Infertility
- Celebrating Thirty Years of IVF
- How To Avoid Polysorbate 80
- The World's First Pregnant Man
- Asherman's Syndrome
- Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening
- Sperm From Dead Fathers
- IVF Mistakes
- Glycol And Infertility
- Single Women And IVF
- Your Biological Clock
Celebrating Thirty Years of IVF
Posted by
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
As Louise Brown nears her 30th birthday, the world celebrates thirty years of assisted conception.
Louise Brown, the world's first test tube baby turns 30 on the 25th July and is now a mother to her own son, Cameron, 19 months, as well as aunt to Casey, 9 years.
Society was incredulous when Lesley Brown became pregnant by a technique where her egg and her husband's sperm were fertilized outside of her body. Some called it a miracle. The Catholic church denounced it as wrong and against God's will.
It might interest you to know that the very first IVF was actually conducted on rabbits in the 1890's by Dr. Walter Heape. He successfully transferred rabbit embryo's between two different rabbits, but scientists did not begin to attempt it with people until 1959.
Gynaecologist Patrick Steptoe and Professor Robert Edwards began to work together in 1971 to develop their ideas on assisted conception.
Several attempts were made with various infertile women, but all of these failed or ended in early miscarriage.
They then shortened the time the embryo was in 'test tube', which resulted in Lesley Brown's successful pregnancy.
The USA followed close behind when four years later, America's first test tube baby was born in December 1981, another girl, named Elizabeth Carr. Elizabeth is now 26 and a journalist.
Now, every year in the UK - IVF's pioneering country - 2,000 babies are born as a result of the technique.
Society was incredulous when Lesley Brown became pregnant by a technique where her egg and her husband's sperm were fertilized outside of her body. Some called it a miracle. The Catholic church denounced it as wrong and against God's will.
It might interest you to know that the very first IVF was actually conducted on rabbits in the 1890's by Dr. Walter Heape. He successfully transferred rabbit embryo's between two different rabbits, but scientists did not begin to attempt it with people until 1959.
Gynaecologist Patrick Steptoe and Professor Robert Edwards began to work together in 1971 to develop their ideas on assisted conception.
Several attempts were made with various infertile women, but all of these failed or ended in early miscarriage.
They then shortened the time the embryo was in 'test tube', which resulted in Lesley Brown's successful pregnancy.
The USA followed close behind when four years later, America's first test tube baby was born in December 1981, another girl, named Elizabeth Carr. Elizabeth is now 26 and a journalist.
Now, every year in the UK - IVF's pioneering country - 2,000 babies are born as a result of the technique.
Posted by
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Tips on how to detect and eliminate fertility eroding chemicals from your life.
There are so many chemicals out there, it's a wonder any of us are fertile. The problem that compounds this is that most of us don't even know what is in the products we use or how that could impact on our health. The first step in taking charge of our health, is knowing what's bad for us. Polysorbate 80 damages fertility and is used in lots of products, such as:
- Moisturizing creams - check all of yours and throw out any containing it. Opt for eco-friendly products which usually don't contain as much rubbish.
- Shampoo and bubble bath - again, throw out any with this ingredient. Do the same if it has formaldehyde in it which is a carcinogen.
- Ice cream - not all ice creams use polysorbate 80 as a stabilizer, so try to find a brand without any, or cut out ice cream. It isn't good for you anyway!
- Check all your milk products, some products, particularly in the USA, contain polysorbate 80.
- Buy your vitamins from a health food store, not a supermarket. These do not normally contain artificial stabilizers.
- If you are considering getting a vaccine, please bear in mind that none of them have been evulated for their effect on fertility. Ask for the data sheet which comes with the vaccine before you make a choice.
- If you want a vaccine, ask if it is possible to order one without polysorbate 80 in it.
- Don't have a shot less than 3 months before you intend to get pregnant and don't get a shot during pregnancy. Many studies link them to birth defects and miscarriage.
The World's First Pregnant Man
Posted by
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
On June 29 2008 a legal male gave birth to a healthy baby girl, naturally, in an Oregon hospital.
