Technology used in fertility treatment which has been adopted by Hull's IVF unit is being rolled out across the rest of the UK.
The unit has also been nominated for a national award for use of the technology.
The technology lessens the risk of a mix up when the sperm and egg are put together by activating an alarm.
It was designed following highly publicised adverse incidents across the UK.
The unit said IVF mix-ups were rare but in recent years there had been four "highly publicised serious adverse incidents" in UK clinics.
It said two involved incorrect identification of sperm samples and resulted in the live birth of twins.
As a consequence the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (HFEA) - the UK's independent regulator overseeing the use of gametes and embryos in fertility treatment and research - introduced a requirement for all movement of sperm, eggs and embryos during any clinical or laboratory process to be witnessed to prevent mismatches.
The technology works through a tracking process ensuring that the resulting embryo is transferred to the correct patient.
If at any time the wrong samples are introduced, the system warns the laboratory personnel both visually and audibly.
A spokeswoman for the unit said: "The system provides an invaluable reassurance for patient's nurses and embryologists alike."
The clinic, which is based at Hull Royal Infirmary, has been nominated for the Best Use of Technology category at the the Independent Health Care Awards. The winners will be announced on 14 September.
According to the Hull IVF Unit 37,000 women undergo fertility treatments in the UK every year.
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Creature comfort: the British 'safari jet' that transforms into a plush viewing platform
There are some people who want the comforts of home with them - even when 'roughing it' on safari in Africa. For these five-star campers, BAE Systems and Design Q have come up with the ultimate in travel luxury. The four-engined Avro Business Jet Explorer Four has been designed to land on short runways and uneven landing strips, delivering its wealthy passengers directly into wildlife areas. Then, with the flick of a switch, a door on the side of the jet opens and a viewing platform extends from the fuselage - offering spectacular open-air views!
For a cool £16 million, A-list animal lovers will get the chance to by the 'safari jet', which has room for two pilots and eight passengers and crew. Inside the aircraft, a galley kitchen can deliver gourmet meals to an eight-seat dining area, and large sofas fold out to provide on-board beds. To top it all off, once passengers have had their fill of the good life and wildlife in any given area, they simply transform the aircraft back into its 'flying mode' and jet off to the next destination.
The 100ft aircraft is being built to order in the UK, and a spokesman for BAE/Design Q says the aircraft will 'offer a new level of sophistication for the discerning customer'. With marble floors and quality finishes throughout, the interiors can be modified and designed to suit the individual needs of the owner. For more remote locations and rougher landing grounds, the jet can be fitted with stronger and bigger tyres, and the fuselage can be strengthened to cope with the extra strain. The finished product, will look like these images, based on BAE designs.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Errors at UK IVF clinics double in 12 months
The number of mistakes at IVF centres in England and Wales rose from 182 in 2007/8 to 334 in 2008/9.
Blunders included embryos being lost or implanted in the wrong woman, and eggs being fertilised with another man's sperm.
The figures from Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFEA), the IVF regulatory body, were obtained by BBC Radio Five Live's Donal MacIntyre show.
The HFEA said the errors represented less than 1 per cent of more than 50,000 IVF cycles carried out.
One couple were told by the University Hospital of Wales's IVF clinic that their last remaining embryos had been lost during treatment.
The pair, identified only as Clare and Gareth, had been trying for a baby for eight years.
Clare told the BBC: ''I was sat there, gowned up, waiting to go in and have a transfer. They said you've got one embryo remaining, the other two embryos have gone missing.
''They said in the next sentence I can assure you they haven't gone into anyone else. Those were two potential babies.''
The centre in Cardiff was responsible for another serious mix-up three years ago when a couple's last viable embryo was placed in the wrong woman. An investigation found serious failings at the clinic.
The clinic said its success rate in recovering embryos is among the highest in the world and all incidents are reported to the HFEA.
Clare and Gareth's solicitor, Guy Forster, of law firm Irwin Mitchell, said he has dealt with a dozen couples involved in similar incidents at different clinics around the country in the past 12 months.
He said: ''It may be perhaps that the embryos have been lost, or in the worst case scenario an embryo has been transferred into the wrong patient. It's deeply disturbing.''
Dr Sammy Lee, a fertility expert at University College Hospital, said: ''The key failure of the HFEA is that when they ask clinics to put in special procedures, they're not enforcing them.
''There's no point simply putting a request in writing and then expecting everything to be all right. You need to make sure that when you require something, that you have a way of enforcing it.''
