Pride Angel

Cases of sexually transmitted diseases have soared among under-25s and the Government is partly to blame, MPs said today.

They said the Health Department missed a golden opportunity to slash chlamydia rates in England because there was no urgency to reach the high volume of testing needed to curb the spread of infection.

The latest report from the Public Accounts Committee also found the Goverment has no idea if the programme to drive down infection rates is having an effect.

It found inadequate measures are in place to check progress of the screening programme across health trusts in England.

Chlamydia is the most common bacterial sexual infection and more than half of all new cases in 2008 were among under-25s.

If left untreated, it can lead women to suffer pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility and ectopic pregnancies.

Five years after the programme's launch, just 4.9 per cent of people aged 15 to 25 were being tested despite the target being 15 per cent.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk

New rights for father's to take up to six month's paternity leave has been announced by the government.

The scheme which comes into force from April 2011 gives new dad's three months paid leave and the time off can be taken during the second half of a baby's first year, if the mother returns to work.

The plans outlined by Gordon Brown in September said they were about "giving couples more freedom, dads more rights and children more time with the two people who love them most".

At present dads are entitled to two weeks' paid leave and mothers to 52, 39 of which are paid.

However the Government says take-up is likely to be low, with less than one in 16 fathers expected to leave work for a period of full-time childcare and ministers are reassuring small businesses that the impact will be minimal with less than one per cent expected to be affected by the changes.

But the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) are reported by the Daily Telegraph to have written to ministers about what they said was one of eight extra costs due to come in next year, demanding an end to the "constant threat of tinkering to employment law" and calling for a three-year moratorium on changes while firms dealt with the economic downturn.

Read more: www.uk.news.yahoo.com

A woman who was considering IVF treatment has given birth to a baby girl after using an iPhone application to become pregnant.

After four years of struggling to conceive, Lena Bryce and partner Dudley had nearly given up hope of having children, until she heard about the fertility app and downloaded it to her iPhone.

The 30-year-old entered her body temperature daily and the app calculated when she would be most fertile.

After just two months of using the technology she fell pregnant. Last Friday, a delighted Lena gave birth to 6lb 12ozs Lola at Glasgow Southern General Hospital on the exact date the app had predicted.

Lena said she had been considering IVF and adoption, but thought of other ideas when Dudley bought her an iPhone for her 30th birthday. 'I typed in "get pregnant" and downloaded five apps,' the delighted mother said. 'The Free Menstrual Calendar was easiest to use so I stuck with it and in two months I was pregnant. 'Now we have our gorgeous daughter and couldn't be happier,' she told The Sun. Bar manager Dudley was equally 'over the moon'.

Lena, who works as an accountant, said the app calendar highlighted in pink when she was most fertile and advised the couple to have sex three days before it.

The couple from Glasgow plan to use the programme again.

This month an iPhone application that claims to be able to tell parents what their baby's cries mean was launched. The Cry Translator app, which costs £17.99, 'quickly identifies an infant's cry, based on one of five emotional or physiological states: hunger, fatigue, annoyance, stress or boredom, ' say the creators.

Parents are told to simply place their iPhone about a foot from the crying baby and touch the 'Start' button. The cries are analysed and identified within the 10-second window with a 96 per cent degree of accuracy . Once the cry has been identified, tips to calm the infant are provided.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk

We've all known mothers who can whip out a breast, whip on a baby, and lactate like mad – without effort, embarrassment or, in some cases, embonpoint. For me, breastfeeding was a slog: six months of broken nights, screaming and tears (mine, mostly). But I don't regret a moment.

Breastfeeding – if you can – is the cheapest, cleanest and healthiest way to nurture a baby. That's not just my opinion or that of the World Health Organisation (which recommends breastfeeding for the first six months) – it's common sense, isn't it?

Perhaps, but Breast v Bottle is still one of the most furious debates in modern mothering, fuelled by powerful hormones on one hand, and the billion-pound formula industry on the other. This month, the fire has been fed by two scientific studies suggesting that breastfeeding might not be worth the bother – let alone the guilt and distress if you can't or choose not to.

In the first, Prof Sven Carlsen, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, reviewed more than 50 studies into the relationship between health and breastfeeding. Most concluded that the longer a child was nursed, the healthier it would be. He attributed this, however, to a healthier pregnancy, not breast milk, claiming "baby formula is as good as breast milk".

