Strollerderby : surrogacy

A Surrogate Birth Every 48 Hours

Madeline Holler — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:10:00 GMT

In the U.S., the reported amount of money gestational carriers (aka: surrogate mothers) receive for nine months of developing some other couple's genetic material into a full-blown baby isn't exactly life-changing. It's never enough to buy a house, pay for a college degree, or even elevate one's standard of living.

But in India, surrogate mothers make enough to actually change their lives, according to one doctor who attends many, many surrogate births. A payment of $13,000 and often more is an incredible amount.

So while we considered what affect Sarah Jessica Parker would have on the rate and popularity of surrogate pregnancies in the U.S., Dr. Anita Soni, obstetrician in India at one of Mumbai's top hospitals, was attending a gestational carrier's birth every 48 hours.

Demand from childless Westerners, especially in the U.K. where commercial surrogacy is illegal, has created a surrogacy baby boom in India.

Soni said she attends the births of around 15 surrogates every month. She has no problem with arrangement, which she describes as life-changing for both sides.

From the London Evening Standard:

“For these surrogate mothers that amount of money is life-changing. It helps them set up a home, get their daughters married or something like that. There is absolutely no exploitation of these women. It is really big money. It is a jackpot.

“They go through a little bit of emotional trauma, but then they go back home and they realise they have done it for a good cause. I help more white couples than Indians, who are still sceptical about things. English couples come here much more in numbers.”

I don't know, a dowry seems like a waste of this money and of course the doctor sees surrogacy as a boon: she's benefitting from an increase in the births, too. Soni works at one of the few hospitals where surrogate mothers are sent to give birth. Also, I wonder about abuse. I wonder if we'll start hearing about daughters being sent to get pregnant to bring in extra money for the family (in India or other countries).

Another doctor who's getting a piece of the pie says business won't dry up anytime soon.

Dr Gauri Gupta of the Rotunda Clinic, who implants embryos in Indian surrogates before they go into the care of Dr Soni, said: “Surrogacy is spreading at a very fast pace here and there have been very few complaints. It is a very helpful way for people who could not have children before to become parents and we are seeing more and more couples from the UK every day. Our email inquiry box is full of messages from people from all over the West.”

What do you think? Win-win situation in India and Great Britain? Or is the American low-pay, high-benevolence factor the better model? Surrogate pregnancies aren't likely to stop anytime soon -- especially since it's been globalized.

How Fertile Couples Outsmarted Wall Street

Colbert to Food Movement Guy: Yes, But Were YOU Breastfed?

They Say: Moms, It's Still Your Fault. Well, Yours and Daycare

Top 10 Pregnancy and Birth World Records

City's 5th Co-Sleeping Death in 10 Weeks Reported

550-Pound Woman Gives Birth

Photo: London Evening Standard

Book for Gay Parents' Kids Creates an Uproar

JeanneSager — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:26:00 GMT

I love how Fox News fairly and I dare say balancedly (is that even a word?) laid out the news that there's a new book out there for kids of lesbian moms who used a sperm donor to conceive:

"Gay Sex Education Book Targets Children as Young as 2"

Gets your dander up, doesn't it? Oh my sweet henry, they're trying to teach our two-year-olds to have sex! And not just the missionary position but you know, the naughty, we don't do that in the heartland kind of s-e-x.

Except they're not.

Where Did I Really Come From? was apparently written to help children of gay couples understand the myriad other ways children come into the world other than a man and woman having sex . . . together. The book includes a chapter about surrogacy (with pictures of two gay men holding a child) and another on lesbian moms using a sperm donor.

According to the Australian, there is some discussion of sex - although I'm not sure how graphic (I haven't read the book myself). They cite a chapter that notes: "Sometimes, a woman really wants to have a baby but she doesn't want to have intercourse with a man. Some women want to bring up a baby by themselves, or with another woman, so the baby gets two mums."

Author Narelle Wickham says she was just trying to normalize for kids the different forms of conception, and the stands behind the suggestion that kids as young as two be given the book by their parents.

Many of the "anti" comments, frankly, are bizarre. Here's a taste:

"Let children be children, they do not need to be introduced to sex or alternative lifestyles at a tender age." Well, if this book was purchased by a parent who used a surrogate or a sperm donor (the families it was written for), that introduction came at the very tender age of CONCEPTION folks.

"Another shot at sexualising and brainwahsing youngsters." Yes, it's brainwashing to let them know that gays really exist, and, by the way, Mommy is one of them. And for that matter, so is Mommy!

