- Welcome to The Mens Fertility Forum - Mensfe .
Recent posts
#31
Research / Question research on people bo...
Last post by mensfe_admin - 2024-01-12 15:41I found a report on the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (HFEA) website that provides information on the trends in egg, sperm, and embryo donation over the last 30 years 1. The report reveals that over 70,000 donor-conceived children have been born since 1991, and the number of children born with the help of a donor has risen considerably since the 1990s, with over 4,100 children born in 2019 compared to around 2,500 in 1993 1.
The report also highlights the availability of donors, their changing characteristics, and how family formations have evolved 1. It shows that the number of children born from donor sperm more than tripled over the last 15 years, from under 900 in 2006 to over 2,800 in 2019 1.
Regarding your specific query, I could not find any research data on people born from donor gametes applying for information on their donors on the HFEA website. However, the HFEA website provides information on the rules around releasing donor information 2. If you donated after August 1, 1991, at a UK licensed clinic, you may wish to contact the HFEA to apply for information about the number of children born from your donation 2. If the donation or treatment took place before August 1991, you may wish to find out more information about the Donor Conceived Register 2
The report also highlights the availability of donors, their changing characteristics, and how family formations have evolved 1. It shows that the number of children born from donor sperm more than tripled over the last 15 years, from under 900 in 2006 to over 2,800 in 2019 1.
Regarding your specific query, I could not find any research data on people born from donor gametes applying for information on their donors on the HFEA website. However, the HFEA website provides information on the rules around releasing donor information 2. If you donated after August 1, 1991, at a UK licensed clinic, you may wish to contact the HFEA to apply for information about the number of children born from your donation 2. If the donation or treatment took place before August 1991, you may wish to find out more information about the Donor Conceived Register 2
#32
Research / Single fathers experience of u...
Last post by mensfe_admin - 2024-01-12 15:30Single fathers' experiences of using egg donation and surrogacy to start a family
C Jones 1 2, V Jadva 3, S Zadeh 4, S Golombok 2
Affiliations expand
PMID: 37528054 PMCID: PMC10546079 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dead152
Free PMC article
Abstract
Study question: What are the experiences of single men using egg donation and surrogacy as a route to parenthood?
Summary answer: The fathers mainly had a positive relationship with the surrogate and simultaneously exercised agency, and experienced challenges, during the process of surrogacy.
What is known already: Little is known about single men's experiences of egg donation and surrogacy arrangements. Studies have focused on single men's decision-making processes about the use of surrogacy and family functioning once these families are formed. Questions remain about how fathers experience and navigate the process of surrogacy as a single man.
Study design, size, duration: The study is an international, in-depth qualitative study of fathers who chose to begin a family and parent alone. Data were collected between 2018 and 2021 as part of a larger study of solo fathers with different routes to parenthood. The present study reports on 21 fathers who used surrogacy and egg donation to begin their family. The average age of the fathers was 44 years, the fathers had young children aged 6 years or younger, and lived in countries across Australia, Europe, and North America.
Participants/materials, setting, methods: Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview topics included fathers' experiences of the process of using egg donation and surrogacy, and navigating the relationship with the surrogate. The audio-recorded interviews lasted around 2 hours and were subsequently transcribed verbatim.
Main results and the role of chance: Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and qualitative content analysis. Most of the fathers chose an identifiable egg donor. Regarding the relationship with the surrogate, many fathers had remained in contact with her, but to differing degrees, and they generally reported positive relationships. Thematic analysis led to the identification of three themes relating to the fathers' experiences of choosing surrogacy as a single man: the ability to make choices; challenges and constraints; and special relationship.
Limitations, reasons for caution: Due to the variation between different countries regarding laws on surrogacy, contextual factors may have impacted on the experiences of single fathers, and the sample size was small. However, the research provides new insights into an area with little academic literature.
Wider implications of the findings: Given the growing trend of single men having children through surrogacy, the findings suggest that this new path to parenthood can be both rewarding and challenging. Single men may benefit from tailored support and counselling to help them navigate the surrogacy journey.
Study funding/competing interest(s): This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 208013/Z/17/Z). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Trial registration number: n/a.
Keywords: egg donation; experiences; qualitative research; single fathers; surrogacy.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
PubMed Disclaimer
C Jones 1 2, V Jadva 3, S Zadeh 4, S Golombok 2
Affiliations expand
PMID: 37528054 PMCID: PMC10546079 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dead152
Free PMC article
Abstract
Study question: What are the experiences of single men using egg donation and surrogacy as a route to parenthood?
Summary answer: The fathers mainly had a positive relationship with the surrogate and simultaneously exercised agency, and experienced challenges, during the process of surrogacy.
What is known already: Little is known about single men's experiences of egg donation and surrogacy arrangements. Studies have focused on single men's decision-making processes about the use of surrogacy and family functioning once these families are formed. Questions remain about how fathers experience and navigate the process of surrogacy as a single man.