Blunders included embryos being lost or implanted in the wrong woman, and eggs being fertilised with another man's sperm.
The figures from Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFEA), the IVF regulatory body, were obtained by BBC Radio Five Live's Donal MacIntyre show.
The HFEA said the errors represented less than 1 per cent of more than 50,000 IVF cycles carried out.
One couple were told by the University Hospital of Wales's IVF clinic that their last remaining embryos had been lost during treatment.
The pair, identified only as Clare and Gareth, had been trying for a baby for eight years.
Clare told the BBC: ''I was sat there, gowned up, waiting to go in and have a transfer. They said you've got one embryo remaining, the other two embryos have gone missing.
''They said in the next sentence I can assure you they haven't gone into anyone else. Those were two potential babies.''
The centre in Cardiff was responsible for another serious mix-up three years ago when a couple's last viable embryo was placed in the wrong woman. An investigation found serious failings at the clinic.
The clinic said its success rate in recovering embryos is among the highest in the world and all incidents are reported to the HFEA.
Clare and Gareth's solicitor, Guy Forster, of law firm Irwin Mitchell, said he has dealt with a dozen couples involved in similar incidents at different clinics around the country in the past 12 months.
He said: ''It may be perhaps that the embryos have been lost, or in the worst case scenario an embryo has been transferred into the wrong patient. It's deeply disturbing.''
Dr Sammy Lee, a fertility expert at University College Hospital, said: ''The key failure of the HFEA is that when they ask clinics to put in special procedures, they're not enforcing them.
''There's no point simply putting a request in writing and then expecting everything to be all right. You need to make sure that when you require something, that you have a way of enforcing it.''
Thursday, February 25, 2010
In my next Life, I would like to be born an Indian!
Must read for all Indians, especially the coconuts ...'You know brown outside, white inside' and the CD's - "confused desi's"...duhh!!!
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Intending mothers fight for maternity leave following surrogacy
Following new UK government guidelines on surrogacy published last month aimed at improving the rights of surrogacy patients, Ministers are now facing a new legal challenge calling for further changes in the law.
Specialist fertility law firm, Gamble and Ghevaert, have written to Ministers demanding that the current rules, which prevent women who use surrogates from receiving maternity benefits, be changed. At present, only women who themselves go through a successful pregnancy are entitled to paid maternity leave and employment protection - even in cases where they are not the genetic parent. Thus, surrogate mothers are entitled to all maternity benefits. However, no such rights are available for parents who use a surrogate or adopt, leading campaigners to describe the current position as discriminatory.
Natalie Gamble, partner at Gamble and Ghevaert, explained the situation thus: 'The lack of right to maternity leave is tied up with the fact the surrogate mother is regarded as the mother…In any other circumstances you would get maternity leave. Women aren't going to need a whole year. What would make sense is a system where you have some sort of sharing arrangement [for maternity leave]'. She continued, 'We also need to take account of our modern human rights and anti-discrimination laws which do not allow unfair treatment of minority groups, however small they are'. At present, approximately 40 babies are born through surrogacy in Britain each year, mainly due to medical reasons which prevent some women from giving birth themselves.
Surrogacy in Britain is laden with problems. Surrogates in Britain may not receive payment for the service they render, apart from expenses. Furthermore, surrogacy agreements are not legally binding, meaning the surrogate mother has the right to keep the baby she gives birth to, even if the child is not genetically related to her, and she has been paid all expenses. These restrictions have led to couples going overseas to carry through a surrogacy arrangement. However this can also present difficulties; the worst case scenario is that a much-wanted baby is recognised in neither Britain, nor the country of it's birth.
Sharmy Beaumont, aged 33, is one of the few UK women who has become a parent with the help of a surrogate. Beaumont was born with a rare condition which meant her womb could not cope with carrying a child. After learning of this in her twenties, Beaumont contacted Surrogacy UK and was put in touch with her surrogate, Liz Stringer. After a successful surrogate pregnancy and the birth of her baby daughter, Isabelle, Beaumont was forced to take unpaid leave in order to care for her.
She says, 'My work have been understanding and have allowed me some leave to look after Isabelle…However, the fact that parents through surrogacy are not entitled to any maternity benefits to spend time with their babies is unfair and the Government has not recognised this'.
'I love being a mum,' Beaumont concludes, 'but the system is unfair'.