"I believe young children should be taught about gay and lesbian parents as this will help them identify them when they are older and allow them to stay away from these types of parents." Because the gay and lesbian parents are so desperate for children that they're going to come after them?

"I think any book about this subject shouldn't be targeted at 2 year olds. Do two year olds really need to be told about sex?" That depends - what did you tell your kids when you or your partner got pregnant? I was four when my parents gave me a book about mommies and daddies making a baby in preparation for a new addition to our family. Which means those books have been out there for decades, aimed at toddlers (this one too has been out since 1992, but is all of a sudden back in the spotlight). Because kids as young as two will certainly notice there is a burgeoning belly if there's a pregnancy or notice a new person suddenly arrive in their lives.

But I guess that was OK, according to most of these posters. Because I had a mom and a dad. Although if I'd had a mom and dad using a surrogate, would that have been OK? Or a mom and dad who had to use a sperm donor? An egg donor? IVF? IUI?

This book addresses them all, giving thousands of kids an alternative to that same old "Mommy and Daddy made me" book I read as a kid. Fortunately for their mommies and/or daddies, it's out there for them.

Image: Evolution (where you can buy the book - straight from Australia)

Surrogate Pregnancy: Who's Next?

Madeline Holler — Fri, 01 May 2009 14:34:00 GMT

Surrogate pregnancies, you have arrived.

This week, the world learned that Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick are awaiting the birth of twin girls via a surrogate sometime this summer. And while there's got to be criticism brewing out there somewhere, so far the mood has been celebratory. There's much congratulations to the couple, who had apparently struggled to conceive after the birth of their son James six years ago. And also reassurance that they have paid an Ohio divorcee "tens of thousands of dollars" to go through the none-too-easy process of getting pregnant and carrying twin pregnancies using someone else's fertilzed eggs (as we're all assuming is the case).

Does anybody else get the feeling that SJP will do for surrogate pregnancies what she did for HBO, expensive strappy shoes and vodka-based girly drinks -- which is to say, make it popular? Will the Sex and the City star be surrogacy's Angelina Jolie, a celebrity endorsement?

A couple of things came to mind when I heard the big Parker/Broderick news: Alex Kuczynski and also the recent Babble piece on surrogate moms.

Kuczynski is the New York Times writer who hired a surrogate to carry and birth Kuczynski's biological son. Her first-person piece about the experience created a stir, much of it having to do with class differences and the fact that pictures accompanying the article showed (1) Kuczynski holding her baby in front of her Southampton, N.Y., home while a black baby nurse stands quietly in the backround and (2) the surrogate mom barefoot and pregnant on a porch in need of a better paint job. Kuczynski was candid about her reasons for wanting a surrogate and also why she wanted to raise a child she was genetically related to. She was frank about her ambivalent feelings toward her surrogate. Surely Parker would express herself differently, but I have to wonder whether her feelings and reasons are all that different from Kuczynski, who was pretty much villified.

But the surrogate mother. The surrogate! Jennifer Block writes about what several surrogate moms have gone through -- not just the injections and having more embryos transferred than actually agreed upon -- but the sheer invasiveness of the pregnancy and birth itself. Mostly, I wondered whether, included in the "tense of thousands of dollars" for the pregnancy and birth of the Parker-Broderick twins, is an island vacation.

If surrogacy becomes the new black -- the Appletini of family planning -- who's next? Madonna?

The Other Side of Surrogacy

Can You Detach the Woman From the Womb?

NYT Asks: Are There Too Many Ways to Conceive?

Sing It, Baby (Babies?): Octomom The Musical

Egg Donation: Which Comes First?

Photo: Star magazine

Egg Donation: Which Comes First?

JeanneSager — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:29:00 GMT

I was surprised at the very clinical approach to the egg donation issue over at The Frisky last week.

Breaking down the medical steps a woman has to go through if she opts to donate her eggs to another family for procreation, it was a well-informed article. It just seemed to skip right over stage one.

I may be stereotyping here (OK, yes, I am stereotyping here), but when it comes to donating eggs vs. donating sperm, the donor seems more likely to have a mental and emotional hurdle to leap before they get to the point where they show up at a clinic and start filling out paperwork and rolling up their sleeves for shots.

Egg donation is a wonderful thing for the recipients who gain a chance to have the baby they would otherwise be unable to make (whether it be infertile females, gay men, what have you). It can also be quite lucrative for the women who do so. Women report anywhere from $5 to at least $20,000 for the process (which, if you read The Frisky article, is in-depth . . . much more so than that of the sperm donor).

Many women can separate the egg being removed from their body from the idea that somewhere out there, a child will exist. To them, it is not their child. It's the child of the person who received their egg. End of story. Still, many can't - and those are the women who would not make a good potential donor.

