I am moderating comments. I’m not trying to censor viewpoints but trying to keep things both civil and tidy. I’ve come to think this makes for a better reader experience.
If you want your comments posted, try to be short, on point, and respectful. If you think I am being unfair, write to me. But first be a little patient. It may take a few days for me to get to comments.
One of my favorite blogs is Olivia’s View. There’s a new post there today that has set me thinking. It’s very brief but it adds in to other things.
What’s noted there is that women over the age of 44 are very likely to have trouble achieving a full term pregnancy with their own 44-year-old eggs. I suppose this isn’t news in a general way, but the detailed findings lend stronger support to something we probably knew anyway.
So what will this mean? Long term it seems to me this is good news for the burgeoning business of egg preservation. Young women (say in their early 20s) will be all the more eager to freeze their eggs. The more clear it becomes that you will lose fertility as you age, the more appealing preserving your youthful fertility will be.
But this is only useful Continue reading
For the second time in two days I’ll do a quick post pointing to something in the New York Times. Today it’s this feature, about the dilemma posed by the large (and increasing) number of frozen embryos. In part this seems to have been inspired by the recent Illinois case I blogged about recently, but it really covers a lot of ground. I think I’ll just touch on a few of the notable points here.
First off, you can see why there is a frozen embryo problem. It is simply routine to create more embryos than are needed. Before eggs could readily be frozen it also made obvious sense. If you didn’t fertilize all the eggs you had, you lost them. Once they were fertilized they could be frozen.
Even with egg freezing it probably makes sense. Continue reading
This is hardly a blog post. More like a pointer: Look over there. Today’s New York Times has an extensive article about same-sex couples, marriage and parentage. It showed up in the business section and the title pretty much says it all: “Same-sex Parents’ Rights May Be Unresolved After Justices’ Ruling.” It’s pretty much discussion you will have read here, but it is all rather nicely laid out. Something to add to your “to read” list if you’re interested in the topic.
It’s not me having second thoughts–sorry if that heading mislead you. A couple of different things have gotten me thinking about gamete providers and second thoughts.
First there is this decision–a significant one, I think–from Illinois. It’s been in the newspapers, but you can read the actual opinion as well. It’s long and deserving of some real consideration. (I’ve also written about it before at an earlier stage of the proceedings.) For my purposes here, though, I’m not going to dwell on the opinion. (I’ll do that another day, soon I hope.) A bare-bones version of the facts will do.
Karla Dunston and Jacob Szafranski were dating. Karla was facing chemotherapy that would very likely destroy her ability to produce eggs. I think this was before the days of reliable egg freezing, but whether this is true or not, Karla thought to preserve her genetic material by having the eggs fertilized and then freezing the pre-embryos. To do this, she needed sperm. She asked Jacob if he would provide the sperm. He agreed to do so. Continue reading
The last post here was about the problem of accidental incest. (Do note the word “accidental” because it is critical–I’m not talking about deliberate, knowing incest.) There are some interesting comments so I thought I’d do another post on the subject, partly to sort out threads and perhaps also to move a bit further along the line here.
I’ll start with a recap of what I meant to be my main point from the last post: Why is the specter of accidental incest troubling? I suppose this is a variation, albeit a significant one, on the question “what’s wrong with incest?” (Understanding why accidental incest is troubling is important to me as I consider what to do about it.)
There are (at least) two non-exclusive answers. Continue reading
In the course of the public debates about use of third-party gametes (particularly what are commonly called “sperm donors”) those opposed often raise the specter of “accidental incest.” (One of the more well-known instances is here, and it’s particularly notable for three reasons: It got a ton of press, it really has nothing to do with use of third-party gametes as it’s about adopted-out siblings, and it is quite possible that it never happened.)
In any event, the idea is that if people do not know they are genetically related then siblings (like the possibly mythical twins who were adopted out into different families) might unwittingly meet, fall in love and have children. I’ve read, in fact, that the affinity arising from the genetic similarity might even make it more likely that siblings would feel attracted to each other, though I have no idea if this is the case.
I don’t mean to dismiss this risk out of hand. It’s obviously possible. The twins story may not be true, but it could be true. And the problem is clearly exacerbated when you have men providing sperm to create scores of offspring. Indeed, concerns about unintentional incest are most often raised precisely in this context. And for what it is worth, I am fine with limiting the number of children who can be conceived with any particular providers sperm (or eggs, but that’s less an issue.)
Now what brings this all up right now is this report from the Hay Festival. Professor Susan Golombok appeared there. She’s a woman whose work I really admire. And, according to press reports, she expressed some concern about the risks of accidental incest. Continue reading
A couple of posts back I wrote about marriage and parenthood and how they are linked together in Oregon. Bottom line (for present purposes) is this: When a married couple in OR uses ART, the spouse of the woman who gives birth is a legal parent, whether that spouse is male or female. The statute itself only speaks of “husband” a few years back the OR Supreme Court reasoned that you couldn’t treat couples using ART differently because of their sex. There’s no good reason for doing so.
Now comes a new case from NY reaching a different result. A married lesbian claiming parental status by virtue of her marriage to the woman who gave birth is told “no,” although I believe a man in her position would have been told yes. Continue reading