Specialist fertility law firm, Gamble and Ghevaert, have written to Ministers demanding that the current rules, which prevent women who use surrogates from receiving maternity benefits, be changed. At present, only women who themselves go through a successful pregnancy are entitled to paid maternity leave and employment protection - even in cases where they are not the genetic parent. Thus, surrogate mothers are entitled to all maternity benefits. However, no such rights are available for parents who use a surrogate or adopt, leading campaigners to describe the current position as discriminatory.
Natalie Gamble, partner at Gamble and Ghevaert, explained the situation thus: 'The lack of right to maternity leave is tied up with the fact the surrogate mother is regarded as the mother…In any other circumstances you would get maternity leave. Women aren't going to need a whole year. What would make sense is a system where you have some sort of sharing arrangement [for maternity leave]'. She continued, 'We also need to take account of our modern human rights and anti-discrimination laws which do not allow unfair treatment of minority groups, however small they are'. At present, approximately 40 babies are born through surrogacy in Britain each year, mainly due to medical reasons which prevent some women from giving birth themselves.
Surrogacy in Britain is laden with problems. Surrogates in Britain may not receive payment for the service they render, apart from expenses. Furthermore, surrogacy agreements are not legally binding, meaning the surrogate mother has the right to keep the baby she gives birth to, even if the child is not genetically related to her, and she has been paid all expenses. These restrictions have led to couples going overseas to carry through a surrogacy arrangement. However this can also present difficulties; the worst case scenario is that a much-wanted baby is recognised in neither Britain, nor the country of it's birth.
Sharmy Beaumont, aged 33, is one of the few UK women who has become a parent with the help of a surrogate. Beaumont was born with a rare condition which meant her womb could not cope with carrying a child. After learning of this in her twenties, Beaumont contacted Surrogacy UK and was put in touch with her surrogate, Liz Stringer. After a successful surrogate pregnancy and the birth of her baby daughter, Isabelle, Beaumont was forced to take unpaid leave in order to care for her.
She says, 'My work have been understanding and have allowed me some leave to look after Isabelle…However, the fact that parents through surrogacy are not entitled to any maternity benefits to spend time with their babies is unfair and the Government has not recognised this'.
'I love being a mum,' Beaumont concludes, 'but the system is unfair'.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Moving surrogacy law forward in the UK?
Of all the prospective parents conceiving through assisted reproduction, those in surrogacy arrangements often face the most difficult legal issues. The surrogate and usually also her husband will be treated as the child's legal parents at birth, leaving the commissioning parents with no legal connection with their child whatsoever, even where both are the biological parents.
There is a special remedy available called a parental order. This is an order made by the family courts which reassigns parenthood after surrogacy, extinguishing the responsibility of the surrogate parents and transferring it to the commissioning couple. The process takes place post-birth: the application must be made within the first six months of the child's life (though the surrogate's consent is ineffective until after the first six weeks) and typically takes many months to be processed by the courts. At present, only married couples can apply, but as from 6 April 2010, unmarried and same sex couples will also be eligible.
The Department of Health (DH) is currently consulting on new draft regulations which prescribe the detail of this court process, and which will replace existing regulations that have been in place since 1994. The consultation closes on 23 November.
What is in the draft regulations?
Like the existing regulations, the proposed revised regulations apply provisions of adoption law to the parental order application process, setting out court procedure and giving a surrogate child broadly the same legal status as an adopted child. Adoption law has itself been overhauled substantially in recent years, and this is reflected in the wording of the new regulations. However, as part of the general updating, there are some important revisions being made to the existing parental order system which need to be looked at carefully.
For example, a court considering whether to grant an adoption order now has to first consider the 'welfare checklist', a prescriptive list of considerations which includes ascertaining the child's wishes and feelings and considering his or her relationship with the birth family. The new parental order regulations incorporate this checklist into the parental order process. However, it does not seem appropriate for the court to have to address all these issues in surrogacy cases, given that the child will inevitably be less than six months old, and will be already living with the applicants (at least one of whom is his or her biological parent).
Importing the new adoption law without amendment fails to adequately take account of the special nature of surrogacy arrangements, and there may be a risk that this could make the process of applying for a parental order even more onerous than before. While a parental order is similar to an adoption order (in the sense that it transfers legal parenthood from one person to another), surrogacy is very different from adoption. Because a surrogate child (or at least those to which parental orders can apply) is biologically connected to at least one of the commissioning parents and is almost invariably in their care from birth, the dynamic of the family is perhaps closer to donor conception than to adoption. Adapting adoption law is therefore a difficult task, and one which we think could be handled more carefully by the regulations.