I've got to admit, when I first heard about the world's first pregnant man, I was excited. Had a biological switch of nature happened? Did some bizzare IVF experiment actually work out? I remembered myself in labor with my son, cursing at my partner that I'd had five children and he never, never took his turn at labor pains. If he so wanted to be a hands on father, why didn't he do the childbirth?
Looking back on it, I laughed, but now, if a man had actually gone and done it, maybe husband's the world over would have to bear their fair share of contractions!
So I was momentarily disappointed when I discovered that Thomas Beatie did used to be a woman and still had all the girl tackle to prove it. No extraordinary biological feat, there.
Then I was relieved. Thank God a biological man wasn't pregnant. That is the domain of women. One thing I loved about having my children was the way I looked when pregnant. I got an instant breast enlargement without having any surgery, which lasted for the entire 3 years I was breast feeding, the growing bump was curvy and feminine and giving birth, although physically unpleasant, was a miracle. To bring a life into the world made me feel like a Goddess and I have never been able to match the euphoria with anything else. I felt slightly jealous that a man could experience that.
Then I wondered about the baby. What will she think, growing up with a dad that gave birth to her? Wouldn't that mess up a child's head? Or am I just being closed minded?
I don't know whether it's right or wrong or if it simply just is. I do know this brave new world takes some time to get used to.
Looking back on it, I laughed, but now, if a man had actually gone and done it, maybe husband's the world over would have to bear their fair share of contractions!
So I was momentarily disappointed when I discovered that Thomas Beatie did used to be a woman and still had all the girl tackle to prove it. No extraordinary biological feat, there.
Then I was relieved. Thank God a biological man wasn't pregnant. That is the domain of women. One thing I loved about having my children was the way I looked when pregnant. I got an instant breast enlargement without having any surgery, which lasted for the entire 3 years I was breast feeding, the growing bump was curvy and feminine and giving birth, although physically unpleasant, was a miracle. To bring a life into the world made me feel like a Goddess and I have never been able to match the euphoria with anything else. I felt slightly jealous that a man could experience that.
Then I wondered about the baby. What will she think, growing up with a dad that gave birth to her? Wouldn't that mess up a child's head? Or am I just being closed minded?
I don't know whether it's right or wrong or if it simply just is. I do know this brave new world takes some time to get used to.
Posted by
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
As unassisted miscarriage increasingly becomes a thing of the past, women are at greater risk of rare complications. Why don't doctors tell the risks of D+C?
When I had my second miscarriage in 2001 at eight weeks of pregnancy, I felt tremendous guilt. The pregnancy was unplanned. My youngest daughter was only 16 months old and I didn't want another one. I felt extremely negative about everything, and then, unthinkably, I lost my baby. I thought I'd caused it myself, that somehow the baby knew and chose to leave me. So imagine my horror when, after confirming the miscarriage at hospital, the doctor told me there were 'retained products of conception' and I had to have a D+C to remove them. I was stunned. First I'd lost my baby, then I find out I have to have an operation.
I would have consented to anything, I was so surprised, but my husband brought clarity to the situation and asked why that should be done. We were told to prevent infection.
'Isn't surgery a risk of infection?' he asked.
'Yes' said the eager junior doctor, 'but we'd give antibiotics and heparin for that.'
Rat poison? They wanted to do surgery, give me antibiotics and something that kills rats? For an 8 week miscarriage?
As I was still bleeding, I decided to pass them up on their kindly offer of drugs, and threw my prescription for antibiotics in the bin on the way home.
A week later, my miscarriage completed and I lit a candle to say goodbye to my baby, relieved I didn't have surgery.
Years later I discovered it can perforate the womb (which can be fatal), cause permanent scarring and even ruin your fertility. These are risks that no one told me when I was being asked to consent to surgery, and I think it's something every woman should know.
I would have consented to anything, I was so surprised, but my husband brought clarity to the situation and asked why that should be done. We were told to prevent infection.
'Isn't surgery a risk of infection?' he asked.
'Yes' said the eager junior doctor, 'but we'd give antibiotics and heparin for that.'