Maybe it's because I could hardly see myself being a donor (a personal choice, not a judgment call) that I think that part stands above the medical concerns when you're debating "is egg donation worth the money?" The exact question asked in the article is, "Is the money worth the headache and time it takes to be accepted as a donor?" I have no qualms about letting a woman do it just for the money (plenty of men do it, why can't we?), but again, the headache and time it takes to be accepted seem to be secondary hurdles.

Because until you can decide that you have no emotional connection to that egg, you shouldn't even think of facing all of those medical issues.

Do you think this is an issue best approached clinically or emotionally?

Image: FirstScience

NYT Asks: Are There Too Many Ways to Conceive?

Jen Chaney — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:29:00 GMT

Lisa Belkin over at the NYT's Motherlode blog wonders if the pursuit-of-parenthood market may be oversaturated.

Citing the recent examples of the Sarah Jessica Parker/Matthew Broderick surrogate twins and the woman attempting to become a surrogate grandmother by using her dead son's sperm, Belkin asks if science -- with its IVF, egg donations, fertility drugs and other advances -- has perhaps given us too many options. She quotes The Washington Post's Liza Mundy, who recently wrote a book about assisted reproduction: "When there is always something else to try ... there is no permission to stop. That’s the hardest part of the process for couples. For most of them, the ‘permission’ to stop comes when they run out of money."

Mundy mentions a key word there: money. I suspect that the only people who may feel overwhelmed by the vast conception options out there are people with either a. unbelievably awesome health insurance, or b. sizeable amounts of wealth.

For the average, fertility-challenged couple, it's more like: try the old-fashioned way, maybe pursue fertility drugs or IVF for a short period of time, then start looking into adoption. (Which, for the record, ain't cheap either.) As Mundy rightly points out, people usually exhaust their options when the funding runs out, and that can make them feel guilty. But I think most parental hopefuls realize their resources are limited. It's a terrible feeling to spend all that time, energy and cash on one conception option or another and still not have a child as a result. I guess I'm not just sure how many people cope with that feeling by, say, turning from in vitro fertilization to intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

I think it's valid to raise the questions Belkin mentions, for sure. I just think most Americans won't ever have to answer them because practical, economic factors will steer their decisions more than any excess of scientific options ever will. As a commenter on Belkin's blog post put it: "I agree that the possibilities can be wonderful for people who very much want to become parents, but those possibilities right now are only available to those with deep pockets. Insurance does not cover most infertility treatments."

Related Links:

Babble Talk: Can You Detach the Womb from the Woman?

Handy Tips for Infertility Awareness Week

Genetic Mom Gets OK to Adopt Baby Carried by Partner

Mom Gets OK to Collect Dead Son's Sperm

Babble Talk: Can You Detach the Womb from the Woman?

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:30:00 GMT

This week a Babble Poll asks if you think gestational surrogacy is wonderful, terrible or if you aren't sure. I'm sure. I'm sure it's very, very complicated. Jennifer Block's feature article about surrogacy raises that complexity thoughtfully. The particular, physical and emotional challenges faced by "Laurel" in the article are just the tip of a complicated iceberg. I have long felt that surrogacy--as well as gamete "donation"--should be uncompensated, true donation. But Laurel's experience puts even that simple idea into question. Putting her body through such difficulty and shortchanging her own children throughout her pregnancy on behalf of her friends is hard work and surely deserves some kind of compensation. But what kind? Her friends' gratitude? A trip to an exotic island resort?

I am more inclined to look at it from the perspective raised by Barbara Katz Rothman (interviewed for the article), that a woman who carries a baby and gives birth is the mother of that baby. The "reward" for surrogacy ought to be exclusive parental rights to the baby she has grown and borne, regardless of the genes involved. If she wants to place that baby in the hands of someone else, it should be done as an adoption.

I think our society places far too much importance on genetics. If I--an adoptive mother--am truly a mother, as everyone assures me (to my face) that they believe I am, motherhood must be based on something other than genes. If it is care and labor that make a parent then a birth mother--whose care for nine months and literal labor qualifies her--is a mother. An adoptive mother is a mother. If the baby ends up in the arms of the people whose genes were used to start it out, then they have a chance to become parents too.

This idea--that a surrogate mother, regardless of genetics, is indeed a mother--could be an important check on a growing tendency for wealthy first-worlders to partake in "fertility tourism" to places like India, to "rent a womb" for their genetic offspring. For fees much lower than those in the United States, couples are using IVF to impregnate poor women and taking their white babies, born of brown women, back home with nary a look over their shoulders at the women with whom they have now made family ties--and to whom their children owe their lives every bit as much as they owe their genetic parents.