Study design, size, duration: The study is an international, in-depth qualitative study of fathers who chose to begin a family and parent alone. Data were collected between 2018 and 2021 as part of a larger study of solo fathers with different routes to parenthood. The present study reports on 21 fathers who used surrogacy and egg donation to begin their family. The average age of the fathers was 44 years, the fathers had young children aged 6 years or younger, and lived in countries across Australia, Europe, and North America.
Participants/materials, setting, methods: Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview topics included fathers' experiences of the process of using egg donation and surrogacy, and navigating the relationship with the surrogate. The audio-recorded interviews lasted around 2 hours and were subsequently transcribed verbatim.
Main results and the role of chance: Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and qualitative content analysis. Most of the fathers chose an identifiable egg donor. Regarding the relationship with the surrogate, many fathers had remained in contact with her, but to differing degrees, and they generally reported positive relationships. Thematic analysis led to the identification of three themes relating to the fathers' experiences of choosing surrogacy as a single man: the ability to make choices; challenges and constraints; and special relationship.
Limitations, reasons for caution: Due to the variation between different countries regarding laws on surrogacy, contextual factors may have impacted on the experiences of single fathers, and the sample size was small. However, the research provides new insights into an area with little academic literature.
Wider implications of the findings: Given the growing trend of single men having children through surrogacy, the findings suggest that this new path to parenthood can be both rewarding and challenging. Single men may benefit from tailored support and counselling to help them navigate the surrogacy journey.
Study funding/competing interest(s): This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 208013/Z/17/Z). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Trial registration number: n/a.
Keywords: egg donation; experiences; qualitative research; single fathers; surrogacy.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
PubMed Disclaimer
#33
General Discussion / HFEA Donor Identifiability
Last post by mensfe_admin - 2023-11-29 16:18Donor identifiability
Nowhere in this field has the pace of social and technological change been more rapid than in the growing popularity of direct-to-consumer DNA testing and social media. This has had a significant impact on donor identifiability such that the current system, where identifiable information about a donor can only be disclosed to the donor-conceived person at 18 and only upon request no longer reflects reality.
The HFEA is recommending that the law be changed so that parents can find out who a donor is from the birth of a child, and also that clinics should be required by law to inform donors and recipients of the potential for a donor's identity to be discovered through means such as DNA testing websites or social media.
There has understandably been a great deal of media attention on our proposals around donor identifiability. We know the proposals are a significant departure from the current law, and we are recommending a gradual approach to reach this position by having in-depth discussions with a wide range of stakeholders, including professional bodies, patient and donor groups, donors and donor-conceived individuals, and licensed centres within the fertility sector.
Any new system should uphold the principles that there be an official 'record of truth', and the law should require the HFEA to collect data about children born through donation.
Nowhere in this field has the pace of social and technological change been more rapid than in the growing popularity of direct-to-consumer DNA testing and social media. This has had a significant impact on donor identifiability such that the current system, where identifiable information about a donor can only be disclosed to the donor-conceived person at 18 and only upon request no longer reflects reality.
The HFEA is recommending that the law be changed so that parents can find out who a donor is from the birth of a child, and also that clinics should be required by law to inform donors and recipients of the potential for a donor's identity to be discovered through means such as DNA testing websites or social media.
There has understandably been a great deal of media attention on our proposals around donor identifiability. We know the proposals are a significant departure from the current law, and we are recommending a gradual approach to reach this position by having in-depth discussions with a wide range of stakeholders, including professional bodies, patient and donor groups, donors and donor-conceived individuals, and licensed centres within the fertility sector.
Any new system should uphold the principles that there be an official 'record of truth', and the law should require the HFEA to collect data about children born through donation.
#34
General Discussion / Implications of Surrogacy Law
Last post by mensfe_admin - 2023-04-25 08:48Pandora's box: Implications of surrogacy law reform proposals for birth registration
by Professor Thérèse Callus
The long-awaited report on reform of surrogacy laws from the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission has generally been welcomed, and offers many improvements on the current position in the UK, which affects 400-500 babies per year. The wide-ranging and sensitive report is informed by research findings on the experiences of those most involved in surrogacy, including the children.
Notwithstanding the progressive proposals, much in the report remains to be clarified.
One problematic issue is that concerning birth registration, and the Law Commissions themselves were unable to propose one single option for this, instead offering a choice between a preferred or an alternative model.
The preferred option would require an amendment to the existing civil registration rules to enable the intended parents to be registered as the legal parents from birth. The alternative option would initially see the surrogate registered as the mother but disassociated from legal parental status. Provided the surrogate does not withdraw her consent during the first six weeks post birth, there would then be an automatic amendment to replace the original birth certificate with a parental order indicating the intended parents as the legal parents of the child. The original birth certificate would then be sealed.
Birth registration has long been identified as an area ripe for reform itself, but nothing came of the proposal to include it as part of the Law Commission of England and Wales' 13th Programme of Reform (see BioNews 873).
