A sad story what are your views?

[aussie_shark_bait]

oh, how easy to say adopt when you have your own children.
unless you go through the pain of infertility you will NEVER know the pain of loss.
you can empathise all you want but platitudes are meaningless if you have not been through it yourself.

Lostinspace - I am not sure i agree with this. Some people do have their own children, & do understand loss. I have a beautiful son, and I would have had two other beautiful babies had I not miscarried and lost them, one prior to having my son and one since having my son.

ASB

 

[Kim]

In the first place let me say that as it sounds like you have successfully recovered from your cancer (or at least I hope so) I am very happy for you and wish you good health in the future.

(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.

While American medicine is ahead in many areas it is not in others. The reasearch that we are discussing here is being pioneered in Belgium, with the UK a close second. The woman this thread is about is English (as I am). I'm sure Boston has good hospitals, but they are obviously not specialized in this area so presumably wouldn't offer it as an option.

(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.

I am not determined to have grandkids - that is totally something for my daughter to decide what she wants. If she comes to me with a problem then I endevour to give her any information that I have that could help her to make an informed decision. The fact that my mother and grandmother both died of breast cancer before they were 56, and my daughters own mother died at 46 means that cancer is a topic in our family that is close and personal. We have discussed it many times, although my daughter does not have it at this time. She is now 23 years old - and she watches the situation very closely. She lives in Holland, and is very aware of the Belgian research ( as are most, if not all, Dutch women)

(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!

As I linked to in a previous post the possibility of cancer cells in the ovaries has also been taken very seriously here. British research has shown that it is far less likely than was previously thought. I have never heard of someone having their ovaries removed because they had breast cancer as a 'precautionary measure'. Maybe this is an American thing?

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 not making light of any situation. It appears from your comments that taking tissue as a possible solution is not offered in America as an option. I find that rather sad as it is no longer the case in Europe. This whole discussion is not about the procedures though, it's about a British woman who may not use embryo's fathered by an ex-partner. I have simply tried to point out that if she had had tissue taken she would still have some chance in the future to have her own children. How much of a chance we don't know - as it is still a very new procedure. Only time will tell. As far as what I would do I think you have misunderstood completely. Helping someone to understand the choices and the ramifications of those choices is not making a decision. Any decision like that would be totally up to my daughter.

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.

I don't see any offense in your comments (except slightly that you appear to believe that if they can't do it in America it can't be done!). As far as a snap decision is concerned, many people who get cancer do not have a lot of time to make decisions. Thinking about possible events ahead of time does no harm in my opinion. I do agree though that any final decisions would be made when it became necessary. Some people really don't have the option to think about things 'over time' however - and I think that they also need to understand that.

 

[vetdiver]

Hi, Kim -

OK, well, I think you thought my responses were perhaps intended with a slightly angrier tone than I intended, and for that I apologize. My intent was simply to inform you that because a procedure exists as a case report - no matter where in the world that might be - it does not make it an immediate viable option...it was not meant to imply that you are a grandkid-hungry fiend - sorry if I came across that way (and I think I did)! My doctors (American AND German - and I'm married to an Englishman, so I've had meetings with English physicians as well) were aware of this procedure, as I went in with a big mouth and a scientific paper describing it (they got annoyed with me a NUMBER of times for this sort of thing)... Most (vast understatement) physicians will not perform a procedure that has only been performed successfully a few times - and I don't think this goes only for American doctors. (I have an advanced degree and work in the pharmaceutical industry - and I know very well that American medicine does not represent what is available worldwide - we are often working to get things approved in the US after they've been approved and used safely in other countries for years...it can be quite frustrating!)

I do think that health insurance plays into it here in the US - not so sure about other countries - but I am confident that one one the reasons that the hospitals here do not offer freezing ovarian tissue as an option is because most insurance companies would see this as "experimental"...thus leaving the physicians in a position wherein they might not be reimbursed...

As for your family history - I had a similar one - I am sorry that you have lost so many family members to this terrible disease, and I am glad to hear that your daughters are vigilant. I was diagnosed at 33, and I personally know women who were diagnosed as early as 22 - and you must be your own advocate when you are this young. I truly hope that your daughters remain free and clear of this (or any) cancer!

