and single people who are still deciding and are yet to take the first steps. Samantha from Garden Productions thought that Pride Angel would be a good place to let people know about her research.

Samantha would be really happy to speak with any interested people in more detail about the project and about how the programme works, all of which will be in confidence. There is no obligation to take the process any further once you have spoken with Samantha, so please feel free to contact us at Pride Angel for more information or with any questions.

Finally, a note about ‘Garden Productions’. They produces a wide range of interesting, sensitive television programmes including Channel 4's ‘24 Hours In A&E’ and they’re really excited about this new groundbreaking project for Channel 4.

Read more about parenting options at www.prideangel.com

The NGDT want to hear your views on egg and sperm donation.

Last year, we blogged about The National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT)’s Donor Satisfaction Survey trying to get feedback from prospective egg and sperm donors. They asked for our support to get the issues addressed, and Kriss Fearon from the NGDT wrote following article for our blog. If you are a donor, please do take part in the NGDT survey as they need just a few more to take part and have your voice heard:

What would you think if you approached someone asking if you could donate a large and very personal gift, and your message was ignored, or answered weeks or months later? If, when you went to see them to talk about the gift, they left you waiting and with the distinct impression they didn’t think the gift was important? Would you carry on trying – or assume they weren’t interested, and go somewhere else?

This is the experience some egg and sperm donors have when they approach a clinic.

The NGDT works with donors on a daily basis and hears directly from them about their experience of donation. Too often the feedback is not good, and yet some small changes in the way donors are treated could produce some big improvements.

To carry weight with the people who can make a difference, the Trust needs to prove that changes are necessary. That’s why we are running a survey: to gather evidence of what works and what doesn’t work. This will be the basis for making recommendations on how to treat donors through the whole process of donation, from information-gathering at the beginning to sharing the outcome at the end of the cycle.

The NGDT are targeting donors at two stages: first, as enquirers, and second, after a donor has completed their donation cycle. It’s important that donors are treated with respect; it’s also important that those who enquire but do not donate are treated well. People think really carefully before they make that first enquiry. It’s often prompted by the infertility of a close friend or family member, so there’s a big emotional investment. The minimum they should receive for this unpaid act of generosity is to be treated courteously.

Why does this matter? For the same reason that poor service matters anywhere else: reputation. Donors talk to their friends and family, who in turn share with their friendship groups. They talk to the media. And, most importantly, prospective donors trust current donors to give them an honest picture of what to expect. The longer-term impact of one person’s bad experience can deter others from ever looking into it. Good donor care is good practice, but it is also an essential recruitment tool.

When you’ve known people with fertility problems finally achieve their much loved and hoped-for child, it is hard to understand why the people whose precious gift made such a difference are sometimes treated so disappointingly. That must change.

Click here to complete the donor satisfaction survey

For more information about the National Gamete Donation Trust, visit their website at www.ngdt.co.uk Read more information about the law for egg and sperm donors.

Article: 30th April 2012 natalie gamble associates.

There are many ways my family has an advantage over the regular two-parent model. That extra pair of hands, for one thing, that makes a massive difference, particularly in the foggy, newborn days. But it also throws up a number of problems that, while not absent in other families, can feel more acute in ours. Specifically, I'm thinking about the issue of control.

Parents who live together may not always agree on every aspect of raising their kids but, somehow, they have to find a way to compromise and put on a united front for their children. The rules their kids live by are the "house rules". There might be small differences – Dad lets us have a second bowl of ice cream, Mum helps with our homework, that sort of thing – but, essentially, there's one way of doing things; one style of parenting.

For us, it's not so clear. Our children are growing up, much like the children of divorced parents, with two homes and, in many ways, two different ways of doing things. Catherine, for example, is one of life's organisers and needs to know what she's going to be doing and how her day will go. She does a lot of structured activities with the kids – swimming lessons, baby gym, play dates etc. Cam and I, on the other hand, tend to take a much looser approach. The kids have a daily routine with us, but there is plenty of space for just pottering about, watching telly or kicking around the park. I know that Catherine sometimes finds our laissez-faire approach frustrating, just as I think she sometimes over-organises. If we lived together all the time, we would doubtless find a balance, but because we don't, what happens is that the kids have two homes with somewhat different parenting styles.