The current law requires the mother to be identified on the certificate, and the legal mother is defined for such purposes as the person who gives birth. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the McConnell case where a birthing parent who is a transgender man was held to be the legal mother – not the father – for purposes of birth registration, due to the biological process of gestation and childbirth he had been through (see BioNews 1017).
Given that the Law Commissions propose that the surrogate will no longer automatically be the legal mother at birth, this raises the question of how the baby's birth registration will reflect the legal parenthood under the new surrogacy pathway.
The Law Commissions' preferred approach would enable the intended parents to be recognised as the parents on the birth certificate. The surrogate would be registered on the surrogacy register and reference to this would appear in the child's long birth certificate. But this contravenes the current requirement to identify the birthing parent as the legal mother.
The alternative option would follow the current rules to indicate the surrogate as the mother on the birth certificate but it is proposed that she would not be a legal parent. This would result in a change to the consequences of birth registration as it would separate the fact of the birth 'mother' (the surrogate) from legal parental status.
It is clear that there are problems with both options.
The alternative approach conflicts with the core proposal of negating the status of the surrogate as the mother. It may also create confusion for those treating the baby for example, as the intended parents would be the legal parents and therefore be the ones to consent to medical intervention if necessary because the mother would not have any legal status. Although this approach would comply with the current registration requirements of identifying the birth 'mother' on the birth certificate, there would still be a discrepancy with respect to disassociation with the status of legal parent.
The preferred option flows naturally from the proposal to recognise the intended parents as the legal parents from birth, but would require reform to the existing procedure because it denies the appearance of the person who birthed the child on their birth certificate.
So what is the appropriate solution? Irrespective of which option (if any) is chosen, reform to the registration system will be required. It is therefore crucial that we ask ourselves what do we want birth registration to do?
According to the 2002 White Paper on Civil Registration, part of its purpose is to record 'evidence of parentage' which suggests biological parentage. However, we know that parentage has evolved to include parenthood.
Parenthood is the legal parental status of those either with a genetic link, or through statutory recognition of the intention to be legal parents in the context of assisted conception using donor gametes (under the HFE Act 2008) or through adoption (Adoption and Children Act 2002). It is therefore certainly time to rethink what we are registering and why.
It may be helpful to get back to basics and ask should birth registration be purely a historical record of the birth of a child? Could birth registration distinguish between on the one hand, biological 'parents' (gamete donors, the surrogate) and on the other hand, the intended legal parents who assume all legal responsibility for the child? In non-assisted conception cases, the two may well be the same, but where recourse to a third party is involved, it would better reflect both the legal and genetic truths. It would also go some way to encouraging transparency in all donor-assisted conceptions which has been identified as positive for families and long called for. This is where the current system of creating a short and a long birth certificate could be helpful.
Concerns as to privacy surrounding the conception and genetic make-up of a child could be addressed by a short birth certificate indicating the historical fact of the birth of the child and their own name, with no reference to the parents. Only the long birth certificate would contain reference to both the legal parents and any link to a donor or surrogate register where necessary. The additional question of the age at which a child may access such registers remains to be addressed: it is yet another element in the Pandora's box that surrogacy offers.
Notwithstanding the remaining questions, the Law Commissions' proposals are a positive step towards much-needed reform. Now we need the Government (and public) to be responsive to change. Surrogacy may only affect a relatively small proportion of society, but the wider question of parental status and individual identity it creates affects us all.
by Professor Thérèse Callus
The long-awaited report on reform of surrogacy laws from the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission has generally been welcomed, and offers many improvements on the current position in the UK, which affects 400-500 babies per year. The wide-ranging and sensitive report is informed by research findings on the experiences of those most involved in surrogacy, including the children.
Notwithstanding the progressive proposals, much in the report remains to be clarified.
One problematic issue is that concerning birth registration, and the Law Commissions themselves were unable to propose one single option for this, instead offering a choice between a preferred or an alternative model.
The preferred option would require an amendment to the existing civil registration rules to enable the intended parents to be registered as the legal parents from birth. The alternative option would initially see the surrogate registered as the mother but disassociated from legal parental status. Provided the surrogate does not withdraw her consent during the first six weeks post birth, there would then be an automatic amendment to replace the original birth certificate with a parental order indicating the intended parents as the legal parents of the child. The original birth certificate would then be sealed.
Birth registration has long been identified as an area ripe for reform itself, but nothing came of the proposal to include it as part of the Law Commission of England and Wales' 13th Programme of Reform (see BioNews 873).
The current law requires the mother to be identified on the certificate, and the legal mother is defined for such purposes as the person who gives birth. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the McConnell case where a birthing parent who is a transgender man was held to be the legal mother – not the father – for purposes of birth registration, due to the biological process of gestation and childbirth he had been through (see BioNews 1017).