As for the ovary removal thing - there are genetic mutations (in the BRCA 1 and 2 genes) that are associated with high rates of breast and ovarian (and lesser rates of other) cancers - for women with a BRCA 1 mutation, the chance of ovarian cancer occurrence can be as high as 70%. Since ovarian cancer is often quite advanced by the time of diagnosis, many women who test positive for one of these genetic mutations or who have other indicators of a genetic issue (e.g., getting breast cancer at an early age with a strong family history of first degree relatives diagnosed with breast and/or ovarian cancer) are often asked to consider having their ovaries removed. It has nothing to do with taking out a tissue that may have been seeded by breast cancer cells. This is not just an American thing, I know women worldwide who chose to have their ovaries "prophylactically" removed to minimize their risk of ovarian cancer.

OK, so that's enough OT stuff - That said - again - I think this woman in this thread with the frozen embryos is in a sad situation...but in my opinion, the father has a right to say "no". Adoption is a beautiful thing...

and now, back to diving...

 

[Scubaguy62]

Yes they are, I often smile when I hear arguments about when life begins - at birth or conception. Because when you come right down to it life dosent begin, it began. One time. At no time in the procreative process are we dealing with something that isn't alive. The mother is alive, the father is alive, the egg is alive and the sperm is alive and the tiny life is alive. (montyb)

Monty, you're right about where life began. And while true that mom and dad are alive, and egg and sperm are alive as well, here is the other side of the coin, when can life sustain itself? The answer is, after the 22nd week of pregnancy. At less than 22 weeks, an embryo cannot live outside the mother's womb. That's a medically proven fact.

So, knowing the embryo won't survive if thawed, without reimplantation in the mother's womb, the issue is whether the rights of the woman to be or not be a mother are equal to the rights of the man to be or not be a father, when there is no relationship between the two, and if so, does the mother have a right to initiate a pregnancy by way of reimplantation of a frozen embryo without the father's consent?

Both men and women have equal rights to become, or not become parents. If in a relationship, this right is equally shared between the two. If they become parents through the normal course of life, even if it is as a result of a casual encounter, then the mother has the right of whether to terminate pregnancy. (IMHO, in the event of a social encounter, if she chooses to keep the pregnancy, he should be relieved from any responsibility unless he concurs to the pregnancy) But we're not talking about termination of pregnancy, we're talking about the initiation of pregnancy, without the father's consent. That's no different than a woman getting a guy drunk, conceive while in he was in his diminished capacity, and then try to force him to accept the responsibility. Forget about the fact that there is a frozen embryo, as opposed to a frozen egg. There is no viable pregnancy. The embryo cannot survive outside the mother's womb. There is also no relationship between "mom" and "dad." There is no way, legal or moral, for her to overextend her rights over those of her ex. Her only alternative would be, if available, to visit her neighborhood sperm bank and try it that way. However, that's not an option for her either, so she's only left with one choice, ADOPTION.

Oh and BTW, while I would include "we need to," to the sentence, I would tell my wife "..............deal with it." You can only play the hand you're dealt, despite how bitter it may be.

 

[lostinspace]

Lostinspace - I am not sure i agree with this. Some people do have their own children, & do understand loss. I have a beautiful son, and I would have had two other beautiful babies had I not miscarried and lost them, one prior to having my son and one since having my son.

ASB

ASB - but you have been through the pain and you do understand the pain & loss. Sorry, I was not saying it's an either/or situation, but more that unless you have been through it personally yourself (oneself) you (one) would not understand.
I am sorry you have had to go through it. Myself, I would not wish this pain on my worst enemy. It is soul destroying.

 

[Nomaster]

I've joined a truly gutsy group here!
I'm happy to be with people who can open up and talk about such weighty issue, even opening their private pain for the rest of us to learn from.

Thank you.

Tom

 

[starfish365]

British woman can't use frozen embryos: court
Associated Press

LONDON — Britain's Court of Appeal ruled Friday that a woman left infertile following cancer treatment cannot use frozen embryos she created with her former partner.

However, Lord Justice Thorpe ordered that the embryos should not be destroyed until Natallie Evans, 32, decides whether to appeal the court's decision.

Thorpe's ruling is the second blow to the legal challenge by Evans against the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act, which requires the destruction of embryos unless both parties consent to storage and use.

Evans turned to the courts when her former partner, Howard Johnston, withdrew his consent for the use of the embryos, which were stored in 2001 using his sperm, when the couple split in 2002.

Her lawyers have argued that the law violates the human rights of women who have been made infertile.

She has already lost her case in the High Court where Justice Wall ruled last year that the embryos, created as a result of in vitro fertilization treatment, should be destroyed.

