DNA fertility test warns women how long they have left to start a family

A DNA test that can tell a woman as young as 18 how long she has left to start a family is being developed by scientists.

By monitoring the speed of the biological clock, the test can reveal how many eggs a woman has left - and give early warning of declining fertility.

If a woman tests positive, she can opt to start a family sooner - or freeze some eggs to increase the chances of conceiving a child in her 30s.

The breakthrough follows the discovery of a gene called Fragile X that indicates the rate at which a woman's egg supply will diminish over the years.

Professor Norbert Gleicher, of the Centre for Human Reproduction in New York, said: 'We can take an 18 or 20-year-old girl and check her Fragile X and make a pretty good prediction of whether she's at risk.'

Women are born with a limited supply of immature eggs, or follicles, in their ovaries. Only a tiny fraction turn into mature eggs.

The size of a woman's 'ovarian reserve' falls throughout her life. A newborn girl has between one million and two million follicles, by adolescence, she will have just 400,000 and by her 40s there will be just a few hundred left.

Fertility doctors say that the number of follicles left in the ovaries is a good clue to how many more years a woman will be fertile.

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1225244/DNA-fertility-test-warns-women-long-left-start-family.html#ixzz10HknahGf

Victoria donor records at risk, inquiry warns

Steps should be taken to protect the records of sperm and egg donors in Victoria while an inquiry considers who should have access to the records, the government's law reform committee says.

In an interim report tabled in Parliament yesterday, the committee said it needed more time to answer the legal, practical and other questions that would arise if all donor-conceived people were given access to identifying information about their donors and their donor-conceived siblings.

In Victoria, the rights of the donor-conceived vary depending on when they were born, with those born before 1988 not entitled to identifying information about their donor. Those born between 1988 and 1997 have the right to access information if the donor agrees. Only those born after 1997 have an absolute right to information.

In its interim report, the committee said it hoped it would be given more time to examine the matter and that, meanwhile, the Victorian government should urgently consider whether measures should be taken to ensure that existing and unprotected donor records were preserved.

The report said evidence presented to the committee suggested that poor record-keeping in the early days of donor-conception practices was a significant barrier to providing greater access to information about pre-1988 donors.

''These records may have been destroyed, or may currently be located with individual doctors or clinics. Some participants in this inquiry raised concerns about the need to locate and protect all donor records,'' the report said.

A spokeswoman for the Victorian government said it supported the continuation of the inquiry and would consider whether action should be taken to preserve existing records.

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorian-donor-records-at-risk-inquiry-warns-20100915-15cng.html

My daughter’s sperm donor died

He had a profound impact on her life yet she had never met him - here a woman shares her feelings on finding out the sperm donor who fathered her daughter had died in an accident.

My two-year-old daughter’s biological father died recently in an accident. The feeling of loss I have experienced in the days since has been unsettling to me, her biological mother. How can you mourn someone you’ve never even met?

I am a 36-year-old lesbian. My partner of 12 years and I tried for five years before being blessed with a daughter.

We wanted our child to have full access to his or her complete biological story, so our goal was to find a known donor. After first approaching some of our close male friends with no luck, we turned to a sperm bank.

We thought when we completed the painstaking task of choosing a donor that the hard part would be over. But I suffered four miscarriages, multiple painful surgeries and a total of seven months on bed rest to bring our daughter to life. I have learned from these experiences that from the moment of conception until the day your child walks down the aisle, you can meticulously plan as much as you like, but control is never fully within your grasp as a parent.

So I shouldn’t have been surprised when I arrived home to find the letter in the mail. It was from our sperm bank, informing us that our donor had passed away recently as a result of “trauma sustained during a traffic accident.” They felt we should know now instead of having it be a surprise in 16 years when we try to make contact.

Since opening the letter I have been surprised to find that I am reacting as though someone in my immediate family died. To get news like that in the mail was a shock. It felt like it was 1941 and I had received a telegram that Johnny had died in the war.

And it hit me how surreal it is that our donor’s short life, so removed from ours, had such a significant impact on mine and my wife’s. Yet we have no recourse to grieve. There will be no funeral, no memorial service or burial that we can attend. We cannot sit shiva for him. We won’t receive any sympathy cards that say “in the loss of your sperm donor.”

I never met the man, but he changed my life drastically. I never laid eyes on him, but we have photos of him in our house from infancy up until adulthood. I would have easily recognized him on the street. I listened over and over again to a 45-minute audio tape of him speaking eloquently about his life and interests, so I know his voice as well as my own.

I know he was flirtatious and funny and that the girls at the clinic thought of him as a favourite because he was so charming. I know he was a good man, a volunteer firefighter, who wanted nothing more in this world than to help people and to enjoy living life on the edge – flying planes, riding motorcycles and running into burning buildings.

He loved summer camp when he was a child. I know he loved to cook and studied to become a chef at one point. I know that he was close to his parents, both in the medical profession, who clearly instilled in him the value of helping people in need. He had sisters and grandparents who are probably missing him an awful lot right now.

Our donation wasn’t entirely anonymous, meaning he was willing to have limited contact and would meet our daughter when she turned 18 if she wished. Knowing this, I had sent him several letters and photos and received notes of thanks in return, via the sperm bank. He knew she existed. His mother might have pictures of my daughter hanging on her living room wall. Yet I don't know his name.