Given that the Law Commissions propose that the surrogate will no longer automatically be the legal mother at birth, this raises the question of how the baby's birth registration will reflect the legal parenthood under the new surrogacy pathway.
The Law Commissions' preferred approach would enable the intended parents to be recognised as the parents on the birth certificate. The surrogate would be registered on the surrogacy register and reference to this would appear in the child's long birth certificate. But this contravenes the current requirement to identify the birthing parent as the legal mother.
The alternative option would follow the current rules to indicate the surrogate as the mother on the birth certificate but it is proposed that she would not be a legal parent. This would result in a change to the consequences of birth registration as it would separate the fact of the birth 'mother' (the surrogate) from legal parental status.
It is clear that there are problems with both options.
The alternative approach conflicts with the core proposal of negating the status of the surrogate as the mother. It may also create confusion for those treating the baby for example, as the intended parents would be the legal parents and therefore be the ones to consent to medical intervention if necessary because the mother would not have any legal status. Although this approach would comply with the current registration requirements of identifying the birth 'mother' on the birth certificate, there would still be a discrepancy with respect to disassociation with the status of legal parent.
The preferred option flows naturally from the proposal to recognise the intended parents as the legal parents from birth, but would require reform to the existing procedure because it denies the appearance of the person who birthed the child on their birth certificate.
So what is the appropriate solution? Irrespective of which option (if any) is chosen, reform to the registration system will be required. It is therefore crucial that we ask ourselves what do we want birth registration to do?
According to the 2002 White Paper on Civil Registration, part of its purpose is to record 'evidence of parentage' which suggests biological parentage. However, we know that parentage has evolved to include parenthood.
Parenthood is the legal parental status of those either with a genetic link, or through statutory recognition of the intention to be legal parents in the context of assisted conception using donor gametes (under the HFE Act 2008) or through adoption (Adoption and Children Act 2002). It is therefore certainly time to rethink what we are registering and why.
It may be helpful to get back to basics and ask should birth registration be purely a historical record of the birth of a child? Could birth registration distinguish between on the one hand, biological 'parents' (gamete donors, the surrogate) and on the other hand, the intended legal parents who assume all legal responsibility for the child? In non-assisted conception cases, the two may well be the same, but where recourse to a third party is involved, it would better reflect both the legal and genetic truths. It would also go some way to encouraging transparency in all donor-assisted conceptions which has been identified as positive for families and long called for. This is where the current system of creating a short and a long birth certificate could be helpful.
Concerns as to privacy surrounding the conception and genetic make-up of a child could be addressed by a short birth certificate indicating the historical fact of the birth of the child and their own name, with no reference to the parents. Only the long birth certificate would contain reference to both the legal parents and any link to a donor or surrogate register where necessary. The additional question of the age at which a child may access such registers remains to be addressed: it is yet another element in the Pandora's box that surrogacy offers.
Notwithstanding the remaining questions, the Law Commissions' proposals are a positive step towards much-needed reform. Now we need the Government (and public) to be responsive to change. Surrogacy may only affect a relatively small proportion of society, but the wider question of parental status and individual identity it creates affects us all.
#35
Research / Your Guide to Genetics and Gen...
Last post by mensfe_admin - 2023-01-25 14:18by Dr Jess Buxton
The Progress Educational Trust (PET), in partnership with the Scottish Government, brought together a group of experts to cut through the hype and jargon and explain the latest developments in genetics/genomics in the context of assisted conception...RCOG and HFEA voice concerns over NHS gynaecology waiting times (progress.org.uk)
PET director, Sarah Norcross, chairing, began by highlighting the general need for more information about developments in this fast-moving area of science. Last year, PET commissioned a survey of the UK public to measure people's understanding of, and attitudes towards, areas of science and medicine including genetics and genomics. In the subsequent report 'Fertility, Genomics and Embryo Research: Public Attitudes and Understanding', 33 percent of respondents chose the option 'don't know' when asked to describe the term 'human genome'.
The first speaker was Dr Jonathan Berg, consultant clinical geneticist at NHS Tayside and clinical senior lecturer at the University of Dundee. He explained that the human genome contains around three billion DNA base-pairs. If each of these were a single letter, then this 'book' of our genetic information would be equivalent to around 6000 copies of Tolstoy's 'War and Peace'. Identifying the single genetic variant that causes a genetic condition can be challenging, and he stressed the importance of knowing where to look – and of knowing what is being tested for before a test is arranged.
Dr Berg described some examples of monogenic conditions that can potentially be detected in the embryo using preimplantation genetic testing (PGT-M, previously known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis), as the specific genes involved are known. These include achondroplasia, cystic fibrosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) (a full list of the conditions for which the use of PGT-M is currently approved in the UK is available here).
Not all genetic variants are inherited from a parent: 'de novo' variants are novel genetic changes that appear for the first time in the egg cell, sperm or early embryo. Variants of this type are responsible for over 40 percent of previously undiagnosed cases of severe development delay. Dr Berg said that although prenatal genetic testing is just becoming available in the UK for such cases, PGT-M is not available unless there is a family history of the condition being tested for.
