New mum astonished as her baby girl is born with TEETH

It is a milestone that many babies take a year to reach.

Yet when Faye Armstrong was born, to the astonishment of her parents and midwives, she already had her two front teeth.

Now, a fortnight on, two molars are beginning to appear. Yesterday her mother Patricia told of her amazement at her daughter’s dental development.

‘When she was born, I noticed two white slits on her bottom gum,’ said Miss Caulfield, 25. ‘The next morning, when I was feeding her, I felt a sharp pain and saw they had come through fully.

'My midwife told me this is really rare. Children are sometimes born with buds but hardly ever full teeth.’

Faye was born three weeks early at Ormskirk Hospital in Lancashire. Miss Caufield said: ‘I keep joking that if the pregnancy had gone full-term, she would have been born with a full set!’

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1336055/New-mother-astonished-baby-girl-Faye-Armstrong-born-TEETH.html#ixzz17aDeHzpV

Mother's blood test could be used to predict disorders in unborn baby

A blood test that could predict an unborn baby's risk of numerous disorders has been devised by scientists.

Using a tiny sample of the mother's blood, researchers can piece together the child's entire genetic code and search its DNA for the flaws behind conditions such as Down' s syndrome and autism.

The technique would remove the risk of miscarriage associated with current invasive tests, saving the lives of hundreds of unborn babies each year.

But there are fears that it could be exploited to predict an unborn child's risk of problems from Alzheimer's to cancer and heart attacks, creating worry for parents before their baby has even entered the world.

There are also concerns that parents could abuse the technology to select the 'perfect child', with those not fitting the bill in terms of looks, health or even personality being aborted.
Currently, pregnant women thought to be at high risk of having a baby with a condition such as Down's syndrome have the choice of two procedures, amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling.
Both involve putting a needle into the womb and raise the risk of miscarriage.

To remove the risk, research teams around the world are trying to find a way of gleaning genetic information from tiny pieces of foetal DNA that have worked their way into the mother's blood.

For instance, NHS-funded researchers at Great Ormond Street Hospital are developing a blood test for Down's syndrome.

But the new technique, reported in the journal Science Translational Medicine would allow multiple conditions to be picked up at once.

Using a sample of blood taken from a woman who was 12 weeks pregnant, researchers led by Dr Dennis Lo painstakingly pieced together the entire genetic code of her unborn child and then scanned it for key genetic flaws.

They already knew that the child's parents were both carriers of beta-thalassaemia, a life-threatening blood disorder, raising the possibility that the child would have it.

By studying the child's genome, or entire cache of DNA, the researchers were able to reassure the parents that their child would merely carry the illness, rather than suffer from it.

The technique currently costs £125,000 per baby but the price is expected to drop dramatically over time.

Dr Lo, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said: 'The power of this technology is that by using one test you can see the entire foetal genome.'

But he cautioned that parents might not want to know all the information available and said the test should only be given in conjunction with professional counselling.

He said: 'I think the eventual utility of this technique will be to target a number of common genetic disorders that are prevalent in a particular population.'

However Dr Helen Wallace of GeneWatch UK said: 'Clearly there are benefits in terms of specific tests that can be done in a safer way.

'But the danger is that the test will be used to predict the risk of a range of diseases and even personality and many of these predictions will be misleading.'

Dr Christine Patch, chairman of the British Society for Human Genetics, said: 'While this is a potentially interesting approach that may have benefit for some families with serious genetic disorders, there are many concerns.

'It is too early to apply the technology widely as we are not yet able to interpret many of the results accurately.'

Dr David King, of Human Genetics Alert, said: 'The danger of this new method is that it will encourage parental choosiness about minor imperfections, or even cosmetic features.'

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1337025/Mothers-blood-test-used-predict-disorders-unborn-baby.html#ixzz17aCgTVwV

Childless couples win right to pay a surrogate mother to bear their child

A couple who illegally paid a surrogate to have their baby will keep the child after a landmark court ruling.

In a case which may open the floodgates to foreign surrogacies, the Britons paid an American an unspecified sum to carry their child.

It is forbidden in England and Wales to pay more than 'reasonable expenses' to a surrogate mother – even if she is abroad – because it would encourage a profit motive.

But a High Court family judge yesterday backed the couple, while making clear that the sum they paid was far in excess of what is allowed.

Their surrogate lives in the state of Illinois where no restrictions on payments apply and British authorities allowed the baby toenter the UK temporarily on an American passport pending court proceedings.