For the rest of this article please follow the link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/facts-and-arguments/my-daughters-sperm-donor-died/article1705132/actions.jsp

Lesbian Mother Stalked by Sperm Donor

The case of a California mother pressured to give joint custody of her child to a sperm donor she met online illustrates the legal challenges facing families at the forefront of reproductive technologies.

Karen B., a Los Angeles writer met her baby’s biological father on Craigslist proceeded to make the kind of casual parenting agreement common between mothers and known sperm donors.

“After connecting on the Internet, she and the donor, Daniel C., signed a layman's agreement that the child would live with Karen and she would make all parenting decisions,” reports ABC News. “He would have some visitation rights.”

However, Karen found that Daniel, who is gay, tried to push himself into her and her partner’s life as her pregnancy progressed. He told the doctor that he was Karen’s husband, and insisted that Karen obtain a passport for the baby so that he could visit Daniel’s native Brazil. He sued for joint legal and physical custody when she refused.

“After connecting on the Internet, she and the donor, Daniel C., signed a layman's agreement that the child would live with Karen and she would make all parenting decisions,” reports ABC News. “He would have some visitation rights.”

However, Karen found that Daniel, who is gay, tried to push himself into her and her partner’s life as her pregnancy progressed. He told the doctor that he was Karen’s husband, and insisted that Karen obtain a passport for the baby so that he could visit Daniel’s native Brazil. He sued for joint legal and physical custody when she refused.

“The case also raises questions not only about whether sperm donors have parental rights, but what is best for the child now that reproductive technologies are creating new kinds of families,” reports ABC News.

In July, the Superior Court in Santa Monica rejected Daniel’s claims under the California Sperm Donor Statute, ruling that even though his name is on the birth certificate, semen used for artificial insemination or vitro fertilization for a woman other than the donor’s wife is not legally the natural father.

Karen spent $60,000 in legal fees, and she continues to worry that Daniel could kidnap the baby to Brazil during monthly visits.

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/14/Lesbian_Mother_Stalked_by_Sperm_Donor/

Sperm donor loses unique paternity suit

There's a big difference between being a sperm donor and being a dad.

That's the message that came out of a paternity suit recently resolved at the Santa Monica Courthouse in which a sperm donor sought joint custody of a toddler he helped conceive.

As is customary in paternity cases, the full names of the parties involved have not been disclosed. But the story goes like this:

Karen B., a lesbian looking to become a mother, found a sperm donor who seemed like a good fit in Daniel C., a gay man who had posted an ad on Craigslist offering his services.

Under the terms of a written agreement that would later become the subject of dispute, the baby boy born to Karen through artificial insemination would occasionally visit with Daniel, but lived with his mother, who was responsible for making all decisions regarding the child's upbringing, schooling, religion and health care.

After two years, though, Daniel wanted additional rights and eventually sued Karen, claiming he was entitled to joint custody.

In court, Daniel presented two main pieces of evidence. First, he pointed out he had signed the boy's birth certificate. Second, he showed the boy's mother had signed a so-called "voluntary declaration of paternity" designating him as the child's biological father. (Karen argued she had been sedated when she signed the document days after giving birth).

In the end, though, Karen prevailed and retained full custody of her child.

For more on this case follow the link: http://www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2010-09-15-70324.113116_Sperm_donor_loses_unique_paternity_suit.html

NHS buys porn for sperm donors

The NHS is spending public money buying pornographic magazines and films for sperm donors, it has been reported.

As many as one in three hospitals which provide fertility services provide pornographic material for donors, according to a report by a health think tank.

Some 17 hospitals disclosed they had bought porn when questioned by 2020health.org, which highlights cases of NHS waste.

Most of the magazines were bought from newsagents, but two hospitals admitted having placed orders with publishers while others said the porn had been donated by staff, patients and visitors, The Sun reported.

The think tank said the disclosure was disrespectful to women working for the NHS, many of whom face uncertain futures thanks to tight budgets.

Its director, Julia Manning, said she was unaware of any government permission for spending on porn, though only 33 of 92 hospitals questioned admitted having done so.

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7988367/NHS-buys-porn-for-sperm-donors.html

Doctor sued as wrong sperm alleged in fertility cases

Lawyers for two families suing a well-known Ottawa fertility doctor for allegedly using the wrong sperm samples to create their children say they believe other patients of the clinic may be in for a surprise.

Dr. Bernard Norman Barwin and the Broadview Fertility Clinic, which he owns, are the targets of two lawsuits launched in Ontario Superior Court seeking a combined $3-million in damages for “heightened anxiety, depression and frustration,” among other things, suffered by the families.

Both statements of claim, obtained by the National Post, ask the court to order a test of Dr. Barwin to rule out “the possibility that he is the donor whose sperm was used to inseminate.”

Pam MacEachern, lawyer for the two families, said she is investigating the possibility that her clients aren’t the only parents who may have been inseminated with the wrong sperm, given the proximity in time, 2005 and 2007, between the alleged incidents.

“The fact that it happened to two people a couple of years apart in very similar circumstances gives us a lot of concern,” Ms. MacEachern said yesterday. “We believe that there’s a good basis to believe that it probably has happened to other people.”

Dr. Barwin, who came to Ottawa in 1973 and set up his private fertility clinic in the mid-1980s, denies the allegations, stating in a statement of defence that “all medical care and treatments provided were carried out in a careful, competent and diligent manner and in accordance with the applicable standard of care.”

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=3525349