I recently read an impressive article on the practice of surrogacy in India by Usha Rengachary Smerdon. You can find it here if you are interested in learning more about the complicated issues involved.

So, what do you think of surrogacy? Wonderful? Terrible? Not sure? Or something else? And just as a bonus: would you do it? If so, would you want to be paid?

Genetic Mom Gets OK to Adopt Baby Carried by Partner

JeanneSager — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:31:00 GMT

It happens every day - kids get adopted. In forward thinking parts of the country, they even get adopted by members of same sex couples.

But this was a first. A woman who supplied an egg so her female partner could carry their baby has secured the right to adopt her own genetic child - and there was no dispute between the two parties. No divorce, no acrimony. This was all about protecting the child.

Surprised this hasn't happened before? Me too. Same sex couples carrying each other's eggs is not exactly new - celebrity chef Cat Cora and her wife just made news a few months ago because they're both pregnant, and both carrying a fetus made from the opposite's eggs.

But where a woman carrying a baby with sperm donated by her husband via IVF wouldn't have a problem naming him as legal father of the child, too many states still deny same sex couples the ability to name their spouse as the baby's legal parent. Which is why Mona A., the egg donor in this case, petitioned to be named son Sebastian's legal mother shortly after his birth in 2008.

Mona and wife Ingrid A. were legally married in the Netherlands shortly after the country legalized same sex marriage. Their marriage is recognized in some states, where Mona is automatically afforded the rights as parent of the baby her wife delivered. But in other states, where the Defense of Marriage Act reigns supreme, their marriage means little in the eyes of the law - and Mona would be denied her rights as Sebastian's mom.

It was in the best interest of their son that Mona and Ingrid made this petition. It's in imperfect solution to the fight to have their marriage recognized, but it's what they have done to ensure they can both provide for their child.

According to the judge who presided over the case, "Sebastian's genetic mother has other potential legal avenues: first, to be listed on Sebastian's birth certificate; second ... to execute a statutorily prescribed acknowledgment of paternity [filiation]; and third, to obtain a judicial order of filiation."

But Judge Kristin Booth Glen didn't have jurisdiction to secure any of those options for Mona. What she could do was grant an adoption, making both Ingrid and Mona Sebastian's legal parents. Glen says it's the first time a court has had to look at whether two women can be listed on a birth certificate when one is the gestational mother and the second the genetic mother. Although certain states already grant that both members of a same sex couple earn equal legal status as parents, this is the first that takes into account genetics and egg donation.

I am happy for Mona and Ingrid that their case was successful, and I understand that they were doing this in order to retain Mona's rights across state lines. However, it's pathetic that this the means two women have to go through to ensure they both have rights to their own child. Moving to Arkansas or Oklahoma or any other Defense of Marriage BS state is not going to make Mona any less genetically tied to this child. No more so than a move across state lines would make a man's genetic "donation" into a baby any less potent.

But I guess I'm not taking into account that this sweet little baby boy is demon spawn in Arkansas or Oklahoma. . .

Image: Best Quality Wallpapers

Also on Babble:

The Other Side of Surrogacy

Mom Gets OK to Collect Dead Son's Sperm

JeanneSager — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:28:00 GMT

Somewhere in Texas a grandmother-to-be needs to get a grip.

Marissa Evans told a judge she wanted the rights to collect her dead twenty-one-year-old's sperm to make a grandchild because "I want him to live on. I want to keep a piece of him." The worst part? The judge said, yeah, OK, sounds good to me.

What is wrong with this picture? Oh boy, where do we begin? Maybe with the fact that Nikolas Evans is dead. Or with the fact that he was twenty-one when he died. Or how about the fact that this was his mother we're talking about?

Because a guy's random statements that he wanted to have children one day . . . and taking his sperm from his cold, dead body (I'm not being callous here, the judge got involved because they had to guarantee the sperm was gathered before his body cooled to less than 39.2 degree) are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Marissa Evans said her son really wanted to kids one day. He even had names picked out - Hunter, Van and Tod.

It's sad that this man did not get to live out his dreams, sadder still that a life was lost at twenty-one. But let's face it, children are not put on this earth for a parent's sake. We as parents create kids because we want to give them life, provide for them, help make them into productive members of society. It's supposed to be an unselfish act; living for someone else. Unfortunately, we all know too many parents who look to their kids to do for them instead of the other way around.

