A sad story what are your views?

[Kim]

Actually I believe the woman possibly made a mistake to start with. She (or they at the time) had two choices to try to have a viable pregnancy after the cancer treatment. The first choice was to freeze some embryo's - which has caused the problem now. The second choice was to preserve a section of her ovaries, therefore eggs, and use them later to make a new embryo. This second procedure has just been successfully carried out in Europe. Obviously the second choice never needed the consent of her partner at any stage.
Wether this second option was available to her at the time we don't know. However it is an available choice now. Any woman who would be unfortunate to be in this position and still want a chance to have her own child/children later needs to be aware of this new (successfully carried out) procedure.

 

[lostinspace]

Actually I believe the woman possibly made a mistake to start with. She (or they at the time) had two choices to try to have a viable pregnancy after the cancer treatment. The first choice was to freeze some embryo's - which has caused the problem now. The second choice was to preserve a section of her ovaries, therefore eggs, and use them later to make a new embryo. This second procedure has just been successfully carried out in Europe. Obviously the second choice never needed the consent of her partner at any stage.
Wether this second option was available to her at the time we don't know. However it is an available choice now. Any woman who would be unfortunate to be in this position and still want a chance to have her own child/children later needs to be aware of this new (successfully carried out) procedure.

Kim - this procedure has "just" been successfully carried out.
But it is the first that has worked after over 15 years of thousands of failures.
It is an absolute last ditch resort. The procedure was carried out on a teenage girl who had no male partner who consented to be a father.
It is not a viable choice with a decent success rate. It is a tiny ray of hope.
And as I have mentioned before, all hospitals carrying out this procedure do make you sign consent forms, and do make you understand under what circumstances the embryos will be destroyed - for example the death of one of the parents.
This situation of the original post will not happen again.

And to those that say she can adopt - of course she can, but those that are saying here "adopt" are those that have their own natural children and cannot possibly understand the journey that needs to take place before someone is ready to consider adoption as the only way of having "their" child. You quite simply cannot understand unless you have been there or are there.

Again, situations vary across countries, just like surrogacy, but unlike the USA (yes, there is a world outside) adoption by single women is not permitted in many countries. Cross-racial adoption is rare. Adoption over the age of 35 is very difficult because the parents are "old". So adoption may not be an option for her.

 

[Nomaster]

Was he in control when he "donated" the sperm?If he did not want to become a father, why did he "donate" the sperm? What's really the difference if she had become pregnant the natural way and had the baby??
Again, if he did not want to be a father, why did he "donate" the sperm in the first place??Didn't he willingly contribute the sperm, knowing it would be used to fertilize the egg(s) that would potentially become a child?

I'm not trying to be a feminist here, but I think whether it's an embryo in a petre dish, both the male and female "donors" should know there is a potential for their "contributions" to become a viable human?? I realize this is not always the case in the heat of passion, but holy guacamole - if the intention is to create a potentially viable freezable embryo, there is obviously some forethought involved??

When your argument is interjected, the others, in my view, fall away.
The embryos may be frozen, but that is a byproduct of science, I think that they should be treated as though a normal insemination.
But, at least in the US, there is the matter of financial choice on the part of the woman, the man should not in this case be financially responsible for her choice.
Waiting for the call from an offspring? I don't know how to call this one, except he volunteered his sperm in love, he should wait for the call in the same light.

**Some of my issues have been well argued in later reading, so I will waffle on what I said above, but I forgot to repeat a concern of a writer before my earlier thoughts; what if his concerns were about the womans continued health?
If she dies early does the child grow up parentless, or can he get custody of 'his' child?

Tom

 

[Kim]

Kim - this procedure has "just" been successfully carried out.
But it is the first that has worked after over 15 years of thousands of failures.
It is an absolute last ditch resort. The procedure was carried out on a teenage girl who had no male partner who consented to be a father.
It is not a viable choice with a decent success rate. It is a tiny ray of hope.

I agree it is a very new procedure. However according to the reports I've heard and seen (mainly based on a BBC documentary) I was under the clear impression that it now has a fairly good chance of success. At least in the UK it is being offered to women in this situation. I will do some more research on the subject and get back to you!

 

[lostinspace]

Kim - ok - I look forward to your research, because one documentary is not something one should base one's entire opinions on.

 

[Kim]

lostinspace - well the facts appear to be as follows:
The procedure is new - there has been one successful result so far - a Belgian woman who was 32 years old. After it was replaced she began to ovulate normally again and has now produced a healthy baby in the normal way. She had her ovarian tissue removed 7 years ago.
At this moment in time there are two more women who have had their tissue re-implanted at the Cliniques Universitaises Saint Luc in Belgium. This clinic is already holding the tissue of another 146 women.
The Belgians are sharing their results with researchers in the US, Sweden, and the UK - at this time there are several thousand women worldwide who have ovarian tissue frozen.
The full description of what is involved can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3685174.stm

A search on Google on the subject brings up a great many hits.