Dr Nicola Williams, consultant clinical scientist at NHS National Services Scotland's Strategic Network for Genomic Medicine, then gave a talk on PGT provision in Scotland. She started by explaining how cells are removed from the embryo in order to carry out a genetic test. The preferred time to carry out this embryo biopsy is on day five, when the embryo is at the blastocyst stage and several cells can be removed. She went on to describe the difference between PGT-M for monogenic conditions and PGT-SR, which can be used to detect chromosome structural rearrangements.
Dr Williams explained that when PGT-M is performed, genetic markers are currently used to identify the 'high-risk' chromosome that carries the gene variant responsible for the condition. This approach requires testing other family members, including grandparents if possible. She showed the results for a PGT-M test carried out for a condition with an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern, in which half of the six embryos tested were identified as 'high-risk' and the other three were 'low-risk'. Dr Williams said there is now a move towards using whole-genome sequencing (WGS) when testing for monogenic conditions, which would identify the genetic variant directly.
The next speaker was Professor Zosia Miedzybrodzka, director of the University of Aberdeen's Centre for Genome-Enabled Biology and Medicine and service clinical director of genetics at NHS Grampian. Her talk focused on carrier screening for genetic conditions, which can identify unaffected carriers of autosomal recessive genetic conditions, either antenatally or pre-conception. She explained that in the UK, such testing is only carried out routinely for the inherited blood disorders sickle cell disease and thalassaemia. Additional carrier testing is carried out in sperm and egg donors, for example for cystic fibrosis and chromosome structural rearrangements.
Professor Miedzybrodzka went on to discuss expanded carrier testing, a commercial service in which many more genetic conditions are tested for (typically 400 or more). She stressed that this approach wouldn't detect de novo genetic variants, chromosomal disorders, or non-genetic conditions.
This approach also raises broader questions about what to screen for. What counts as serious? Should adult-onset disorders be tested, as well as those present from childhood? And what if donors find out they have a condition of which they were not previously aware?
Professor Miedzybrodzka also highlighted the challenges of interpreting genomic information and implementing the findings, areas currently affected by a skills shortage. She gave the example of a DMD gene variant identified in a fetus, which was wrongly classified as harmful. The same variant was discovered in two healthy brothers in the same family. Given these problems of delivery, implementation and effectiveness, she explained, expanded carrier testing is not currently part of NHS services.
The final speaker was Dr Francesca Forzano, a consultant in clinical genetics at Guy's Hospital, and honorary senior lecturer at King's College London. She is also chair of the Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics, and lead author of this Committee's statement on the use of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) in PGT (see BioNews 1130 and 1137). Her talk covered the potential use of PRSs in embryos to assess the likelihood of common diseases or traits in adulthood.
Dr Forzano outlined the limitations of PRSs, which are constructed by testing hundreds of variants associated with risk of a common, complex disease. However, such conditions are the result of interactions between genetic predisposition, environmental factors and lifestyle choices – and a PRS will only capture part of the genetic component.
Another issues with PRSs highlighted by Dr Forzano is that a relative rather than an absolute risk is calculated. For example, a PRS for schizophrenia could identify a subset of the population who have 50 percent less risk, however this would still be an overall risk of 0.5 percent compared to one percent. Furthermore, most genetic variants associated with common disorders have been identified in European populations, so may be inaccurate in people of non-European descent.
In addition to these limitations, a PRS could be affected by variants with opposite or multiple associations, and would be confounded by the presence of a single genetic variant that greatly affected risk. Dr Forzano concluded that the clinical utility of PRS remains to be demonstrated, and they are certainly not yet validated for use in relation to embryos. She cautioned that PGT for polygenic risk (PGT-P) is not a diagnostic or a screening test, and no guidelines or best practice have been established.
A wide-ranging audience Q&A session followed the presentations, which included a discussion of controversies surrounding PGT for aneuploidy (PGT-A, previously known as PGS), which is not currently available via the NHS, and the fact that PRSs have potential applications that go beyond disease and risk. Speakers also signposted reliable sources for those seeking further information on the topics covered: PET, the HFEA, and the patient support organisations Unique and Genetic Alliance UK.
#36
General Discussion / Sperm donors assessment proces...
Last post by mensfe_admin - 2023-01-17 10:01Ana Vasconcelos
Fewer than one in 20 men who applied to become sperm donors in the USA and Denmark in 2018 and 2019, were accepted by a sperm bank, a recent study has shown.
The number of sperm-donor-conceived children born in the UK has tripled in the past 13 years in the UK, meaning demand for sperm donors outstrips supply. Recent figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority show half of donor sperm used in the UK is imported, often from Denmark (see BioNews 1170). In a study published in Human Reproduction of over 11,000 men who applied to be sperm donors to the sperm and egg bank Cryos in the USA and Denmark, researchers looked at the points in the application process men dropped out or were rejected by the clinic. They also looked at the impact of being asked to waive anonymity on willingness to donate and acceptance.