And that's just what Marissa Evans is expecting of an as-yet-unborn child. She wants them to replace her son, to give her a link to something she very sadly lost. Can you imagine the burden put on that tiny person's shoulders? An adult is pinning hopes and dreams on a child, who has no control over how similar or dissimilar they'll be to their dead parent.

She's not the first - a couple in New York just recently lost the fight to use their dead son's sperm to impregnate a surrogate, because they wanted to do the exact same thing. That fight was lost at the surrogacy stage, and hopefully this one will be too - or, better yet, when Marissa Evans moves past the denial stage of the grieving process, she'll realize she cannot bring her son back.

What do you think Babble readers? Would you be shooting lightning bolts downward if someone got hold of your sperm or eggs and wanted to make babies after your death?

Image: CyprusIVF

Should Mixed Up Embryo's Mom Get to Weigh In on Abortion?

JeanneSager — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:25:00 GMT

Remember the outrage over the Japanese doctors who oh-so-accidentally transferred one couple's embryo into the wrong mom-to-be?

The story's back in the news - with a twist. It turns out the woman whose embryo was accidentally transferred into the womb of an ususpecting IVF patient (who later aborted) did not find out about the incident for a full two and a half months. Doctors said the woman, who was in her forties, was not overly concerned. Her exact words (according to the health officials) were "I'm sorry to hear that."

So what's the problem? Some members of the press are now debating whether that woman should have had a chance to weigh in on the subject when doctors realized the mistake. In other words - some are debating whether the embryo's "Mom" should have had the right to talk the pregnant woman out of aborting her "child."

Wait, what? Technically, they're suggesting that one woman should have the right over another woman's body. And they're not the only ones.

Some of the commentors on the original reporting of the story here on Strollerderby expressed their outrage at the woman who underwent the abortion - even pro-choice moms. As Emma says, "That's pretty disgusting. This woman was so desperate for a child she paid for expensive IVF treatments, but she couldn't bear to keep a child that wasn't her's biologically? I completely understand her anger, and a large settlement would be justified. For me, despite being pro choice, the abortion is unfathomable."

As a woman who was very happy to get pregnant and even happier when the pregnancy ended (with the birth of my daughter), I'm not sure I'm OK with the idea of going forward with a pregnancy for the sake of someone else . . . especially someone I've never met. Planned surrogacy is one thing. Accidental surrogacy, and suffering through all the ill effects of pregnancy for someone else's child is quite another.

On the other hand, this woman and her husband provided egg and sperm in good faith. They thought their embryo would become a child, and it was their flesh and blood. They didn't impregnate some poor woman on purpose, and they sure as heck could have suffered exponentially from the loss of either the chance to become pregnant or the loss of that fetus.

Should the biological parents' of the embryo have been allowed to know the situation right away? Should they have been allowed contact with the pregnant woman? Or was there enough of a burden on the women who suffered from the wrongly transferred embryo?

Image: PatDollard.com

Court Nixes Couple's Request for Dead Son's Sperm

JeanneSager — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:01:00 GMT

The parents of a man dead since 1998 won't be fulfilling their last minute dreams to have a grandchild - a New York court just nixed their request to use the dead man's sperm to make a baby.

Ah, common sense prevails somewhere in New York.

Mark Speranza banked sperm at a lab in 1997 before undergoing treatment for cancer; he wanted to be able to father a child if he survived the battle. Unfortunately, Speranza died in January 1998. He'd ordered the semen samples to be destroyed if he died, but his parents had filed to be allowed use of the sperm.

They wanted to impregnate a surrogate mother with their son's semen so they could become grandparents. It sounds like a storyline ripped from a recent episode of Private Practice (although, on the show, the sick kid was still alive and wanted to have a baby . . . her parents were eager for a grandchild and happy to go along with their teenage daughter getting pregnant before she died).

What's bizarre to me is the fact that this case wasn't thrown out simply because Speranza had directed his sperm to be destroyed upon his death. Apparently his request wasn't enough. Instead, a state law that requires a father provide blood tests before his stored semen is used to impregnate a surrogate played a role. Because Speranza was dead, a Manhattan judge said the family would have been violating state law.

Shouldn't a man's request of what be done with his semen be enough? After all, we reserve the right to sign up as organ donors or not - our parents can't come waltzing in after our death to announce that old cousin Charlie needs a kidney and there's a fresh set just lying there on the table. A guy couldn't be forced to have sex to make a baby, he shouldn't be forced after his death to make a baby he didn't ask for.

And what would this do to a child - to know his grandparents/custodial parents disregarded his dad's wishes to make him? It sounds like a set of people who are very sad to have lost their son - but need to realize they can't replace him with his child.