Thorpe stayed that order and acknowledged that the framers may not have considered certain possibilities when the law was drafted, as he made his judgment.

"For Ms. Evans, this is a tragedy of a kind which may well not have been in anyone's mind when the statute was framed," he said.

Most people had the opportunity to attempt IVF treatment again with a new partner but the case of subsequent infertility, "the simple requirement of continuing consent can work hardship of a possibly unanticipated kind," he said.

Muiris Lyons, Evans's lawyer, said she had 28 days to decide whether to lodge an appeal in the House of Lords, Britain's highest appeal court.

"Natallie is absolutely heartbroken," Lyons said. "Her frozen embryos represent her last chance to have a child that is genetically hers so she is completely distraught at the outcome of her appeal."

Evans had her ovaries removed during IVF treatment when doctors detected precancerous cells. She claimed that Johnston led her to believe that he would never stop her using the embryos as he knew how much she wanted a child.

Robin Tolson, another lawyer for Evans, told the Appeal Court that the High Court had put too narrow an interpretation on the Embryology Act and claimed that the embryo had a right to live under the European Convention on Human Rights.

"Natallie's case clearly illustrates the moral, legal, ethical and social issues which can arise and the judgment we received today has implications not just for Natallie but for all women who have undergone IVF treatment and who have embryos in storage and all women who are likely to undergo IVF treatment in the future," Lyons said after the ruling.

Evans began her court fight two years ago with another infertile woman, Lorraine Hadley, who had also lost permission for the use of embryos created with her husband after they separated. Hadley did not take her case to the Court of Appeal.


copied from CTV.ca

 

[starfish365]

I have a question regarding adoption - please don't flame me for this one, I really have no idea how it works and this post is in no way intended to cause anger or pain to those who have, wish to, or are adopted.

Its my understanding that years and years ago it was very difficult to adopt a child, you had to have two parents, a good job, and be able to support and commit to this child for his/her life.

If a person is known to have a disease that could if not probably end their life before the child is able to care for themselves, is it fair morally to that child or even legal to adopt in that case?

Adoption is a wonderful thing - but its a lifetime committment just as having your own child is.

 

[scubasean]

Wow that is a tough one - but as long as women want to have control of their bodies - we have to give men control of theirs as well. In this case that embryo was equally a part of him and should have had as much say as she did. She should not be able to force a man to have a baby no matter if it is her last chance to have one. It is a much bigger issue that just a matter of "support." What happens when the child at age 15 seeks him out? He will forever be wondering and waiting for that phone call or knock on the door.

If it was inside of her alive and viable he does not have a right to say kill it, I don't want to be a father right now. But obviously that was not the case here. They broke up and he no longer wanted to have a child with her. He should not be forced to do so - regardless of her childbirthing status.

I feel for her, I really do. I am sure she is heartbroken. I could not imagine the pain, but it still is not right to force a man to become a father (no matter what he IS the father biologically) if he does not want to become one.

Kimber

While I agree 100 percent with what Kimber states here, I ask....

Who is to say that the decision the guy made to become a father wasn't irrevocably made prior to the conception (whoever it happened) of the embryo?

That is certainly the case in the normal way of conceiving and having a kid...Once conception takes place, the decision is in the mom's court.

Again, I'm just providing food for thought, since I agree with Kimber.

 

[vetdiver]

If a person is known to have a disease that could if not probably end their life before the child is able to care for themselves, is it fair morally to that child or even legal to adopt in that case?

Adoption is a wonderful thing - but its a lifetime committment just as having your own child is.

I absolutely see your point - don't know how I feel about this - everyone I know who adopted post-chemo is married. I do know one cancer survivor who decided to be inseminated by an anonymous donor - there were no questions about her long-term prognosis at all. The lines just sort of get blurry after a while to me...think I'm too close to the situation!! I guess it depends how you look at it - I mean, depending on what kind of cancer the woman had, she may be at very low risk for a recurrence...she may be more likely to die in a car accident... I am sure it would be up to the courts (not that she is probably too excited to ever walk into a courtroom again, right?)...and how supportive her extended family is. I know that she would be able to adopt an orphan from another country if she has the money, time, and desire.

Guess I agree a bit with Scubaguy62 here...if having a child (either by implantation of the embryo or adoption) is not an option anymore for this poor woman - very, very sad - but it is what it is. Sometimes, life is just not fair.