Does it matter? For the children, I would say not. First, kids are incredibly adaptable and seem to have no problem understanding that different things happen in different houses (especially if that's all they have ever known). And, over the course of a week, the organised and laid-back approaches probably balance out. But for us parents, it's been an exercise in learning to cede control. It requires a huge amount of trust in the other parent; trust that, though they may do things very differently, they are still doing what's best for your child. But you learn to let go and, in time, even see the benefits of this dual approach. Interestingly, when Hal arrived and we all started living at Catherine's house, Georgia became really unsettled. She only seemed to return to her normal, sunny self when Cam and I took her back to spend the night at our place. Of course, for her living in two homes is "normal" so suddenly being in the same house all the time felt strange. Her routine had been disrupted and she didn't like it.

Some things are sacrosanct. Whichever house the kids are in, they have the same bedtime routine and discipline is consistent. It's important that there is never a suggestion that they can get away with behaviour with one parent that would be unacceptable with the others.

As always, our family works first and foremost because we talk a lot and listen to each other. That is the golden rule, and the first thing I say to people who are considering entering an arrangement like ours. You won't always agree on everything, but it's how you handle it that counts. Remember that you all have the best interests of the children at heart and trust each other.

Article: 28th April 2012 www.guardian.co.uk

Read more about gay parenting and becoming a co-parent at www.prideangel.com

Amelia from Huffington Post has recently written an excellent article about the question of talking to kids about people being 'Gay'.

In some families the introduction of LBGT family members requires finesse or lengthy explanation. I don't have one of those families. After a whirlwind romance my brother Harold and his then-fiancée Jeanne, now my sister-in-law, were addressing their wedding invitations. They had a conversation that went a little like this:

Jeanne: "You have an aunt named Danny?"
Harold: "Nope, that's my uncle."
Jeanne, a little confused: "Then you have an aunt named Rich?"
Harold: "No. Wait for it. It will click."
Jeanne: "Oh! Good for them."
That's about as complicated as we get. (Although we do still tease Jeanne about it 14 years later.)

As of today, two states have "don't say gay" legislation pending: Tennessee and Missouri. One of the reasons given for these bills is that mentioning the existence of gay people in public schools will cause parents to have unwanted conversations with their children that would require them to explain "gay." The implication is that this is a conversation that is awkward, horrible, complicated, and impossible to do in an age-appropriate way.

I've never seen it that way, but I decided to call my friend Anne, whose children are the same age as mine, to ask her if she'd ever explained "gay" to her kids. In her family the conversation started because of the lesbian couple that owns and runs our local café. Their daughters knew the couple lived together (in our neighborhood), and one day their oldest daughter asked why.

"At first my husband told her it was because they were really good friends," Anne recalled. "Later I talked to him about it, because that wasn't really the truth. We then explained to the girls that they lived together because they loved each other just like Mommy and Daddy."

Nothing horrible there.

To get another opinion I called Jeanne. My nieces are in their tweens, and she might have another take on it. "I'm thinking," she said, taking a moment to collect her thoughts after I asked. "You know, I don't think we ever had a big conversation about it. Gay people have always just been a fact to them. There really was never a need. More than anything, we talk about how bullying gay people is wrong, and how important it is to stand up for your friends."

What always baffles me about those people who fight against equality "for the sake of the children" is that they always act like explaining homosexuality to kids is the same thing as explaining homosexual sex acts to them. When I asked both moms whether they had conversations about what gay sex looked like with their kids, they were both a little stunned.

"That's not age-appropriate for my kids," Anne said, "but neither is explaining the mechanics of heterosexual sex."
"We haven't," Jeanne told me, "and the girls haven't asked. But I am sure they will. One of the girls' friends came out to her recently, so that's probably on its way."
"Do you worry about it?" I asked.
"Not really. Talking about sex with a kid is always awkward and embarrassing for them. It won't be any worse or better than any other sex talk."

The truth is that explaining to children (or anyone, for that matter) what being gay means isn't difficult. It's about love and attraction. It's about whose hand someone wants to hold, or whom someone wants to ask to a dance. It's about emotion and the way people feel. It only gets complicated when adults make it complicated, when parents and other adults try to deny the parts about being gay that aren't related to which body part gets put where, when being gay is diluted to only being about sex.