The parental order system
Even though a more fundamental review may not be within the power of these regulations, it seems impossible to look at any legislation relating to parental orders without making the point that the whole system is problematic. Parental orders were introduced as a late amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 in response to a specific surrogacy case. At the time, surrogacy was viewed as very rare and something which occurred largely on the fringes of the law and ethical acceptability. The 1990 rules on legal parenthood clearly prioritised donor conception (making the carrying mother the legal mother, and her husband the legal father), and parental orders were designed as a limited remedy - a 'sticking plaster' - in respect of the awkward application of legal parenthood rules in surrogacy situations.
As all those working in this field know, things have changed radically since then. Surrogacy as a form of fertility treatment has blossomed, both in the UK and abroad, and no longer affects just a small number of altruistic inter-family arrangements. Indeed, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 itself has endorsed this, by legalising non-profit making surrogacy agencies like Surrogacy UK and COTS and extending the categories of couples eligible to apply for parental orders. We are also seeing growing numbers of fertility patients travelling abroad for surrogacy, which brings even more complex legal challenges.
The current system, which came about by historical accident rather than a concerted policy decision, fails to meet this increased demand, and is inadequate from almost every perspective. The surrogate and her husband (who, in the vast majority of cases do wish to surrender the child) remain legally and financially responsible for the child for up to a year after the birth, and may have no legal redress against intended parents who refuse to assume responsibility. The intended parents often have no status in respect of their child for many months, including no right to make decisions or to consent to immunisations, no right to transmit inheritance or citizenship rights automatically and the intending mother has no rights to maternity leave (though this is the subject of another current campaign), leaving children very vulnerable during the early months of their lives.
The system is not an effective guardian of public policy against commercial surrogacy, since the check on payments comes at the end the process (by which time any payments have already been made) and the only sanction available to the court is a refusal to grant an order, which is almost impossible to enforce since this would prejudice the welfare of a newborn child. And, most importantly of all, these problems mean that surrogate children lack even basic protection. The problems are highlighted most starkly in foreign surrogacy cases. For example, in the landmark case of Re X and Y (foreign surrogacy) [2008], the law left surrogate twins born abroad to a British couple stateless and parentless. Such children risk being abandoned to foreign state care in the absence of complex and expensive legal intervention - surely this is an outcome which the law has an obligation to avoid at all costs.
We need a better and more planned approach to surrogacy. Of course, there are difficult and sensitive issues to be handled in creating new law. Surrogacy arrangements are among the most ethically and humanly complex in assisted reproduction, with three or even four adults involved throughout the process of conception, pregnancy and birth, and possibly third party gamete donors as well. The respective interests, protection and independence from exploitation of all these adults and, most importantly, the resulting child, need to be adequately balanced and protected by the law.
It is disappointing that such issues were not properly addressed during the government's overhaul of assisted reproduction law last year. Although the Minister indicated that surrogacy was a sensitive issue which would be looked at separately, no firm commitment for this review, or a date, has yet been set - and it seems, given the current 'status' of surrogacy - odd to continue treating it separately. In order to ensure that our law can cope with the demands of modern surrogacy practice, and to ensure that vulnerable children are protected, we urge the government to take a fresh look, not only at the regulations, but at the law itself.
By Natalie Gamble and Louisa Ghevaert
Partners with specialist fertility law firm Gamble and Ghevaert LLP (www.gambleandghevaert.com)
There is a special remedy available called a parental order. This is an order made by the family courts which reassigns parenthood after surrogacy, extinguishing the responsibility of the surrogate parents and transferring it to the commissioning couple. The process takes place post-birth: the application must be made within the first six months of the child's life (though the surrogate's consent is ineffective until after the first six weeks) and typically takes many months to be processed by the courts. At present, only married couples can apply, but as from 6 April 2010, unmarried and same sex couples will also be eligible.
The Department of Health (DH) is currently consulting on new draft regulations which prescribe the detail of this court process, and which will replace existing regulations that have been in place since 1994. The consultation closes on 23 November.
What is in the draft regulations?
Like the existing regulations, the proposed revised regulations apply provisions of adoption law to the parental order application process, setting out court procedure and giving a surrogate child broadly the same legal status as an adopted child. Adoption law has itself been overhauled substantially in recent years, and this is reflected in the wording of the new regulations. However, as part of the general updating, there are some important revisions being made to the existing parental order system which need to be looked at carefully.
