Pride Angel

We are delighted to announce that Natalie Gamble and Louisa Ghevaert of Gamble and Ghevaert LLP have agreed to support the Pride Angel community, giving legal information and online support to our members.

Natalie and Louisa are pioneers of fertility law in the UK and the founding partners of Gamble and Ghevaert LLP, the first and only law firm in the UK to specialise in fertility and parenting law. Gamble and Ghevaert is widely recognised as having the UK’s leading legal expertise on donor conception, co-parenting, surrogacy and fertility treatment, and we are delighted that Natalie and Louisa have agreed to contribute to Pride Angel.

Natalie Gamble, widely known as Britain’s leading fertility lawyer, was a prominent commentator on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and a passionate champion of legal rights for same sex parents conceiving together. Her work won her a nomination by Stonewall as their Hero of the Year in 2008, and she has been recently heralded by lesbian magazine Diva as one of the UK’s 50 most powerful gay women.

Louisa Ghevaert is internationally recognised as a leading expert in UK fertility law, including same sex parenting, donor conception, co-parenting and international surrogacy. She is involved in national policymaking, writes for leading journals, and was recently invited to be a leading international speaker at the American Bar Association’s continental conference in Montreal.

“Increasing public knowledge and understanding of fertility and parenting law issues is all part of our passion for our subject” say Natalie and Louisa. “The law can be incredibly complex and fast-moving and it is important for anyone starting a family in more unusual circumstances to get to grips with the legal side of things. We are committed to helping people to become families, and to helping them avoid legal difficulties and complications wherever possible. Making good quality information freely available is all part of that goal.”

Pride Angel has today launched new Fertility Law pages, with up to date information (written by Gamble and Ghevaert LLP) on the law for donor recipients, co-parents and donors, and with links to other useful sources of information.

Natalie and Louisa have also kindly agreed to answer questions posted by Pride Angel members on our online forum, so please do feel free to start posting your legal questions.

For more information about Natalie, Louisa or Gamble and Ghevaert, visit Gamble and Ghevaert’s website, which also contains a wealth of resources on fertility and parenting law.

Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and best wishes for a New Year filled with much happiness and hoping all your dreams come true for 2010 !

When cancer sufferer Alison Davenport started to search for a bone-marrow donor, she was shocked to discover that she had been conceived by donor sperm.

Sperm donations prior to 1991 were anonymous. There was and is no requirement for a record to be kept. Between 1991 and 2005 (when the law changed again), records of sperm and egg donors were kept, and, since October 2009, any child born of those donations can apply (after the age of 18 or in special cases, 16) for non-identifying information about their biological parent, such as hair colour – but not the name. Those conceived after May 1 2006 can apply to learn their father's name from the age of 18. Donors (from 1991 to 2005) can apply retrospectively to have their names attached to their case files and learn some facts of their donation. UK DonorLink is a voluntary contact register to help older people conceived through donated sperm, and/or eggs, their donors and half-siblings to exchange information and, if desired, to contact each other. In 2010, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will launch a review of policies including the upper age limit of male donors; the 10-family limit; and reimbursing donors for expenses and loss of earnings. When Alison Davenport began her hunt for a bone-marrow donor the last thing she expected was to stumble on a family secret that would trigger a search for an entirely different type of donor.

Alison, 63, a retired English teacher from the village of Netley Abbey, outside Southampton, was diagnosed with Stage 4 mantle cell lymphoma, in January 2007. This is a rare cancer, a type of non-Hodgkin's disease, which affects lymph sites (where the body's key defence agents, white blood cells, are normally produced). She was warned that it was treatable, but incurable.

"My oncologist was frank, which I appreciated. I was told the life expectancy for mantle cell lymphoma is from two-and-a-half to five years."

She endured a "severe" regime of chemotherapy, but the disease was still present. Doctors advised that a bone-marrow transplant would be her best option. This would allow them to use a high dose of chemotherapy to kill off the remaining cancer. Bone marrow would be destroyed as a result, but a transplant would replenish those missing cells.

Meanwhile, Alison carried on teaching four days a week at Wykeham House School, in Fareham. But, in November 2008, she discovered a swelling in her groin. "I knew straight away that the cancer was on the march again."