Mr Justice Hedley saved the youngster from limbo when he 'retrospectively authorised' the payments made to the surrogate mother and recognised the couple as the lawful parents.

In making the decision, the judge said the child's welfare was of paramount concern.

Issuing a parental order, he described the couple as 'most careful and conscientious' and said they had fully met all the other criteria for surrogacy.
'It is clear to me that payments in excess of reasonable expenses were made in this case,' he added.
'Welfare is not merely the court's first consideration, but becomes its paramount consideration.

The effect of that must be to weight the balance between public policy considerations and welfare decisively in favour of welfare.'

He added that the court would rule against surrogate parents only in the clearest case of the abuse of public policy.

He described the concept of reasonable expenses as 'somewhat opaque' but said the surrogacy process must continue to be policed by the courts.

The first case of surrogacy in the UK was in 1985 and while there have been more than 700 cases since, the practice is still controversial.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act states that parents must be over 18, and either married, civil partners or living together in an enduring family relationship.

At least one must be a biological parent of the child and at least one must have permanent roots in the UK.

They must offer the child a home and the court must be convinced the surrogate mother acted of her own free will, fully understanding what was involved.

It is the second time Mr Justice Hedley has allowed parents to flout the law on surrogacy payments.

In 2008, a couple using eggs from an anonymous donor were allowed to keep their twins, borne by a Ukrainian surrogate they had paid £23,000.

At the time, the judge expressed deep sympathy for the couple's anxiety and said: 'The court shares their hope that their experiences may alert others to the difficulties inherent in this journey.'
UK law recognises the surrogate mother as the legal parent of a baby unless a parental order is made, although she has no genetic link to the children.

Gamble and Ghevaert LLP, a law firm based in Poole, Dorset, which specialises in surrogacy law, warns: 'While foreign surrogacy arrangements can seem attractive, great care needs to be taken over the legal issues.

'English law will not automatically recognise your status as the parents even if you are named on a foreign birth certificate and this can lead to difficulties over immigration and citizenship.'

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337005/Childless-couples-win-right-pay-surrogate-mother.html#ixzz17aBuPLUf

'We've lost our children': Lesbian couple at centre of controversial court case describe their devastation at facing Christmas alone

As the judge began to make his ruling, two women clutched each other’s hands tightly.

It was not a standard scene in the family court. The women, a lesbian couple who
have been together for 19 years, were there to hear whether the father of their two children, conceived by artificial insemination, would be awarded custody for the
first time after a bitter legal battle.

The couple claimed in court that the man, himself in a long-term gay relationship, reneged on a promise to have limited involvement in the upbringing of the children.

They say he became controlling and domineering and bribed the children to
visit him with the promise of expensive gifts and pets.

In contrast, the man wept in court as he told the judge that he simply wanted to see his children more often.

He claims that he made clear his intention to be part of their day-to-day care from the outset.

Ultimately, the judge found in his favour and ruled that he should have custody of the children for 152 days a year.

This week, the Appeal Court upheld that decision and urged both parties to put aside their differences for the sake of their young children.

None of those involved can be identified for legal reasons, to protect the children, now aged ten and seven.
It was a highly unusual case that began a decade earlier when Sarah and Jenny answered an advert in Gay Times in which the man, Robert, a wealthy businessman, explained that he wanted to be a father but required minimal involvement in the child’s upbringing.

Thus, the two parties came together in a thoroughly modern and controversial
way to do what neither could alone, outside the regulatory framework
of a fertility clinic.

Now, Sarah and Jenny have broken their public silence to tell The Mail on Sunday about their devastation at the court’s decision.

The couple claim Robert became increasingly demanding while Sarah was pregnant with their son, which raised alarm bells. What has happened since proves that they were right to be concerned.

However, what cannot be explained is that, despite their worries, they agreed to have a second child with Robert. Indeed, they accept they have been astonishingly naive.

Sarah said: ‘I was holding Jenny’s hand when the ruling was passed and whispered to her, “We’ve lost the children”.

'Listening to that ruling was the worst thing I’ve ever had to do. There are no words to
describe that, and that fear is something every parent must be able to
relate to, regardless of how your family is made up.

‘I understand some people will see us as weirdos because we’re a same-sex couple with children, but that’s so far from the people we are. We’re a quiet and loving couple.

‘We love our children and knew we could provide a solid, caring environment for them.

‘I don’t regret what we did. I have to say that because I don’t regret the children, although we do regret the way we went about having them.