This week, the second study, from Southampton University found that breastfeeding does not make babies more intelligent. It noted that breastfed infants tended to be brighter simply because their mothers were (and brighter women are more likely to breastfeed). So lactation doesn't make our loved ones brainier or healthier? Can we break out the bottles and book a long night's pain-free sleep then?

Not so fast. For every study that concludes that breast milk is on a par with formula, twice as many conclude it is liquid gold. They find it protects against stomach bugs, and wards off asthma and chest infections. Mothers who breastfeed lower their risk of breast and ovarian cancers, and shed baby weight more easily.

And as every scientist knows, there are different classes of study – some are tiny; some may appear in little-known journals that other professionals do not rate seriously; and some are paid for by organisations that have their own point to prove, such as formula manufacturers.

Formula milk is big business. In Britain, Save the Children reckons that for every £1 spent in 2006-7 on breastfeeding promotion, £10 was spent by manufacturers on advertising and promotion. The market leader, Nestlé, has been subject, off and on, to a worldwide boycott for more than 30 years because of the way it is seen to target mothers in countries where formula feed can be expensive and dangerous to use.

It can be argued that Prof Carlsen's investigation doesn't stand up to scrutiny, although it was funded by the central Norway regional health authority and published in the peer-reviewed, although not well-known, journal Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

And the news that breast milk doesn't boost brainpower can be contradicted by other studies that have found the reverse: a 2001 study concluded that children who were breastfed for fewer than three months were more likely to score below average for mental skills at 13 months, and have lower IQ levels at five years, than those who were breastfed for six months or more.

It is difficult to master science at the best of times – let alone in the fog of exhaustion and hormones caused by giving birth. Had anyone presented me with a research paper three days postpartum, I'd have found a use for it – but not one connected to what went into my child.

The most important boon of lactation cannot be analysed or peer-reviewed. It's something our ancestors knew instinctively: breastfeeding is a chance for mother and baby to connect physically and emotionally. And for mum to put her feet up. Read more :www.telegraph.co.uk

Does homosexuality have to be an evolutionary dead end? Agony Aunt Carole Jahme from the Guardian shines the cold light of evolutionary psychology on readers' problems. This week: gay dads

From Joe, age 38

Dear Carole, I am a 38-year-old single gay man who is perfectly at ease with his sexuality, but I have this nagging feeling that I should be making an effort to perpetuate my genes. If I die without leaving any offspring surely I will have failed as a biological entity. I don't believe in life after death, so it will be as if I never existed.

Should I impregnate a friendly lesbian, or would it be simpler – and more efficient in evolutionary terms – to register as a sperm donor?

Carole replies:

Do you have any nephews or nieces? It has been theorised that homosexuality, which remains at a stable level in human populations of around 4% for men and 2% for women, survives from generation to generation due to a phenomenon known as kin selection. This is the evolution of behaviours that favour the reproductive success of genetic relatives and has been observed in many species, us included.

Nephews and nieces share 25% of their genes with their aunts and uncles. The quarter of your genes you have in common with your sibling's offspring is second only to the half of your genes you would have in common with your own children. Thus, gay, lesbian or childless heterosexuals can increase their own reproductive fitness by behaving altruistically towards their nieces and nephews – in other words by helping to ensure their survival and future reproductive success.

There are many examples of kin selection in nature. Our New World primate cousin, the endangered golden lion tamarin, is a highly cooperative breeder. Pairs of males (sometimes brothers) both mate with the same female. When the infant is born neither male knows which is the father, and yet both invest equal care in the progeny. The more carers an infant tamarin monkey has the better its chances of survival.

Humans are no different in this regard. For example, a child born as the result of an alliance between a gay couple and a lesbian couple has two genetic parents and two "alloparents". With four adult carers this infant is better placed to succeed in the game of life than a child born to a heterosexual pairing.

Read more : www.guardian.co.uk

Women who drink more than moderate amounts of alcohol should be refused IVF treatment, an influential group of experts has said.

In advice to clinicians on lifestyle factors and fertility treatment, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology said: "Fertility doctors should refuse treatment to women used to more than moderate drinking and who are not willing or able to minimise their alcohol consumption."