In January 2009, she began another 10-month course of chemotherapy. "I was also referred to the bone-marrow team, so that they could begin looking for a match," she says. Doctors first test family members, as this will lower the chance of rejection or infection, before widening it to a worldwide search.

"I told them my mother was of Scottish stock with Danish ancestry and that my father was English."

It was at this point that events took an unexpected turn: "My medical team said that my DNA, which they were using to find me a bone-marrow match, didn't match my parent profile and was, in their words, 'odd'. This meant it would be more difficult to find a donor."

When Alison told her 96-year-old mother this, she could never have predicted her response. "I had hoped to carry this secret to my grave," her mother said. "Your father and I couldn't have children. You were donor-conceived." A man had donated sperm to Alison's parents.

"The shock was heart-stopping," says Alison. "I didn't blame my mother for keeping this secret, but at one stroke, I lost 50 per cent of who I thought I was. My whole sense of self disintegrated."

Alison also knew this meant that her hope of finding a close relative who could become a bone-marrow donor was halved. Her lack of knowledge about her true father could cost her life.

She asked her mother for details, but all her mother knew was that the donor was a student, and he was musical. As the law currently stands, Alison has no legal right to trace him. Before 1991, when the law was changed, sperm donors were granted anonymity if they so required. Furthermore, when Alison sought to establish whether any records existed from that time, she was told they had all been destroyed.

Looking closer to home for a match was unsuccessful; Alison's non-biological father had died when she was 17. She has two grown-up children, Anna and Jonathan, with her husband Ray, a photographer/lecturer, but neither were suitable.

In about 30 per cent of cases, a family member can offer a good match, but for 70 per cent, another donor will need to be found. Genetic make-up is incredibly varied and a match is made on inherited characteristics or "tissue types". The likelihood of finding a matching donor is much greater if the donor is from a similar ethnic background to the patient.

Although it is possible for a bone marrow match to be found anywhere, due to global migration, researchers are finding that pinning down their patient's racial heritage can speed up the process. At present, ethnicity can only be deduced by examining the DNA in the male line.

Gradually Alison began to piece together the story of her conception."My mother and father were helped at a central London practice run by a New Zealander called Reynold H Boyd, probably in Harley Street. But it seems that all Mr Boyd's records were thrown out after his death.

"Artificial insemination in the early part of the 20th century was not common, but it was going on, principally among the middle classes, who could afford it," says Alison. "My research has revealed that medical students may have fathered up to 300 children each, and made many more donations. Limits have now been imposed to cut down the chances of any siblings meeting in later life and marrying. One man can donate no more than 10 times."

So it seems Alison is not alone, and that many other people over the age of 50 may be the product of secret conceptions that we associate much more with the modern age of IVF.

Alison was hopeful in May, when a close bone-marrow donor was found in Germany. Could her father have been an Eastern European refugee from the Second World War, perhaps starting medical school in London? She began writing a blog, sharing what she felt about her search for her father, and she made contact with others in her position.

Even among others who have been donor conceived, there are many viewpoints, whether they were told by their parents, or kept in the dark, like Alison. "We seem to be a vociferous bunch," she says. "Some are bitter at what they have learnt; others are cynical."

Most want to end the hegemony of donor secrecy. Currently, children conceived after 1 May 2006 are allowed to apply to learn their father's name from the age of 18. This amendment has lead to claims that the number of sperm donors has fallen as men do not wish to be "found".

She acknowledges the argument that reversing the law might seem unfair on the sperm donors who contributed altruistically, but says, "There won't be armies of people tracing their fathers and demanding a share of inheritance. Most of us just need to know who we are.

"Most of the earliest sperm donors seem to have been students supplementing their income. These were bright young men, cheerily creating life – did they not think of the implications for the children they created?"

"You can't help thinking that anyone born via donor conception aged over 18 is part of some lost generation, which the medical profession and the government are hoping will die off without needing to be dealt with. Who could have foreseen that my mother would still be cogent at 96? Most of her peer group are dead, ill or suffering dementia. But I'm still here and I need this information – not just for mental closure, but to fight my cancer."

Alison is undergoing radiotherapy, and if the German bone-marrow donor is willing to help her, the transplant will take place next spring. Yet, she will continue to wonder if there is an 85-year-old man somewhere whose sperm donation helped a desperate couple to have a child in 1946. In which case, his daughter is hoping against hope she will one day find him. There is history to learn and grandchildren to meet. And a family secret that needs to be wiped out as completely as Alison's cancer.