‘We would certainly advise others not to go down the same route and I’m sure an anonymous sperm donor would have been more sensible. We were horribly naive and did so many things just to keep the peace.’

Sarah, who works for a property letting business, and Jenny, a former bank worker, live with their children in an immaculate three-bedroom home in a seaside town.

Every spare wall and surface in their living room is filled with photographs of their
smiling children, including one taken at the couple’s civil partnership ceremony in March this year.

Sarah is the children’s biological mother. Jenny has never wanted to give birth.

The couple met through a mutual friend in 1991 when they were in their early 20s and have been together ever since.

While Jenny had experienced relationships with women before, Sarah found it more difficult to accept her sexuality.

‘I had always assumed I would meet a bloke, get married and have children – always,’ she said.

‘I thought this might be a phase I was going through and that I’d end up back on what I saw as my natural path. Jenny had a few friends who were gay but I didn’t know anyone.

‘But there was something incredibly strong keeping us together.’

Both eventually told their families, who, despite their initial shock, were supportive. In time, their thoughts turned to children.

They accept that their decision to introduce children into a same-sex partnership is controversial.

Sarah said: ‘Society’s view of us as a lesbian couple wanting children did worry us, of course.

‘What helped us is we had two close gay friends who had children. That opened my eyes and made us realise it was possible.’

Jenny added: ‘We did think about and discuss the prejudices the children could face at school. But it’s becoming more rare. You do worry about it but we have a good network of friends and family. It’s no big deal.’

‘His exact words were that he wanted to be a “rich uncle-type figure” and have contact once a month for a couple of hours. He also said he would like photos and updates. We thought we could live with that.'They also agreed that the children should have access to a father, should they want him. Neither could imagine using an anonymous sperm donor.

Jenny said: ‘I’ve got friends who are adopted and we wanted our children to have the opportunity – if they wanted it – to meet their father. We didn’t feel it was our place to make that decision for our children because our families are so important to us.

‘We had male friends we could have gone to, and one did offer. But that would have meant a third person was part of the package.

‘This was about me and Sarah bringing up our children.’


Read more on this story, follow the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335760/Lesbian-court-case-couple-face-Christmas-Weve-lost-children.html#ixzz17NYsYxGp

Broody again at 72: She became the world's oldest mother at 66. Now her little girl's five - and she wants ANOTHER

Charming though they look together, walking hand in hand to school, Adriana Iliescu — at 72 — looks more like her five-year-old daughter Eliza’s slightly doddery great grandparent than her mother.

Heavily lined and with dyed black hair, even she — who in January 2005 became the world’s then oldest mother — admits she looks every one of her years, if not more.
‘I try not to look in the mirror, because I don’t enjoy it,’ says Adriana, a writer and part-time ­university lecturer in Romanian literature, who lives with Eliza in a two-bedroom flat in the ­Romanian capital, Bucharest.

‘The mirror is unkind to women, but if we are talking about my energy then I feel like a young woman. I feel like I’m 27 and when I feel a bit more tired, I feel like I’m 37. I am healthier than women more than half my age.

‘People think they are being funny when they call me granny, but I didn’t have Eliza to make me look younger. I never feel my years.’

Could this be why, in what must surely be a ­triumph of attitude over age, Adriana is now ­defying all her critics by talking about the ­possibility of having another child?
‘Medically, it’s possible,’ she says. ‘I ­understand there are trials going on with a 70-year-old woman in England, so it could be done. I am fine and healthy and I think it would be possible to have another child in the future, but I’m not in a rush at the moment.’

Not in a rush? She’s 72! How much time does she think she has?

But her caution, she insists, has nothing to do with age, exhaustion at caring for a young child or the fear of dying. It is the love she feels for Eliza and their strong bond, that makes ­Adriana ­reluctant to test it with the ­rigours of another baby.

‘I am so close to Eliza, so bonded with her, I’m not sure I’d be able to ­consider having another child if it actually came to it,’ she says.

‘Eliza is energetic and fun — a very happy child. She is everything to me and nothing else counts or matters. The child is mine and that’s all I care about, but medically it is not ­impossible for me to have another child.

‘I don’t smoke and I don’t drink. If I live as long as my parents did, Eliza will be 20 by the time I pass away. I think I still have a lot to give her.’

When I first met Adriana, two years ago, she cut a rather lonely and ­eccentric — if immaculately dressed — figure, mingling with other much younger mothers as she watched Eliza, then aged three, playing on the swings near their ninth-floor flat in a drab, high-rise concrete apartment block.