For example, a court considering whether to grant an adoption order now has to first consider the 'welfare checklist', a prescriptive list of considerations which includes ascertaining the child's wishes and feelings and considering his or her relationship with the birth family. The new parental order regulations incorporate this checklist into the parental order process. However, it does not seem appropriate for the court to have to address all these issues in surrogacy cases, given that the child will inevitably be less than six months old, and will be already living with the applicants (at least one of whom is his or her biological parent).
Importing the new adoption law without amendment fails to adequately take account of the special nature of surrogacy arrangements, and there may be a risk that this could make the process of applying for a parental order even more onerous than before. While a parental order is similar to an adoption order (in the sense that it transfers legal parenthood from one person to another), surrogacy is very different from adoption. Because a surrogate child (or at least those to which parental orders can apply) is biologically connected to at least one of the commissioning parents and is almost invariably in their care from birth, the dynamic of the family is perhaps closer to donor conception than to adoption. Adapting adoption law is therefore a difficult task, and one which we think could be handled more carefully by the regulations.
The parental order system
Even though a more fundamental review may not be within the power of these regulations, it seems impossible to look at any legislation relating to parental orders without making the point that the whole system is problematic. Parental orders were introduced as a late amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 in response to a specific surrogacy case. At the time, surrogacy was viewed as very rare and something which occurred largely on the fringes of the law and ethical acceptability. The 1990 rules on legal parenthood clearly prioritised donor conception (making the carrying mother the legal mother, and her husband the legal father), and parental orders were designed as a limited remedy - a 'sticking plaster' - in respect of the awkward application of legal parenthood rules in surrogacy situations.
As all those working in this field know, things have changed radically since then. Surrogacy as a form of fertility treatment has blossomed, both in the UK and abroad, and no longer affects just a small number of altruistic inter-family arrangements. Indeed, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 itself has endorsed this, by legalising non-profit making surrogacy agencies like Surrogacy UK and COTS and extending the categories of couples eligible to apply for parental orders. We are also seeing growing numbers of fertility patients travelling abroad for surrogacy, which brings even more complex legal challenges.
The current system, which came about by historical accident rather than a concerted policy decision, fails to meet this increased demand, and is inadequate from almost every perspective. The surrogate and her husband (who, in the vast majority of cases do wish to surrender the child) remain legally and financially responsible for the child for up to a year after the birth, and may have no legal redress against intended parents who refuse to assume responsibility. The intended parents often have no status in respect of their child for many months, including no right to make decisions or to consent to immunisations, no right to transmit inheritance or citizenship rights automatically and the intending mother has no rights to maternity leave (though this is the subject of another current campaign), leaving children very vulnerable during the early months of their lives.
The system is not an effective guardian of public policy against commercial surrogacy, since the check on payments comes at the end the process (by which time any payments have already been made) and the only sanction available to the court is a refusal to grant an order, which is almost impossible to enforce since this would prejudice the welfare of a newborn child. And, most importantly of all, these problems mean that surrogate children lack even basic protection. The problems are highlighted most starkly in foreign surrogacy cases. For example, in the landmark case of Re X and Y (foreign surrogacy) [2008], the law left surrogate twins born abroad to a British couple stateless and parentless. Such children risk being abandoned to foreign state care in the absence of complex and expensive legal intervention - surely this is an outcome which the law has an obligation to avoid at all costs.
We need a better and more planned approach to surrogacy. Of course, there are difficult and sensitive issues to be handled in creating new law. Surrogacy arrangements are among the most ethically and humanly complex in assisted reproduction, with three or even four adults involved throughout the process of conception, pregnancy and birth, and possibly third party gamete donors as well. The respective interests, protection and independence from exploitation of all these adults and, most importantly, the resulting child, need to be adequately balanced and protected by the law.
It is disappointing that such issues were not properly addressed during the government's overhaul of assisted reproduction law last year. Although the Minister indicated that surrogacy was a sensitive issue which would be looked at separately, no firm commitment for this review, or a date, has yet been set - and it seems, given the current 'status' of surrogacy - odd to continue treating it separately. In order to ensure that our law can cope with the demands of modern surrogacy practice, and to ensure that vulnerable children are protected, we urge the government to take a fresh look, not only at the regulations, but at the law itself.
By Natalie Gamble and Louisa Ghevaert
Partners with specialist fertility law firm Gamble and Ghevaert LLP (www.gambleandghevaert.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)