The concensus of doctors and researchers seems to be that while this IS a very new procedure it is only a question of time before they can perform it with some confidence. They are all prepared to say though that this definitely gives hope to women in this position. One of the problems that has been holding it back a bit was the chance of re-introducing cancer cells into the body with the tissue. A UK research team has shown that this is not so much of a worry:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/09/010927072309.htm

Several other women worldwide have already had tissue re-implanted successfully and are having normal menstrual cycles now. None of these however have actually become pregnant yet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3850785.stm

The present success rates for IVF pregnancies of ANY kind is 1 in 4.
The success rate for frozen embryos is 1 in 6 - although there is no data yet about possible long term affects on the child.

For me this shows that it is a very viable option for young female cancer sufferers. For many of these women there is no time to wait to collect eggs to make embryos. The frozen tissue can be kept as long as needed (in the Belgian case 7 years). Many people have already had such tissue collected and so are now in a position to wait until the procedure is refined enough to have it re-implanted successfully.

Getting back to the person in the original story - if this is what she had done in the beginning then she wouldn't now need anyone's permission and she would have a chance (which is increasing all the time) to have her own child naturally. Choosing the embryo approach has lost her that chance. This is very sad - but there is nothing to be done about it.

If my own daughters got into such a situation I know very well what I'd advise them to do!

 

[lostinspace]

Kim - something your research may not have shown you, but you need to be aware of, is that any operation to the female abdomen (eg appendix removal) and in particular to the ovaries is likely to cause significant scar tissue.
This scar tissue is the most common cause of infertility - blocked fallopian tubes. In this situation, IVF is the only solution if the woman wants to become pregnant.
And let's not lose sight of the facts:

there has been one successful result so far

one pregnancy
Personally, at this stage I would rather take my chances on the embryo route. The statistics are better.

 

[Kim]

I suppose in the end it always remains a very personal decision. I didn't know that about scar tissue - which is a little odd as my wife is a doctor who has had two C-sections and normally keeps me fairly up to speed on this sort of thing.
I guess my main point here is not so much which procedure has more chance of success at the moment - the jury is still out on that. There has only been one pregnancy so far I grant you - but the potential number of further successes is the number of women who can choose at some time in the future to have already frozen tissue re-implanted - when the odds have improved.
My main point though, was that your tissue is only yours - no-one elses. An embryo, as we have seen in this story, belongs to two people. If you lose the relationship - you could lose the embryo. This is not the case with tissue.
In the end people have to make choices - sometimes they are the right ones which work out well - sometimes they're not or they don't.

 

[lostinspace]

Kim - I agree

your tissue is only yours - no-one elses. An embryo, as we have seen in this story, belongs to two people. If you lose the relationship - you could lose the embryo. This is not the case with tissue.

and it is good now to be able to have that choice.
I wonder if the couple in question did sign the disclaimer and that is why it went to court? You really have to go into these things where more than one person is involved with your eyes wide wide open.

Kim - have a chat with your wife then. All surgery carries risks, but abdominal surgery in women does carry a small chance of damaged or impaired fertility. C-sections also carry this risk, but the ovaries and tubes at 9 months pregnant are far away from the site of surgery, so it is significantly less risky (to the tubes) than surgery directly in that area - eg removal of ovarian tissue. This is one of the reasons why C-sections in a lot of countries are not "the answer to everything" and are only given in emergency or life-threatening situations.

 

[vetdiver]

For me this shows that it is a very viable option for young female cancer sufferers. For many of these women there is no time to wait to collect eggs to make embryos. The frozen tissue can be kept as long as needed (in the Belgian case 7 years). Many people have already had such tissue collected and so are now in a position to wait until the procedure is refined enough to have it re-implanted successfully.

If my own daughters got into such a situation I know very well what I'd advise them to do!​

OK, I HAD to get back in on this!!! I am speaking from my own experience as a young cancer survivor - recent experience.

(1) Because a procedure has been successsfully performed a few times does not mean it is currently a viable option. I knew ovarian tissue reimplantation had been performed successfully - but would you REALLY want someone performing a procedure on you that they had never performed on anyone else - assuming that they would even agree to it? In the US, in world-class hospitals in the Boston area, as of early 2004, this was NOT considered a viable option. I agree completely with lost in space on this.

(2) When my parents found out that their daughter had been diagnosed with a high-grade cancer requiring chemotherapy, NO ONE was thinking about grandkids - they were thinking about keeping me alive. I really think someone would have gone off the deep end if I'd told them I was eschewing chemo for a little while to fly off to Belgium and see if some doctor I knew nothing about (other than the fact that they had performed the aforementioned procedure with successful results on one occasion) would help me out with future fertility.

(3) Please note that in young women diagnosed with breast cancer (one relatively common reason that young women have chemo), there is often concern about a genetic mutation that is associated with ovarian cancer, as well. Not only am I not encouraged to get pregnant, I have been asked to strongly consider having my ovaries taken out!

That said, I know many young women in my position for whom having a child was one of their priorities - and they thought all their options over very carefully over time. I do have friends who froze embryos and had IVF. I do have friends who conceived naturally after chemo. However, for most of these women and their families, this was a decision made over time and with a lot of thought and consultation with oncologists and fertility specialists. Can we please not make light of this situation by saying what we know we'd do? With respect (and the admission that I know nothing at all about anyone but myself), until we've been there, we don't know WHAT we'd do.

I am sorry of this is offensive - I am not meaning it that way. However, this subject is very personal to me, and I think people need to understand that it isn't a snap decision in most cases.