The statement said this was due to the risks to the child which include foetal alcohol syndrome which can cause growth retardation, low IQ, behavioural problems and facial deformities.

Moderate consumption in Britain is considered to be within government recommended limits of three to four units a day for men and two to three units a day for women with two alcohol free days a week.

A standard size glass of wine is around two units and a large glass of wine is around three units.

Women who are trying to conceive or are pregnant are recommended not to drink at all or if they want to drink, to stick to just one to two drinks once or twice a week, under guidance from the Department of Health.

British experts said it should be left to the doctor treating the couple to assess if alcohol consumption was high enough to warrant putting off treatment until drinking is brought under control.

Prof Allan Pacey, of the University of Sheffield and spokesman for the British Fertility Society, said clinics are already required to take into account the 'welfare of the child' and further blanket conditions on alcohol consumption are not necessary.

Guidance from the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence says cutting down on alcohol consumption can help reduce the risk of harm to the developing baby and that excessive drinking may affect the chances of conceiving either naturally or through IVF.

Many primary care trusts impose their own conditions on funding for IVF treatment including that couples do not smoke or where the woman is obese. However it is not thought any refer specifically to alcohol consumption.

Susan Fleisher, executive director of the National Organisation on Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, said: "We agree in principle with ESHRE on this guidance but women should be supported to stop drinking so they can undergo any treatment they require without endangering the health of their future children."

The British Fertility Society has cautioned against treating obese women due to the risks of anaesthetic in overweight people.

Clare Lewis-Jones, Chief Executive of Infertility Network UK, said: “We know that alcohol consumption can have an impact on success rates of fertility treatment, as well as having an adverse effect on the health of both the mother and baby.

"We would advise anyone trying to conceive, whether naturally or through fertility treatment, to cut down on alcohol consumption and suggest that both partners drink no more than the moderate amounts recommended by experts.

"We would also suggest that in addition to cutting down alcohol consumption, that anyone trying for a family follows a healthy diet and stops smoking to maximise their chances of success and give their baby the best possible start to life."

Article from www.telegraph.co.uk

Babies fed porridge from an early age may be protected against asthma, according to new research.

The earlier infants are introduced to porridge, or other foods made from oats, the less likely they are to develop the respiratory condition, a study by Finnish scientists has concluded.

The risk of asthma later in childhood is reduced by almost two-thirds in babies first fed oats before they reach five months of age, compared to those introduced to them later, the research shows. Scientists who carried out the study believe early exposure to oats may be crucial in helping to ward off the disease.

But the findings clash with Department of Health infant feeding guidelines, which recommend breastfeeding for six months before introducing solid foods.

At least 1.1million children in the UK suffer with asthma and the condition kills around 40 youngsters a year.

According to Asthma UK, Britain has the highest rates in the world of 'severe wheeze' in young teenagers. Research has focused on how diet and environment early in life might affect a child's chances of developing the disease.

A team of scientists from Finland studied almost 1,300 children whose parents took part in a diet and lifestyle study between 1996 and 2000. They wanted to see if certain foods either raised the risk of asthma and hay fever, or reduced them.

Each family recorded infant feeding patterns from an early age and the children were then followed up for at least five years.

The results, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, showed babies fed porridge in their first few months of life were 64 per cent less likely to have chest problems as a toddler than those who did not eat it or who started later.

The same team also found babies fed fish at an early age had much lower rates of hay fever by the time they were five years old.

In a report on their findings, the researchers said: 'Oats are a commonly used cereal in Finland, as porridge and bread.

'Animal and cell experiments suggest oats may affect the immune system and have anti-inflammatory properties.

'The same is true for fish.

'Our findings imply that delaying the introduction of oats in infancy may increase the risk of asthma by the age of five in some children.'

Porridge has enjoyed something of a revival as a health food in recent years.

Some studies suggest a medium-sized bowl each morning can reduce cholesterol by about ten per cent.

Sales during the recent cold snap reportedly soared as consumers sought out foods that could help them fight the freeze.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk

Children who are breastfed for more than six months are less likely to have mental health problems in later life, according to new research.

Experts believe that nutrients in mothers' milk, and the bonding process, may have a long-lasting effect on their babies' brain development.