Rat poison? They wanted to do surgery, give me antibiotics and something that kills rats? For an 8 week miscarriage?
As I was still bleeding, I decided to pass them up on their kindly offer of drugs, and threw my prescription for antibiotics in the bin on the way home.
A week later, my miscarriage completed and I lit a candle to say goodbye to my baby, relieved I didn't have surgery.
Years later I discovered it can perforate the womb (which can be fatal), cause permanent scarring and even ruin your fertility. These are risks that no one told me when I was being asked to consent to surgery, and I think it's something every woman should know.
Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening
Posted by
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Pre-implantation Genetic Screening has been hailed as the answer for many families with genetic conditions, but it has caused a storm of controversy among rights groups
The idea of being able to prevent a baby from having a disability seems an honourable one. After all, no parent wants their child to suffer. I am a parent of a child with a genetically inherited condition and there was no embryo screening when I was having my family. I discovered the technique when I was pregnant with my naturally conceived son, and it was a bittersweet moment, knowing that the child I was carrying may be affected but had I realised my treatment options earlier, I may well have been able to guarantee that he was healthy.
However, disability rights groups think differently and some are actually dubbing the procedure as discrimination against the disabled.
Comment on Reproductive Ethics said
'It sends a particularly bad message to children with cystic fibrosis - that society would prefer that they had not been born.'
As a disabled person myself, I find this argument rather weak. I love my daughter and am glad she is here, but if there was a treatment or a way I could have prevented her from inheriting the condition I would have done. I'm sure my mother felt the same way about me. People fix babies with cleft palates and other problems to make them look physically normal. How is that different to selecting a healthy embryo?
Yes, disabled people have the same rights to life and happiness as everyone else, but we should still try to have healthy babies if possible. It's survival of the fittest. Mother animals will leave cubs to die if there is something wrong with them, and I know if I was an animal I'd have been eaten by a lion by now. That is nature.
I think political correctness has gone mad.
However, disability rights groups think differently and some are actually dubbing the procedure as discrimination against the disabled.
Comment on Reproductive Ethics said
'It sends a particularly bad message to children with cystic fibrosis - that society would prefer that they had not been born.'
As a disabled person myself, I find this argument rather weak. I love my daughter and am glad she is here, but if there was a treatment or a way I could have prevented her from inheriting the condition I would have done. I'm sure my mother felt the same way about me. People fix babies with cleft palates and other problems to make them look physically normal. How is that different to selecting a healthy embryo?
Yes, disabled people have the same rights to life and happiness as everyone else, but we should still try to have healthy babies if possible. It's survival of the fittest. Mother animals will leave cubs to die if there is something wrong with them, and I know if I was an animal I'd have been eaten by a lion by now. That is nature.
I think political correctness has gone mad.
Posted by
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Following the Diane Blood case, another woman has come forward wanting to have the baby of her dead husband. But is it right to have a child when the father has gone?
I know that losing a spouse is one of the most painful things that can happen to a person, especially if you're young and had the rest of your lives ahead of you and all your dreams and plans for things you wanted to do together. Sometimes love only comes once. There is no guarantee in this age of throw away marriages that you ever would find another. So if a woman has lost her husband to an early death, it's natural to want his baby, to want a part of him which is still physically alive and to be able to fulfil the ambition for a family despite death. It would be comforting not only to the widow but to his parents, who would see the grandchildren they never would have had otherwise.
But if the law was changed, what would this new generation of babies make of it? Would they not be disgusted to realise that they are the product of a dead man? While other kids get to kick a ball around with their dad, these children would only get to visit a cemetary. Is that fair, that they would never be able to have a relationship with him?
On the other hand, plenty of single mothers choose IVF in order to have a baby and those children are in a similar position which people do not give much thought to. Lesbians have babies and there is also no father and one in three marriages end in divorce, usually with the father leaving his children. So the phenomenon of no dad certainly isn't a new one.
I do think that children should be told as soon as possible how they came to be because a recent study showed long term anger problems in young adults who weren't told earlier.