Image: CyprusIVF

Going the Extra Mile for Breastmilk, Part 2: Induced Lactation

Miriam Axel-Lute — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:00:00 GMT

I know an adoptive couple who, together, exclusively breastfed their adopted son from time of his placement until he was old enough for solids (and beyond). I have to admit that I find this super cool, and not just because they ended up with a son who's allergic to cow's milk and soy. It's because it makes them so happy. And because I'm a science geek and think the human body is awesome.

The weirdest part about it for me is that it has put me in the amusing position of having to explain to my daughter why she gets milk from only one of her moms instead of both...

Perhaps seeing it happen all the time is why the assumption that breastfeeding is out of the question for adoptive parents takes me by surprise even though I know it is (1) very rare and (2) not particularly simple to get going. Still, it works, which many people don't even know, and as research continues on the best ways to induce, interest keeps rising.

There are two main components to getting lactation going: The most important is that the physical act of suckling induces lactation. This means that you can either use a supplementer (see picture) to feed donated milk or formula to a baby while having it nurse from the breast or pump several times a day in advance of a placement/birth (a good way to store up extra that can then be donated!). Most women also use combinations of medications and herbs that fool the body into thinking it's pregnant, boost supply, or just have lactation as a side effect, especially if they have a sense of when a kid will arrive and want to be able to breastfeed from day one. Many of these are the same things that bio moms who've had an illness or supply issues use. For more details, check with the experts.

I'm quite sure that this is one of those cases where even raising the possibilty, even while acknowledging how hard it is, will make some parents feel judged for not taking it on. They shouldn't, but that's easy for me to say. (The Milkshare folks do suggest that those who can try induced lactation do, so as to keep donated milk for those who can't, which I suppose is reasonable.) Still, I think it's worth spreading the word that it is possible, for those like my friends who might be really happy to be able to do it and/or have kids who could really benefit.

I'd be interested in hearing from adoptive or potentially adoptive parents. Had you heard about this? What were your reactions?

Related Posts:

Going the Extra Mile for Breastmilk, Part 1: Milkshare

More by this author:

Going the Extra Mile for Breastmilk, Part 1: MilkShare

Miriam Axel-Lute — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:30:00 GMT

There are numerous situations in which it is hard or impossible for parents to give their babies breastmilk—medical or supply problems, high-order multiples, adoption. But with the increasing amount of research about the benefits of breastmilk, a small but growing number of these parents have decided to seek out ways to do it anyway. Since formal milk banks are very expensive, they don't tend to be long-term solutions. But depending on the situation, there are other ways.

After I wrote a bit about the supply shortages and cost associated with formal milk banks, a commenter pointed me to MilkShare. MilkShare is not a milk bank, but it's a network connecting parents who want breastmilk to those who have more than enough and are willing to pump and donate. Basically, it regularly facilitates arrangements like the awe-inspiring outpouring that recently turned up enough breastmilk to keep a two-year-old with severe irritiable bowel syndrome alive.

It primarily costs less because recipients have to do their own legwork of contacting and screening donors, paying for health testing, arranging shipping, etc. (It's illegal to sell bodily fluids, so costs are those involved in shipping, health testing, storage bags for the donor etc., as well as getting a deep-freeze freezer for storage.)

MilkShare, understandably, recommends that those looking for milk hold to the standards of the milk banks when screening donors, but acknowledges obliquely that some parents may not feel the need to do so in every particular. (That seems risky, but before you judge, look at the standards and see if you would meet them all.) On the other hand, I hear through the grapevine that many parents aren't bothering to require testing at all (or are too shy too), which is probably not a good idea.

The payoff for the legwork seems worth it: Some recipients report being able to exclusively feed their infants on breastmilk to the recommend six months and continue providing it beyond, while others use it to supplement during a period of inducing lactation. Given that from a milk bank, breastmilk could cost $3 to 5/ounce, that's an astounding value. And for all the "four-quart does" who were cringing at expressing their "liquid gold" down the sink, there's a huge amount of satisfaction to be gained by sending it somewhere it can make a difference.

Related Posts:

Going the Extra Mile for Breastmilk, Part 2: Induced Lactation

More by this author:

Siblings Born Two Months Apart Aren't Twins

JeanneSager — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:31:00 GMT

Jeffrey and Delaney Ellis have the same mom and the same dad, but birthdays just two months apart. No years separate them - just two months.

The kicker? This isn't a case of one twin delivered early.

Jeffrey Ellis was delivered by his aunt, standing is a surrogate for the kids' parents, in November 2007. His sister came in January 2008, delivered by mom Kris.