The finding, to be published in The Journal of Pediatrics, came after researchers analysed the medical records of more than 2,000 children in Western Australia.

Professor Wendy Oddy, who led the study, said breastfeeding appeared to have 'significant benefits for the mental health of a child into adolescence'.

She added: 'There has been much evidence about the benefits of early breastfeeding but the importance of this study is that it shows continued benefits from extended feeding.

'Given the rising prevalence of mental health problems, interventions to assist mothers to breastfeed, and to breastfeed for longer, could be of long term benefit to the community.

'As with any of these types of studies, it should be stressed that the findings do not mean that individual children that weren't breastfed will have mental health problems, it's about lowering the risk at a population level.'

Of the children studied just over half were breastfed for six months or longer, 38 per cent were breastfed for less than six month. The rest were not breastfed.

They underwent mental health assessments when they were aged two, five, eight, ten and 14.

For each additional month of breastfeeding, the behaviour score improved, the research by the Perth-based Telethon Institute for Child Health Research revealed.

This remained valid even after other social and economic factors affecting parenting were taken into account.

Dr Oddy added: 'There are a number of ways extended breastfeeding could assist child development. We know that breast milk is packed full of nutrients that help with the rapid brain development that occurs in the early years. It might also signal a strong mother-child attachment and these benefits may last.'

UNICEF and the World Health Organization recommend infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months and 'that breastfeeding should continue to contribute an important part of a baby's diet through the second year of life and beyond'.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk

A 59-year-old woman has become the oldest person ever to be offered fertility treatment by a British clinic. Doctors at the private London Women’s Clinic on Harley Street, one of the most successful IVF units in the country, have unanimously agreed to help Susan Tollefsen conceive.

Mrs Tollefsen, a retired teacher who turns 60 in October, said: ‘I’m still so full of life and healthy at 60 I don’t see any reason why I shouldn’t be treated.’

Until last week’s decision, older women have had to travel abroad for treatment – so-called ‘fertility tourism’ – because Government guidelines say the NHS should not recommend IVF to women over the age of 40 and private clinics generally will not treat women older than 50.

But in a move that has provoked an ethical storm over whether post-menopausal women have the right to fertility treatment, the clinic has decided to revise its policy.

Mrs Tollefsen already has a two-year-old child, conceived at a Russian clinic after she was refused treatment in the UK because of her age.

There are now calls for an upper age limit for fertility treatment to be enshrined in law, rather than simply a guideline. Clinicians usually refuse to offer to treat women older than 50 because of health concerns, the reduced chances of success, and fears for the upbringing of children with such an old parent. Critics claim that women who put off motherhood until later in life are selfishly putting their own needs before a child’s.

Clinics also risk having their licences suspended if they do not take the welfare of any resulting children into account when providing IVF treatment. However, they do not have to inform the regulators if they are treating an older woman. Normally, private clinics treat women over 50 only in exceptional circumstances, for example if she still has a menstrual cycle. 'Other women my age should do this too'

That Mrs Tollefsen will now receive help demonstrates how concerns about upper age limits have relaxed. In sharp contrast, Elizabeth Buttle, who also gave birth at 60 in 1997, received IVF treatment only after lying about her age, telling doctors she was 49. It is feared that last week’s decision by the London Women’s Clinic could lead to a flood of older women seeking treatment.

Last night, Tory MP Nadine Dorries described the plans as ‘preposterous’ and called for Parliament to intervene with new laws setting an upper age limit for IVF.

She said: ‘Once you pass the point of natural conception, that’s when you should stop. We need to legislate for this because inevitably society will have to pick up the cost later. Perhaps the cut-off point could be extended by a couple of years into the early 50s, but moving as far as 60 – which is a huge leap – is slightly preposterous.’

It has been learned that senior staff at the London Women’s Clinic unanimously voted in favour of treating Mrs Tollefsen at a meeting on Thursday. The clinic has also decided to consider treating another, unnamed 57-year-old woman.

Retired special-needs teacher and educational adviser Mrs Tollefsen, from Laindon, Essex, became one of the UK’s oldest first-time mothers in March 2008 when she gave birth to daughter Freya, at the age of 57, following fertility treatment in Moscow.