Article by telegraph.co.uk

A bit of fun for all our Pride Angel members.

Have a go at our Sperm Race game!

Try to wriggle your sperm all the way up the fallopian tubes to success!

Challenge your friends to see who is the best at wriggling their sperm to reach the end!

Click this link to play Sperm Race Game

Pregnant women have a long list of rules to follow to protect the health of their child. But there's now startling evidence to suggest the lifestyle choices of fathers should be called into question too.

Michael Douglas is said to have seduced Catherine Zeta-Jones, 25 years his junior, with the unforgivable line “I’d like to father your children”. When she acquiesced, Zeta-Jones paid a price she was probably unaware of – a higher risk of health problems for those children.

It turns out that at least some of the risk of problems ranging from Down syndrome, schizophrenia and autism to obesity and poor social skills can all be linked back to the father’s age and environment around the time of conception. And yet most couples have never heard of these findings.

Similarly, a current public health campaign in Britain warns fathers not to smoke around their pregnant partners, but it doesn’t mention anything about the risks of men smoking themselves at the time they are trying to conceive.

“It’s not as though the scientific community has kept quiet about this, but the popular media has not picked up on it,” says Mary Cannon, a psychiatrist at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. “My hunch is that the area of reproducing, especially fertility and the health of offspring, is somehow seen as women’s business.”

Cynthia Daniels at Rutgers University, in New Jersey, USA, agrees. “It’s a function of gender bias that we haven’t focussed more attention on the role of men in healthy pregnancy outcomes,” she says. “We continue to see reproduction as the exclusive responsibility of women – and we’re reluctant to recognise men’s responsibilities as well.”

When it comes to fertility, most women know that it’s best to avoid alcohol and too much caffeine, to maintain a healthy weight and to have children earlier rather than later. But what kind of influence does the would-be father have on the success, or otherwise, of conception – and how exactly are these environmental factors inherited?

For men, it seems that caffeine might actually help. One Brazilian study found that the sperm of men who drank one or more cups of coffee a day were much better swimmers than the sperm of men who avoided caffeine.

But other drugs are bad news. A U.S. study found that marijuana smokers have fewer sperm, and these sperm have swimming problems: they move too fast too early, potentially leading to burn-out before they get near an egg. Excess body fat can also cause problems for wannabe dads as it lowers testosterone levels, which in turn reduces a man’s sperm count. Meanwhile, smoking and drinking can harm a man’s ability to conceive by damaging the DNA of his sperm.

Of course, smokers and drinkers do father children. But that doesn’t mean that a few good sperm escaped the toxic chemicals in pristine condition.

The cause of some 60% of birth defects isn’t known, but sperm abnormalities caused by a father’s heavy drinking may be one important factor and should be urgently investigated, says political scientist Daniels. “The research that has been done shows that men’s excessive alcohol use can cause increased rates of low birth-weight babies, as well as increased rates of sperm abnormalities.”

But researchers who have found associations between paternal alcohol use and harm have had a difficult time getting funding for further work, she says. “As a result, public attention is focussed exclusively on women’s use of alcohol – even though women who consume alcohol during their pregnancies are highly likely to be partnered with men who abuse alcohol.”

Article from cosmosmagazine.com

Do you know a child named Aiden or Madeline? Chances are someone will as they are the top names for boys and girls in 2009, while Jacob and Emma were the most popular of the decade.

"Parents like the sound of traditional names, but they also want to show the individuality of their children. Parents realize that the name they give their child will become part of the child's identity," Alper said.

She said that variations on the name Aiden are also dominating both boys and girls names, such as Jayden, Brayden and Hayden, because the names are gender-neutral and can be spelled so many ways.

Her prediction for the next decade is that there will be more Edwards and a lot more Bellas being born due to the success of the Twilight film franchise.

Rounding out the top names for boys in 2009 were Matthew, Owen, Ethan, Jackson, Evan, Braden, Noah, Jack and Zachary.

For girls it was Madison, Emma, Hannah, Olivia, Audrey, Isabella, Grace, Taylor and Emily.

Top boy names of the decade were Jacob, Michael, Ethan, Christopher, Jack, Daniel, Aiden, William, Joshua and Ryder.