Both kids are Tim and Kris Ellis's little miracles. After suffering through the stillbirth of a baby girl in 2006 and the death of her twin shortly after birth, the Ellises went through repeated bouts of in vitro that were unable to produce a pregnancy. There seemed one last option - Kris's sister-in-law, Susan Foth, had offered to act as a surrogate for the family. It was someone they could trust, and it was - they thought - their only hope of becoming pregnant.

In March 2007, two of the Ellis's embryos were transferred into Foth's uterus. One took. The Ellises were going to become parents. Two months later, Kris had a surprise for Tim. She was pregnant - via "normal" methods. They were going to become parents again.

Infertility issues are very real and very complex, but a lot of women have reported finally getting pregnant when the stress is off - when they least expected to become pregnant. It sounds like that's what happened to the Ellises. No longer worried about whether or not things would work this time, Kris's body was finally able to do what it needed to do. Not an easy road, but if only it could work like this for more couples who've been down the infertility route!

The result are two little miracles - two months apart. Jeffrey turned one in November, and Delaney will be one this week.

Image/Source: Bedford Times Register

Desperately Seeking . . . Grandparents

JeanneSager — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:39:00 GMT

There's no question kids who have them love their grandparents - they spoil them rotten. But if your parents are gone, or might as well be, would you be willing to use the term "grandparent" loosely?

What about letting a perfect stranger stand in, just so your kids can have a grandparent?

A growing number of parents are doing just that. They're setting up personal ads; only instead of "SBF seeks SM for long walks on the beach, non-smoking, non-freaks" they're advertising for older folks who have been aching for a youngster to play with.

Matthew Gray, deputy director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, says it's largely distance and family breakdowns keeping kids and grandparents apart, but also playing a major role are the parents who have put off babymaking. The older first-time parents are, the older their own parents are - leaving grandchild-hungry parents waiting, and sometimes leaving first-time parents without their own Mom and Dad when they're finally ready to start having children.

But parents are no less interested in exposing their kids to another generation, and those who live far away from their own parents still need the extra hand that a grandparent who is nearby is often willing to offer. Hence the advertising.

"I've got two small children now and my father lives away from us and my partner's mother is not very involved," Debbie Fitzsimmons told Australia's Daily Telegraph. "I grew up with two sets of grandparents which I benefited from big time."

Other parents say the process is equally beneficial to the surrogate grandparents; after all, being with the young is said to keep you young. For older folks who don't have family nearby, simply having a young family around to check up on them can go far in helping them maintain mental acuity and a connection with the outside world. In turn, the kids learn the importance of community and caring for our geriatric population - besides the stories of days gone by and the candies palmed when Mom isn't looking.

Would you consider adopting a grandparent or letting one adopt you so your kids can have that experience?

Image: AwardPHP

Protect Children: Prohibit Divorce

Family Adopts Eight Siblings Separated by Foster Care

Duggar's Eldest Married: Babies on the Way?

Fake Surrogate Mother Arrested

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:40:00 GMT

Soon after a New York Times writer unwittingly sparked a debate on classism over her article on gestational surrogacy, the news presents us with another potential pitfall of putting a price on fertility: con artists.

A Belgian woman was arrested yesterday for allegedly swindling infertile couples over the Internet by posing as a potential surrogate mother. Her male partner is accused of helping to orchestrate the con, and was also arrested.

The couple is also suspected of selling twin babies the woman gave birth to last spring. This and a similar case, in which a Belgian woman sold her baby to a Dutch couple who wanted children, have sparked a debate in Belgium and the Netherlands over the legality of surrogacy. It seems to me that the problem here is not necessarily with surrogacy; it's with people who are willing to go through dangerous, unofficial channels to obtain a child.

If convicted, the Belgians could be sentenced to up to five years in prison.

Photo: Her Daily News

Putting the Classism Back Into Surrogate Motherhood

Grandma Serves as Surrogate, Gives Birth to Triplet Granddaughters

JeanneSager — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:25:00 GMT

Kim Coseno's triplets had the same exact start in life as their mother . . . right down to the womb where they spent their first formative months. The surrogate "mother" who gave birth this week to Coseno's three little girls is also their grandmother.

Coseno's mom, fifty-six-year-old Jaci Dalenberg is possibly the oldest-ever surrogate to give birth to triplets. And lucky for her, she doesn't have to give them up! Well, not exactly. Already a mother of two, Coseno was no longer able to have children when her second husband, Joe, said he wanted them. The couple tried adopting, but were getting nowhere when Dalenberg made an offer they couldn't refuse.