The embryo was created using sperm from her partner, Nick Mayer, a warehouse manager who is 11 years her junior, and a donor egg. On September 9 last year she approached the London Women’s Clinic about further treatment. She had a consultation with medical director Peter Bowen-Simpkins, who agreed in principle to help her, provided the clinic’s governance committee gave the green light. Last Thursday, they gave that unanimous backing.

Mrs Tollefsen said: ‘I emailed so many British clinics asking to be treated here but they all said no because I was too old and didn’t offer me a consultation. ‘But the doctor I saw gave me hope.

I really want to do it – 110 per cent. The clinic said they’d have a look if I definitely wanted to go ahead. I agree, there should be a cut-off point. Perhaps 65 is too old, but I’m still so healthy I don’t see why I shouldn’t be treated.’

She added that each case should be considered on its merits, saying: ‘I just don’t think it’s acceptable to say that someone would be a good mother at 49-and-a-half, but not such a good mother at 50.

‘I know other people are looking forward to retirement and so on, while I’m looking forward to kindergarten and infant school. If the circumstances are right, I would encourage other women my age to do this.

‘The sad thing is that I had to run around Europe to find somewhere prepared to help me have my first baby. If I do have another child I want to do it here in the UK.’

Mr Bowen-Simpkins, a respected consultant and spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said he had been surprised there was so much support for treating her among his team of doctors.

He said: ‘No one at the clinic has seriously opposed seeing these patients as individuals. Everyone agreed we should change the policy and now treat women over the age of 50 on a case-by-case basis.

'The staff voted unanimously that we should take Sue Tollefsen’s case to the next stage. The other 57-year-old who put herself forward for treatment was also given unanimous consent.

‘Sue will still have to go through more detailed assessment. She’ll have to be seen by our counsellor and get a supporting letter from her GP. We’ll also want to know that her partner is 100 per cent supportive of her decision. ‘But we’ll consider her now for treatment if she wants to go ahead, yes.’

Mrs Tollefsen’s consultation was filmed for a BBC documentary on the world’s oldest mothers, to be screened later this month. In the film, Mr Bowen-Simpkins says he is ‘persuaded’ by their meeting that she has a ‘strong case’ and that it would be ‘very valuable’ for Freya to have a sibling.

Too Old To Be A Mum? will be screened on BBC1 at 10.35pm on Tuesday, January 26.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk

Experts speaking before a trial on California's gay marriage ban have said that lifting it would make people healthier and generate more money for the state's economy.

The federal trial is examining whether Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, is constitutional.

Yesterday, San Francisco's chief economist Edmund Egan said that the city could see its economy boosted by millions if gay couples were allowed to marry.

According to AFP, he argued that if more gay people married, they would increase school district revenues, real estate, payroll and sales taxes and would be more likely to be insured.

Egan added that married people spend more than their unmarried counterparts and tend to be wealthier.

He said: "The long-term cost of discrimination weakens people's productivity in the workforce. Higher productivity leads to higher wages and higher wages lead to higher payroll taxes for the city."

Egan estimated that gay marriage could boost economic revenues in other ways in California, such as money spent by couples on their weddings and hotel rooms.

During cross examination, a lawyer for Protect Marriage countered that not all gay couples would get married, and that Egan had not considered the spending which would be necessary to allow gay marriage.

Meanwhile, Ilan Meyer, a social scientist from Columbia University, argued that the stigma of not being able to get married can result in increased risks of depression, suicide and drug abuse.

On civil unions, which the pro-gay marriage lawyers argue is inadequate, Meyer said: "Having a second type of an institution that is clearly not the one that is designed for most people clearly is stigmatising."

Today, Michael Lamb, a Cambridge University psychologist, is expected to discuss the benefits of marriage for gay couples who have children.

The case has been brought by two gay couples, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, of northern California, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, who live in southern California.

Gay marriage was legalised in California in May 2008. Voters banned it under Proposition 8 the following November. The estimated 18,000 gay couples who were able to marry in that brief window have been allowed to remain married.

This week, the Supreme Court placed a ban on allowing proceedings to be shown on YouTube.

The gay couples and their lawyers supporting the broadcasting, but gay marriage opponents said they would be harassed and placed in danger, despite conducting a highly publicised television campaign against gay equality.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the court received more than 138,000 comments from members of the public about the decision, with all but 32 calling for the trial to be broadcast.