Lead author – and Progress Educational Trust (PET) trustee – Professor Allan Pacey from the University of Sheffield, pointed out that although sperm donors can choose to retain their anonymity in the USA and Denmark (though not the UK since 2006), over a quarter of donors shifted from an initial decision to remain anonymous, to be identifiable, over the course of the donation process. He said: 'What's particularly fascinating is that more donors, who initially wanted to remain anonymous, were willing to be identifiable as the screening and donation process continued. This is particularly good news for patients in the UK undergoing fertility treatment, as it is a legal requirement for sperm donors to be identifiable to any children born from their donations.'
Around half of applicants dropped out or were rejected before being invited to provide a sperm sample, for the second stage of the application process, researchers found. Of the men who provided a sample 21 percent did not have a high enough quality semen, according to the clinic. Of men accepted after semen analysis and invited to complete a medical questionnaire, just 18 percent continued to the next stage.
A report published by PET in June 2022 Fertility, Genomics and Embryo Research: Public Attitudes and Understanding showed that 64 percent of the UK public would consider sperm or egg donation with identity release (see BioNews 1148).
Professor Pacey said: 'In the UK you can only become a donor if you agreed to be identifiable and there simply aren't enough guys in the UK that are willing to do that, or we haven't managed to tempt them enough, because we haven't got an advertising system that targets them.'
He went on: 'The study with Cryos highlights how hard it is to become a sperm donor. It's not like blood donation where once it's done you can have a cup of tea and go home. Sperm donation is a regular commitment with lots of screening and regular testing as well as life-long implications for the donor if any children are born from their sample.'
Gene activity and protein loca
Fewer than one in 20 men who applied to become sperm donors in the USA and Denmark in 2018 and 2019, were accepted by a sperm bank, a recent study has shown.
The number of sperm-donor-conceived children born in the UK has tripled in the past 13 years in the UK, meaning demand for sperm donors outstrips supply. Recent figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority show half of donor sperm used in the UK is imported, often from Denmark (see BioNews 1170). In a study published in Human Reproduction of over 11,000 men who applied to be sperm donors to the sperm and egg bank Cryos in the USA and Denmark, researchers looked at the points in the application process men dropped out or were rejected by the clinic. They also looked at the impact of being asked to waive anonymity on willingness to donate and acceptance.
Lead author – and Progress Educational Trust (PET) trustee – Professor Allan Pacey from the University of Sheffield, pointed out that although sperm donors can choose to retain their anonymity in the USA and Denmark (though not the UK since 2006), over a quarter of donors shifted from an initial decision to remain anonymous, to be identifiable, over the course of the donation process. He said: 'What's particularly fascinating is that more donors, who initially wanted to remain anonymous, were willing to be identifiable as the screening and donation process continued. This is particularly good news for patients in the UK undergoing fertility treatment, as it is a legal requirement for sperm donors to be identifiable to any children born from their donations.'
Around half of applicants dropped out or were rejected before being invited to provide a sperm sample, for the second stage of the application process, researchers found. Of the men who provided a sample 21 percent did not have a high enough quality semen, according to the clinic. Of men accepted after semen analysis and invited to complete a medical questionnaire, just 18 percent continued to the next stage.
A report published by PET in June 2022 Fertility, Genomics and Embryo Research: Public Attitudes and Understanding showed that 64 percent of the UK public would consider sperm or egg donation with identity release (see BioNews 1148).
Professor Pacey said: 'In the UK you can only become a donor if you agreed to be identifiable and there simply aren't enough guys in the UK that are willing to do that, or we haven't managed to tempt them enough, because we haven't got an advertising system that targets them.'
He went on: 'The study with Cryos highlights how hard it is to become a sperm donor. It's not like blood donation where once it's done you can have a cup of tea and go home. Sperm donation is a regular commitment with lots of screening and regular testing as well as life-long implications for the donor if any children are born from their sample.'
Gene activity and protein loca
#37
Research / Just four percent of sperm don...
Last post by mensfe_admin - 2023-01-17 10:00by Ana Vasconcelos
Fewer than one in 20 men who applied to become sperm donors in the USA and Denmark in 2018 and 2019, were accepted by a sperm bank, a recent study has shown.
The number of sperm-donor-conceived children born in the UK has tripled in the past 13 years in the UK, meaning demand for sperm donors outstrips supply. Recent figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority show half of donor sperm used in the UK is imported, often from Denmark (see BioNews 1170). In a study published in Human Reproduction of over 11,000 men who applied to be sperm donors to the sperm and egg bank Cryos in the USA and Denmark, researchers looked at the points in the application process men dropped out or were rejected by the clinic. They also looked at the impact of being asked to waive anonymity on willingness to donate and acceptance.