But if the law was changed, what would this new generation of babies make of it? Would they not be disgusted to realise that they are the product of a dead man? While other kids get to kick a ball around with their dad, these children would only get to visit a cemetary. Is that fair, that they would never be able to have a relationship with him?
On the other hand, plenty of single mothers choose IVF in order to have a baby and those children are in a similar position which people do not give much thought to. Lesbians have babies and there is also no father and one in three marriages end in divorce, usually with the father leaving his children. So the phenomenon of no dad certainly isn't a new one.
I do think that children should be told as soon as possible how they came to be because a recent study showed long term anger problems in young adults who weren't told earlier.
Posted by
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
The debate surrounding IVF blunders.
When the mixed race twins were born as a result of an IVF mix up in the UK, the British Medical Association called it an 'appalling tragedy'.
It would have been distressing for the parents to realise that the children were only in part related to them, and for the biological father to realise that a total stranger had carried his child, but we're talking about the birth of children, here.
How do you think those children will feel in a few years time when they are grown and realise they were called an 'apalling tragedy'?
It is tragic when a baby is born into a divorcing family, or he is born not wanted and put up for adoption, but even in these difficult circumstances, you cannot take away from the miracle of birth.
This couple were infertile. If I was infertile and had given birth to healthy twins, genetically related or not, the last thing I would think is that they were an appalling tragedy.
As for the woman in the States and her son, I sincerely empathise with both of them. When a woman goes through pregnancy, morning sickness, sore breasts, swollen ankles, aching joints and labor pains, she is the birth mother of that baby whether it came from her egg or not.
I understand the biological parents grievance, but to go for custody on the basis of genetics is nothing to do with the child's rights. He has been born to a woman he sees as mother, and now because the sperm and egg came from someone else, he finds himself fought over like a piece of furniture, split between two families. As his biological parents were also pregnant at the same time, he should be allowed to remain with his birth mother and both families should get on with their lives.
It would have been distressing for the parents to realise that the children were only in part related to them, and for the biological father to realise that a total stranger had carried his child, but we're talking about the birth of children, here.
How do you think those children will feel in a few years time when they are grown and realise they were called an 'apalling tragedy'?
It is tragic when a baby is born into a divorcing family, or he is born not wanted and put up for adoption, but even in these difficult circumstances, you cannot take away from the miracle of birth.
This couple were infertile. If I was infertile and had given birth to healthy twins, genetically related or not, the last thing I would think is that they were an appalling tragedy.
As for the woman in the States and her son, I sincerely empathise with both of them. When a woman goes through pregnancy, morning sickness, sore breasts, swollen ankles, aching joints and labor pains, she is the birth mother of that baby whether it came from her egg or not.
I understand the biological parents grievance, but to go for custody on the basis of genetics is nothing to do with the child's rights. He has been born to a woman he sees as mother, and now because the sperm and egg came from someone else, he finds himself fought over like a piece of furniture, split between two families. As his biological parents were also pregnant at the same time, he should be allowed to remain with his birth mother and both families should get on with their lives.
Posted by
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Glycol, a common ingredient in many household products, can stop you getting pregnant and may even cause abnormalities if you do. Green your home and get rid of glycol!
Glycol is a flammable liquid created by fermenting yeast with carbohydrate and adding alcohol. It has long been known that it can cause numerous health problems but more recently it has been implicated with causing low sperm count, poor motility and abnormal shaped sperm, as well as subtle changes to developing foetuses. The best way to avoid damaging your health and fertility is to refuse to use any products with glycol in them.
Glycol is in the following products:
Anti-freeze
Paints
Brake fluid
Wallpaper stripper
Fabric softener
Stain removers
Make up and mascara
Deodorant
Bubble bath, soap and aftershave
Baby powder and baby wipes
Anti-aging skin creams
Shampoo
It is possible to buy products without Glycol by purchasing 'green' and ecologically friendly options.
Glycol is in the following products:
Anti-freeze
Paints
Brake fluid
Wallpaper stripper
Fabric softener
Stain removers
Make up and mascara
Deodorant
Bubble bath, soap and aftershave
Baby powder and baby wipes
Anti-aging skin creams
Shampoo
It is possible to buy products without Glycol by purchasing 'green' and ecologically friendly options.