Back then, she admitted that ­sometimes she was so busy with Eliza it was ‘hard to have the time to even wash my hair’, before adding defiantly: ‘Motherhood is so much more than I hoped for. It is relaxing looking after a child. It’s everything else that’s tiring.’

Eliza is now in school and Adriana believes the challenges of the past few years will continue to ease a little.

She admits it took some adjusting to having a child for the first time at her age and that she was nervous when Eliza started pre-school, aged three.

I was really tense as I wanted her to do well. I’ve invested a lot of energy into the past two years,’ she says. ‘But, Eliza makes friends and plays with them, which gives me a break.’
The result of Adriana’s complete focus on her daughter is that Eliza can already read and write and is academically advanced for her years.
She has friends and is happy, which is all that matters to Adriana, who gives not two hoots for the opinions of others.

A deeply private woman, she doesn’t like to engage in school gate tittle-­tattle and deflects questions from other mothers, curious as to how she copes or what might happen to her daughter if she dies.

Conceived via IVF, courtesy of donated sperm and eggs implanted by a Romanian fertility expert seemingly keen to make medical history, Eliza’s birth continues to divide opinion.

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1329255/Worlds-oldest-mother-Adriana-Iliescu-broody-72.html#ixzz164V3GeGg

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1329255/Worlds-oldest-mother-Adriana-Iliescu-broody-72.html#ixzz164UbEFxl

NHS Surrey to stop providing IVF

NHS Surrey is the latest Primary Care Trusts to stop providing IVF for new patients. Facing a £125 million budget deficit this year, the trust has decided to suspend all new courses of the treatment, although women nearing 40 will be considered and ongoing treatments will be continued. Previously it funded up to two full cycles of IVF per couple, if the woman was aged between 23 and 39.

'By stopping doing things which aren't clinically necessary, we can safeguard and continue to do what's clinically essential or urgent, such as cancer referrals and life-threatening trauma cases in A&E', said Dr John Omany, the trust's medical director. Other treatments to be discontinued include acupuncture, spinal epidural injections for chronic back pain and some cosmetic procedures - such as those for male baldness, facial blushing and removing tattoos.

The decision was taken after the trust's board met to discuss 'serious financial challenges'. Treatments were categorised under a 'Fast, Steady, Stop' programme - those under 'Fast' are to be provided immediately, with those under 'Steady' to be available in turn and on time. 'Stop' treatments will not be provided at all. 'If you don't need it the NHS won't pay for it', said the board. The IVF policy is set to be reviewed next November.

The cuts come after several other trusts stopped offering new cycles of IVF. A recent survey conducted by Pulse magazine revealed nine out of the 124 trusts who participated in the survey had not funded treatment since September 2008, despite the government pledging to end the 'postcode lottery' when launching the 2004 NICE guidelines. Since then NHS West Kent has also suspended all non-urgent IVF until April 2011. The guidelines recommend the NHS should provide up to three full cycles of IVF for eligible patients.

For more on this story follow the link: http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_82507.asp

American soldier uses internet to see birth of his baby girl

A Watertown soldier, who is stationed overseas, didn’t let distance get in the way of seeing his baby girl's birth, thanks to the Internet.

“The laptop was right by my side for most of it,” said Vera Kurek, the mother.

Vera’s husband Peter, who is stationed in Kuwait, was not missing the birth of his 7pound baby girl, Rose Marie.

With 7,000 miles separating Vera and Peter, both the military and the Mount Auburn Hospital were able to hook the couple up live - they had audio and video, and were ready to deliver a baby.

“I did my normal joking around. I told her if she wanted I could get a bag of popcorn and just sit here and watch the show,” said Peter Kurek, the father.

Even though Peter was just sitting in his bunk, that is not at all what this First Lieutenant did.

“He was coaching me through everything and helping me breath,” said Vera Kurek.

“I breathed loud into my microphone so she could hear the rhythm of my breathing,” said Peter Kurek.

This went on for some time, but then the moment came for Vera to deliver.

“Towards the end my laptop got pushed back so he could see Rose Marie being born,” said Vera Kurek.

“I told her how great she was doing, and how brave and strong she was, how much I loved her and how much I was going to love this baby. I think it was just three pushes and Rose was in the world,” said Peter Kurek.

Communicating over the internet is the way things will remain for the couple. Peter said there is no set date for his next leave, but he said it should be before his little girl is walking.

For more on this story follow the link: http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12002816264488/soldier-uses-internet-to-see-birth-of-his-baby-girl/