Lead author – and Progress Educational Trust (PET) trustee – Professor Allan Pacey from the University of Sheffield, pointed out that although sperm donors can choose to retain their anonymity in the USA and Denmark (though not the UK since 2006), over a quarter of donors shifted from an initial decision to remain anonymous, to be identifiable, over the course of the donation process. He said: 'What's particularly fascinating is that more donors, who initially wanted to remain anonymous, were willing to be identifiable as the screening and donation process continued. This is particularly good news for patients in the UK undergoing fertility treatment, as it is a legal requirement for sperm donors to be identifiable to any children born from their donations.'
Around half of applicants dropped out or were rejected before being invited to provide a sperm sample, for the second stage of the application process, researchers found. Of the men who provided a sample 21 percent did not have a high enough quality semen, according to the clinic. Of men accepted after semen analysis and invited to complete a medical questionnaire, just 18 percent continued to the next stage.
A report published by PET in June 2022 Fertility, Genomics and Embryo Research: Public Attitudes and Understanding showed that 64 percent of the UK public would consider sperm or egg donation with identity release (see BioNews 1148).
Professor Pacey said: 'In the UK you can only become a donor if you agreed to be identifiable and there simply aren't enough guys in the UK that are willing to do that, or we haven't managed to tempt them enough, because we haven't got an advertising system that targets them.'
He went on: 'The study with Cryos highlights how hard it is to become a sperm donor. It's not like blood donation where once it's done you can have a cup of tea and go home. Sperm donation is a regular commitment with lots of screening and regular testing as well as life-long implications for the donor if any children are born from their sample.'
Gene activity and protein loca
Fewer than one in 20 men who applied to become sperm donors in the USA and Denmark in 2018 and 2019, were accepted by a sperm bank, a recent study has shown.
The number of sperm-donor-conceived children born in the UK has tripled in the past 13 years in the UK, meaning demand for sperm donors outstrips supply. Recent figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority show half of donor sperm used in the UK is imported, often from Denmark (see BioNews 1170). In a study published in Human Reproduction of over 11,000 men who applied to be sperm donors to the sperm and egg bank Cryos in the USA and Denmark, researchers looked at the points in the application process men dropped out or were rejected by the clinic. They also looked at the impact of being asked to waive anonymity on willingness to donate and acceptance.
Lead author – and Progress Educational Trust (PET) trustee – Professor Allan Pacey from the University of Sheffield, pointed out that although sperm donors can choose to retain their anonymity in the USA and Denmark (though not the UK since 2006), over a quarter of donors shifted from an initial decision to remain anonymous, to be identifiable, over the course of the donation process. He said: 'What's particularly fascinating is that more donors, who initially wanted to remain anonymous, were willing to be identifiable as the screening and donation process continued. This is particularly good news for patients in the UK undergoing fertility treatment, as it is a legal requirement for sperm donors to be identifiable to any children born from their donations.'
Around half of applicants dropped out or were rejected before being invited to provide a sperm sample, for the second stage of the application process, researchers found. Of the men who provided a sample 21 percent did not have a high enough quality semen, according to the clinic. Of men accepted after semen analysis and invited to complete a medical questionnaire, just 18 percent continued to the next stage.
A report published by PET in June 2022 Fertility, Genomics and Embryo Research: Public Attitudes and Understanding showed that 64 percent of the UK public would consider sperm or egg donation with identity release (see BioNews 1148).
Professor Pacey said: 'In the UK you can only become a donor if you agreed to be identifiable and there simply aren't enough guys in the UK that are willing to do that, or we haven't managed to tempt them enough, because we haven't got an advertising system that targets them.'
He went on: 'The study with Cryos highlights how hard it is to become a sperm donor. It's not like blood donation where once it's done you can have a cup of tea and go home. Sperm donation is a regular commitment with lots of screening and regular testing as well as life-long implications for the donor if any children are born from their sample.'
Gene activity and protein loca
#38
General Discussion / Re: ME, MY BROTHER AND OUR BAL...
Last post by mensfe_admin - 2023-01-13 12:16Support, including implications, for males and their partners either individually or together is available in all licenced clinics via specialist fertility counsellors. As the documentary implied - GET TALKING.
#39
General Discussion / ME, MY BROTHER AND OUR BALLS
Last post by mensfe_admin - 2023-01-12 22:04BBC3 9-00pm 12-01-23 9-00pm
Excellent programme highlighting Male fertility issues
Try i player - definitely worth a watch
Excellent programme highlighting Male fertility issues
Try i player - definitely worth a watch
#40
Research / Till Death Do Us Part: Embryos...
Last post by mensfe_admin - 2023-01-01 10:02by Dr Antony Starza-Allen
When life takes an unexpected turn, people undergoing fertility treatment can be confronted with difficult decisions about the use and storage of gametes or embryos – sometimes decisions they made (or did not make) many years previously.