Posted by
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Single women and lesbians and gays can now have parental rights.
I don't agree with hybrid embryo's or having a child purely to save someone else, but I am in favour of single mother's rights to IVF. It's not guaranteed that everyone will meet that special someone to have a family with. I've been single since the age of 24 and never found anyone else in seven years. If I hadn't given my son's father another chance, he wouldn't be here. Why should single women, who have to forgo the dream of a partner, also put up with being childless? They still have plenty of love to give.
As for lesbian woman having a right to IVF, why not? Gay men have the right to adopt. In an age when gay couples can legally marry by virtue of a civil partnership, it surely follows through that they should be allowed to have children?
Some say that children won't thrive without a father but there are plenty of other male role models, uncles, brothers, grandfathers, friends. The MP that says fatherless children will take drugs and drop out of school is referring to a study based on children of divorce. Those children who have always lived in a single parent or same sex parent family don't have these adverse outcomes. It is divorce that causes the damage, not being single.
Rather than tout about the need for a father, people should be supporting single parents bringing up their children lovingly and do something to tighten divorce laws so that couples don't think they can just cancel if things aren't going well. Every happy family I've ever known has had times where they weren't.
As for lesbian woman having a right to IVF, why not? Gay men have the right to adopt. In an age when gay couples can legally marry by virtue of a civil partnership, it surely follows through that they should be allowed to have children?
Some say that children won't thrive without a father but there are plenty of other male role models, uncles, brothers, grandfathers, friends. The MP that says fatherless children will take drugs and drop out of school is referring to a study based on children of divorce. Those children who have always lived in a single parent or same sex parent family don't have these adverse outcomes. It is divorce that causes the damage, not being single.
Rather than tout about the need for a father, people should be supporting single parents bringing up their children lovingly and do something to tighten divorce laws so that couples don't think they can just cancel if things aren't going well. Every happy family I've ever known has had times where they weren't.
Posted by
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
Joanna Karpasea-Jones
New research into growing eggs from tissue is being touted as the answer for women who'd rather wait for motherhood.
The new research into growing human eggs in the lab is being touted as the answer for women who would rather delay parenthood to pursue a career.
Dr. Evelyn Telfer, who headed the research, suggested that young women would be wise to have a piece of ovarian tissue removed and frozen so that they have a back up fertility 'battery' in case they want to put off having children, and have them later.
I confess, I balked. This attitude could encourage women to think that they have forever, and if they get to the point where they're having to use frozen tissue, there is no guarantee it will work.
And even if it did, there must be a reason why your biological clock stops at around 45. What would it be like for the baby if his mother was 50, with health problems and couldn't play ball with him? What if she died when he wasn't fully grown and then he ended up in care?
To put off having children for a career is fine, as long as you don't wait too long. In my opinion, if you do, that's your own fault. To expect to grow your own eggs because you made the decision not to be pregnant when you actually could produce eggs, well, that seems irrational.
And why subject yourself to surgery which could harm you when you could just make love to a man you love and get pregnant that way. I know which I'd prefer.
Dr. Evelyn Telfer, who headed the research, suggested that young women would be wise to have a piece of ovarian tissue removed and frozen so that they have a back up fertility 'battery' in case they want to put off having children, and have them later.
I confess, I balked. This attitude could encourage women to think that they have forever, and if they get to the point where they're having to use frozen tissue, there is no guarantee it will work.
And even if it did, there must be a reason why your biological clock stops at around 45. What would it be like for the baby if his mother was 50, with health problems and couldn't play ball with him? What if she died when he wasn't fully grown and then he ended up in care?
To put off having children for a career is fine, as long as you don't wait too long. In my opinion, if you do, that's your own fault. To expect to grow your own eggs because you made the decision not to be pregnant when you actually could produce eggs, well, that seems irrational.
And why subject yourself to surgery which could harm you when you could just make love to a man you love and get pregnant that way. I know which I'd prefer.
Pages 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8