Top girl names of the decade were Emma, Madison, Emily, Hannah, Olivia, Samantha, Ashley. Ava, Elizabeth and Madelyn.

The whole area of fertility treatment is fraught with complexity and emotion. Variation in NHS provision across the country, despite an intention to end the so-called post-code lottery, causes immense resentment. Then there is the entirely practical matter of the shortage of donated sperm and eggs. And underlying much of the debate is a difference of opinion about whether having a child should be regarded as a human right or a privilege.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has now announced that it is to review several of its policies over the coming year, the general intention being to reduce risk and increase the number of people who are helped. Which is only to be welcomed. Not only does medicine advance, but social attitudes change – one instance being an earlier decision not to require any reference to a father.

Some of the questions for review have more to do with good housekeeping than principle. Would it be harmful, for instance, to raise the limit on the number of families that a sperm donor may create, which currently stands at ten? And how can the health safeguards that apply to UK donations be extended, with greater certainty, to donations obtained from abroad?

But there are other issues that are quite as contentious as removing the need for a prospective father to be on the scene for a woman to qualify for NHS treatment. One is the question of whether someone may restrict his or her donation to certain recipients – members of specific ethnic or religious groups, for instance, or heterosexual couples. Not to allow this risks reducing the number of donations overall. To allow it, though, is clearly discriminatory.

The most vexed question of all, though, is that of payment. At present, donors may be reimbursed for expenses, but the voluntary principle has been retained. It is also enshrined in EU guidelines, although the actual interpretation of the not-for-profit principle varies. In Britain, a woman may receive free treatment in return for sharing her eggs, in effect a benefit in kind.

The HFEA detects that opposition to payment may have softened, a development which – if true – may not be unrelated to the sharp fall in sperm donations in recent years. Payment, though, would create problems of its own, not just ethical, but practical: how much to pay, how to collect the money, and the inevitable rise in treatment charges to recoup the cost.

Unfortunately, the one change that might do more than anything else to increase donation – restoring anonymity for donors – is not within its power, as the original decision was made by Parliament. One predictable – but underestimated – effect of the law that gave donor-children the right to know their genetic descent was to reduce the number of donors. That is a balance that MPs had to draw. We wonder whether they would make the same judgement again.

Women could be paid hundreds or even thousands of pounds to donate their eggs to infertile couples, under plans to be considered by the fertility watchdog.

Currently women can only receive loss of earnings compensation up to a limit of £250 plus reasonable expenses but the dire shortage of eggs in Britain is increasingly driving couples abroad where payments are allowed.

In America auctions are held with tens of thousands of pounds being paid for the eggs donated by highly educated and accomplished women.

Such a system is unlikely to be allowed in Britain but the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has agreed to review the current policy.

Professor Lisa Jardine, Chairman of the HFEA said: “There was a general view that the HFEA’s policy with regard to reimbursement for donors which has now been in place for two years since the introduction of the European Tissue and Cell Directive, was one that could usefully be revisited in light of what we have learned over those two years. We will not prejudge the outcome of the review that will now take place.”

Other policies that will be reviewed including whether to lower the upper age limit for sperm donors from 45 to 40, to bring it in line with guidance from fertility experts and whether the lower age limit for egg donors should be increased from 18 due to the health risks involved with female donation.

The HFEA will also consider whether the current limit on donations from one donor being used to create children for no more than ten couples should remain given the shortages of donors.

Further consideration will also be given to whether guidance or restrictions is required on intra-familial and intergenerational donation, further advice on going abroad for treatment and whether donors should be allowed to restrict donation to certain people.

The BBC have contacted Pride Angel and are very interested in the new service we are providing to our members.

They are really interested in exploring the area of sperm donation in a documentary and we are very keen to talk to women in a range of different situations who are looking to find a sperm donor as well as hearing from some of the men who are looking to donate.

We are kindly asking if any of our Pride Angel members might be interested in talking to the BBC about their experiences? Areas of interest include women's search for a donor or co-parent, any issues you may have encountered and of course they would love to hear about your success stories.

Members who contact us wouldn't need to commit to being involved at this stage and all discussions would be treated in the strictest confidence if preferred.

If you would consider sharing your story please contact Pride Angel through our 'contact us' form for further information.