Introducing the Progress Educational Trust (PET)'s event, 'Till Death Do Us Part: Embryos and Gametes after Death Divorce or Separation', PET's director Sarah Norcross highlighted the uncomfortable (but thankfully rare) situations in which some people undergoing fertility treatment find themselves.
Recent research commissioned by PET and carried out by Ipsos showed public support for the posthumous use of sperm or eggs for conception, by a partner or family member of the deceased. But complex questions remain. What is the status of material in storage? Who gets to decide what is done with it? In what circumstances is posthumous use permitted? This debate explored the complex legal, medical, and practical considerations if people who have sperm, eggs or embryos in storage separate from their partner, or if they die.
First to speak was Robert Gilmour, a family lawyer at SKO Family Law Specialists in Edinburgh, who discussed the legal implications of relationship breakdown for couples undergoing fertility treatment before the point at which a pregnancy is established. When disputes arise relating to stored gametes or embryos, the law looks to the parties' consent, he explained, and relationship status is not relevant.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 does not view the couple as a unit but rather as individuals, each of whom must give consent, and where each party is entitled to withdraw or vary that consent. Not only does this presents practical considerations for clinics (who must take consent from patients), it also leads to numerous variations in use of gametes or embryos for which specific consent is required.
In terms of Scottish divorce law, stored gametes and embryos are not viewed as property (see Holdich v Lothian Health Board) so the court cannot direct who should own them, although Gilmour pointed out that a court could require one party to pay storage fees. He finished by saying that this leaves a legal gap when a couple has embryos created from donor eggs and donor sperm, where neither can withdraw consent, but since the embryos are not viewed as property they cannot be legally divided or allocated in the event of separation.
Next to speak was Professor Abha Maheshwari, lead clinician at Fertility Scotland. Professor Maheshwari outlined the requirement for additional consents and screening for those who would like the option for their gametes or embryos to be used in surrogacy if they should die. She explained that if someone dies before any required screening is due, then the gametes cannot be used posthumously by anyone except their partner. In cases where the surviving partner is male or cannot otherwise carry the pregnancy, that means the gametes cannot, in practice, be used.
Those undergoing treatment must therefore plan carefully in advance. However, screening incurs significant additional costs, which healthy couples may not wish to commit to given the remote possibility of premature death.
The next speaker, James Lawford Davies, partner in Hill Dickinson's health team, discussed a range of important legal decisions from the Diane Blood case (see BioNews 924) to the recent Jennings v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority decision (see BioNews 1146). All these cases turned on the issue of consent, where the courts have had to consider whether the posthumous use of gametes or embryos could be permitted in circumstances where formal consent requirements may not have been met.
In some cases, in the absence of the correct forms being filled in, parties were unable to persuade the court of their intention to use reproductive material in the requested manner. In other cases, there was sufficient evidence to permit the court to infer consent to give effect to the wishes of the deceased. These decisions demonstrate that in the absence of consent, a decision can only be made on a case-by-case basis by the court. As Lawford Davies illustrated, there may be circumstances in which the court can give effect to the wishes of the deceased, but in the absence of a court order,the position remains that there must be consent in place.
A busy question-and-answer session followed the presentations. Asked whether recent additions to consent forms are 'overkill' in relation to something that is not likely to happen, Professor Maheshwari explained that while consent forms could be made more explicit, they operate in the interests of transparency and give patients choice. It is better to be honest and transparent with information given to the patient, she said. Similarly, Lawford Davies took the view that the emphasis should be on communication between the clinic and patients about the forms, rather than the forms themselves. The new forms might be an improvement in some respects, but there always remains the potential for patients to not read them properly, he said.
The speakers were also asked if they would recommend a cooling off period, or arbitration, or conflict resolution when couples who have created embryos together split up. Lawford Davies said clinics should encourage the couple to resolve their issues, rather than getting involved in their client's personal dispute. He said that some clinics have found that couples have reconciled during a cooling-off period. Gilmour was also supportive of a cooling-off period, if couples cannot agree on what should happen to embryos before making irrevocable decisions.
Finally, the speakers were asked whether the use of stored gametes or embryos by the deceased's parents is ever appropriate. For Lawford Davies, the answer is fact and case-specific and shouldn't detract from the relevance of the wishes of the parties. Similarly, Professor Maheshwari said all possibilities should be looked at, while Gilmour said there can be circumstances where it is appropriate, but those circumstances would need to be looked at very carefully.
This discussion illustrated how the application of bright-line rules around consent is extremely fact-sensitive and varied. Achieving the right balance and just results involves not only encouraging those undertaking fertility treatment to plan for such eventualities, but also requires clinics to ensure that patients are fully informed about all aspects of treatment, including life's unexpected eventualities.
Practical and legal considerations aside, Lawford Davies highlighted that all cases discussed involved brave, strong people faced with tragedy and unexpected suffering and who wanted to fulfil the wishes of a loved one who had died. Amid the bureaucracy of consent, it is worth remembering this.