And why do people feel like boiling it down to only sex? Because then they can make it bad. They can make it about "evil" acts done by "sinful" people and vilify them. It is harder to make a villain out of the women whom the kids adore and who run their favorite café and love each other so much that they want to live together and spend their lives together.

One of the many reasons the "don't say gay" laws are dangerous is that they essentially want to wipe the existence of gay people out of children's lives. But that's impossible, because some of those children are gay people. Never mentioning that some people are gay will only make those children feel isolated, alone, and wrong. It will contribute to depression and can lead to bad decisions. Just ask anyone who has lived more than half his or her life in deep self-loathing, or the woman who married the man of her dreams only to find out after the children were born that he is gay, or any of the children driven to take their own lives because they were unable to see a future in which they could be happy. Oh, wait, you can't.

As a society, we need to get our heads out of the sand and face the fact that LGBT people are a reality in all our lives. No amount of hiding or attempting to silence this fact will make it disappear, so we might as well start talking about it and keep talking about it until everyone's response is, "Oh! Good for them."

Article: 26th April 2012 www.huffingtonpost.com

Read more about gay and lesbian parenting at www.prideangel.com

Emma Brockes has written a fabulous major feature for this weekend’s Guardian Weekend magazine on same sex parenting, in which Natalie Gamble Associates are proud to be quoted. The piece tells the story of three modern same sex parent families:

Kellen and Patricia, lesbian mums from New York who have a daughter and are now expecting twins, following egg swapping IVF – Patricia is the birth mother but she carried embryos created with Kellen’s eggs.

Will Halm and Marcellin Simard, gay dads to three children age 15, 13 and 10, who pioneered surrogacy as gay dads in California, where they were the first same sex parents to be named on a birth certificate together, and where Will now represents others as a fertility lawyer.

Andrew Solomon and John Habich, gay dads to a truly alternative family structure – a son through surrogacy who they are raising together, and three more children co-parented with two different mothers.

It is a wonderful picture of the realities of modern same sex parenting, with scenarios we are increasingly dealing with for families in the UK too. All the parents involved talk vividly about the challenges and problems they have faced as gay parents – not the playground prejudice and emotional problems many might expect, but losing legal rights when crossing borders, and grappling with obstructive passport authorities. But the biggest problem of all for alternative families remains surrogacy. As Emma says in her article:

There is, in all this, one glaringly unsubtle problem, and that is surrogacy, which as a percentage affects gay men more than any other group. Commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK, forcing many childless couples to seek help abroad. When they return, the British government is reluctant to endorse an arrangement that undermines public policy. “English law applies its own rules as to who the parents are, irrespective of what happens abroad,” says Natalie Gamble, the country’s leading fertility lawyer. “So even if you’re named as the parent on a US birth certificate, English law will say that the surrogate is the mother and if she’s married, her husband is the father.”

This can lead to some bizarre situations. In 2008, Gamble’s firm acted for a British couple who had used a surrogacy service in Ukraine. “In Ukraine, the law said they were the parents. But under English law, the Ukrainian surrogate and her husband were the parents. The systems were in direct conflict. The result was that the children had no parents and no nationality. They had no right to stay in Ukraine, and they had no passport to cross any borders. That’s the worst nightmare of international surrogacy.” Gamble persuaded the Home Office to issue the children with discretionary entry clearance, then applied to the high court for a parental order, naming the British couple as legal parents.

We have long campaigned for alternative families, both individually in court, and by arguing hard for changes to the law (including supporting the UK’s legal changes allowing gay dads and lesbian mums to be named on birth certificates together). Why do we do this? Because we believe that parents who love and cherish their children raise wonderful families, no matter what the structure.

With that in mind we want to salute, above all, what Will Halm says about his teenage daughter: “That a test tube baby, from two gay men, is a well-adjusted, smart, polished girl at 15, who is comfortable talking about her family – she is what I would like the world to see. Not the parents who are creating the child, but the children themselves.”

Article: 23rd April 2012 by Natalie Gamble Associates

Read more about gay and lesbian parenting at www.prideangel.com