This piece was in yesterday’s NYT. I’m in no position to comment on the science so, for the moment, I’m going to assume it is sound, though I do know there is plenty of bad science out there. The essay (it was on the op-ed page, so I think of it as an essay rather than as news) is about diet in the very early stages of a child’s life and how it has lifelong effects–at least according to the study the essay is considering.
But the studies aren’t only about the effects of diet after the child is born. Here’s the part that leads me to write here:
Mothers who were fed foods like Froot Loops, Cheetos and Nutella during pregnancy had offspring that showed increased expression of the gene for an opioid receptor, which resulted in a desensitization to sweet and fatty foods. “The best way to think about how having a desensitized reward pathway would affect you is to use the analogy of somebody who is addicted to drugs,” Jessica R. Gugusheff, a Ph.D. candidate at FoodPlus and the lead author of the study, wrote in an email. “When someone is addicted to drugs they become less sensitive to the effects of that drug, so they have to increase the dose to get the same high,” she wrote. “In a similar way, by having a desensitized reward pathway, offspring exposed to junk food before birth have to eat more junk food to get the same good feelings.”
(One thing I think I should clarify first: that passive voice thing at the very beginning– “mothers who were fed….’– I think read carefully in context it is actually about rats in a lab study. Continue reading
I wanted to add a couple more notes about the Florida opinion I wrote about a couple of days ago. And while I’m doing that, there’s a Nevada opinion from just a little while back (October 3) that I wanted to tie in here. It’s virtually a mirror image of the FL case.
First, two more points about the FL case–what I think of as the good and the bad, really. And these are taking a step away to get a little bit of a longer view.
The good: From what I can tell (and I do not have any access to the facts) the court decided this case in a way that I think reflects the reality of the family life that gave rise to it. There are many indications that both women functioned as parents to this child during the first two years of the child’s life. Continue reading
Someone (ki sarita, in fact) raised an excellent question in an early comment on the last post: Why would you call Monica Schissel a surrogate when she is a pregnant woman and she is genetically related to the fetus she carries? There is some discussion of this in the last post, but I’ve been thinking about it more generally. This leads me to some observations that might be useful or, failing that, at least interesting.
It seems to me you can think about pregnant women as falling into one of four categories. Here they are:
A: Intending to be parent and genetically related to embryo
B Intending to be parent and NOT genetically related to embryo
C NOT intending to parent and genetically related to embryo
D. NOT intending to parent and NOT genetically related to embryo. Continue reading
I cannot tell you why it is so difficult to make time for the blog this fall, but it must be obvious to you all that it is. I figure the best I can do is press on, trying as I can. So here I am with what is, I am afraid, both a late and a disconnected post.
Over the summer the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an important opinion on surrogacy. The case began when David and Marcia Rosecky, a married couple, made an agreement with Monica and Cory Schissel, also a married couple, that Monica would serve as a surrogate for David and Marcia.
Marcia and Monica had been good friends for many years. When Marcia required treatment for leukemia (treatment which was fortunately successful), Monica offered to be a surrogate. She offered twice–in 2004 and 2008. Continue reading
[My thanks to Karen Clark who provided a link to the actual study. (But alas, a 2011 version of the study. Still interesting, though.) Of course, it is an academic paper and as such is difficult for me to work through, so for the moment, all I have to add here is this link. The remainder of the post is as before.]
There are many things we disagree about here but I think there is one thing about which there may actually be consensus: We all agree that the well-being of children is of central importance in our discussions. (Of course, as soon as we turn to discuss what exactly “the well-being of children means” our consensus probably shatters.)
Anyway, with that broad consensus in mind, a recent paper written by Susan Golombok and others should be of interest to all of us. The paper was published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. I have not linked to the actual paper, but instead to press coverage of it because I haven’t found a way to read the actual paper yet from my current location and so this is the best I have.
Anyway, Golombok and her team did a comparative study of children conceived via third-party gametes, children born to a surrogate and children who were the product of natural conception. Continue reading
I’ve been thinking a bit more about the recent Tennessee case that was the subject of my last post. I discussed the facts in the earlier post but will run through some of them again quickly here. The Tennessee events giving rise to the case, informatively entitled “In Re Baby,” began when Jennifer E. agreed to serve as a surrogate to Luca G. and Antonella T. Pursuant to the agreement, Jennifer was artificially inseminated using Luca’s sperm.
Shortly before the resulting child was born Jennifer, Luca, Antonella and Jennifer’s husband, Joshua, jointly petitioned the court to establish parentage. The hope was to ensure some sort of legal clarity before the birth of the child. The court declared that Luca was the child’s legal father and also determined that any rights Jennifer might have theoretically had were forever terminated.
After the child was born Jennifer, who had apparently changed her mind, sought to prevent Luca and Antonella from taking the child with them. Continue reading
There’s been a lot of discussion of surrogacy in the comments here recently and I’ve been meaning to pull the topic back into a main post (because I think this makes it more accessible to readers.) And now I have a vehicle–albeit an imperfect one–to do this: A recent opinion by the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The case is called In re Baby, which is among the more curious captions I’ve seen (Does it sound like a pop song?), but it bears some thought.
Luca G and Antonella T (an Italian couple, unmarried at the beginning of this saga) entered into a surrogacy agreement with a woman in Tennessee, Jennifer E, and her husband, Joshua M. Pursuant to the agreement, Jennifer became pregnant via artificial insemination with Luca’s sperm. Since this means that Jennifer was genetically related to the child it makes her a ”traditional” rather than a “gestational” surrogate. In November 2011, before the baby was born, the four people involved here filed a joint petition to establish parentage of the child. The idea here was to have legal parentage all sorted out before the child was born. In response to the petition the court issued an order in December 2011–still before the birth of the child. Continue reading
Continuing with what seems like little run of personal stories, I wanted to talk about this recent photo essay. You can find the photos here, too, though the text is different. And, as is noted, the surrogate involved has her own blog. Anyway, I think this fits nicely with a not-too-long ago post about another personal surrogacy story.
Kristen Broome is the mother of a two-year-old. Her husband is in the military and was in Afghanistan during the time this takes place. She learned that her second cousin, Jamie Pursley, had had a miscarriage and could no longer carry a pregnancy to term. Kristen offered to be a surrogate for Jamie and Jamie’s husband, Jacob. Continue reading
My classes ended today and I’m hoping to turn over a new leaf. That would mean (among other things) getting more posts up and keeping up with comments. There’s so much piled up on my desk, though, it’s hard to know where to start. On the theory that it is more important to just start, though, I choose this article, which someone sent to me last week.
This was published in The Guardian. It is just what the title suggests–a diary (brief) of a woman who served as a surrogate. She was what I would call an altruistic surrogate. What I mean by that is that money played no part in her decision. She offered herself as a surrogate because her brother and sister-in-law were desperate to have a child and had spent a great deal of time, toil and treasure trying to do so. Continue reading
There’s a surrogacy story I’ve been meaning to get to. Here’s one version. It’s long and detailed, but worth taking the time to read. It’s a painful story of a surrogacy arrangement that went very far off the tracks.
Crystal Kelley agreed to be a surrogate. It looks to me like she worked with an agency called Surrogacy International–more about the agency in a moment. The agency paired her with a couple that already had three kids but also had a couple of frozen embryos leftover.
Kelley became pregnant with one of the frozen embryos but the fetus did not develop normally. Continue reading