Still in the prime of health, Dalenberg said she'd undergo in vitro fertilization. On the third try, two eggs transplanted into her uterus took.One embryo then split, creating a set of identical twins. Their sister is essentially a fraternal twin to each.

Although the "I am my own grandma" jokes go hand-in-hand with this story, I've got to give this granny a whole lot of credit. Triplets. At her age.

And while surrogacy kind of skeeves me out (for the surrogate, not for the parents-to-be), this seems like the best possible option. The Cosenos knew they could trust their surrogate completely, and that their babies were in a truly safe "home." Dalenberg, on the other hand, doesn't have to hand over the babies she carried and never see them again. She will be able to spoil them to bits, and then hand them back to Mom and Dad for the discipline and diaper-changing. She is, after all, Grandma.

Image: CBS News

Baby Boy Developed in Mom's Intestine Delivered Via Cesarean

Five Movies You Shouldn't Watch While Pregnant

Do Men Really Have a Pregnancy Fetish?

Woman in Labor Holds Off Delivery Until After Voting for Obama

They Say: Short Kids Can Grow With Hormone Therapy

Who needs a uterus? Or a partner?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:40:00 GMT

Perhaps this will finally kill the use of the miserable phrase "female-headed household" to mean "single parent."

Reporting on a trend that says more to me about changing gender roles than anything Sarah Palin has done, the New York Times reports that like single women who feel their biological clocks ticking have done for decades, more and more single men—gay and straight—are choosing single fatherhood, through adoption or surrogacy.

The Times reports that they face discrimination in their quest: They tend to be on the bottom of the preference list for birth parents, egg donors, or surrogates (I wonder how single straight men compare to queer couples in those cases. My guess is it depends where you are). And apparently some face women trying to "help" or "correct" their parenting in public too. (This reminds me of my favorite GabbyBaby shirt: "Please don't ask my daddy if he's 'babysitting.' Thanks. xoxo")

I for one suspect that many single men do start off a little behind in the knowing what the hell to do with a baby department, just because of what we as a culture see fit to expect men and women to know, but this doesn't bother me. They'll catch up just fine, just like the rest of us catch up with all the things we didn't learn from growing up in massive extended families caring for tons of younger siblings and cousins.

What I want to know, though, is how many of these single fathers are going to try to breastfeed.

Photo by divine in the daily.

Follow-Up: Surrogate Baby Could Get Visa If She Doesn't Get Adopted First

Jen Chaney — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:42:00 GMT

Both Madeline and I recently wrote about Manji Yamada, the baby who was born via a surrogate mother in India but whose biological Japanese parents have since divorced. Because the biological mother no longer wants the child, it has been enormously difficult for the father to bring her home to Japan. So she is still in India, where her paternal grandmother has dutifully watched after her.

Now, finally, some progress: A Japanese Justice Minister has said a visa will likely be granted to the girl, which would make good sense. Meanwhile, according to Agence France-Presse, a child welfare group in India is trying to adopt her.

An organization called Satya (which means Truth) has filed a petition to take custody of little Manji because her parents have acted "irresponsibly." Now, there is no question that the mother was irresponsible. Deciding that she didn't want the baby after the surrogate pregnancy was well under way is more than a little selfish. As for the father, if we can believe what we have read, he is making a good-faith effort to bring the child home. Granted, he did return to Japan because of work. But it seems lile Satya is just as irresponsible for exploiting a high-profile situation in an attempt to keep a child away from her biological family.

Honestly, the most responsible person in this whole mess is Manji's grandmother. She has stayed by that child's side from minute one and vowed not to leave India without her. If anyone deserves to raise that baby, it's her.

Related Links:

A Surrogate Child With No Place to Call Home

Divorced Wife to Surrogate Mom: Eh. Nevermind

A Surrogate Child With No Place to Call Home

Jen Chaney — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:26:00 GMT

So here's a heartbreaking story to add some cheer to your day.

According to CNN.com, and as Madeline also recently reported in this here blog, two-week old Manjhi Yamada is still stuck in a hospital in India and unable to go home. Why? She was delivered by an Indian surrogate mother who carried the baby on behalf of a Japanese couple. Then the couple got divorced and the Japanese mom decided she didn't want the child after all. Now the Japanese father and grandmother are having a hell of a time trying to bring the baby girl home to Japan.

Indian law says a baby can only get a passport if her mother is present. Neither of the moms in this case are willing to get involved. The father has even looked into adopting the child -- who, by the way, is biologically his since his sperm was used to create her -- but according to Indian law, a single man cannot adopt a daughter.

Meanwhile, poor little Manjhi has been hospitalized again because she refuses to eat and has become dehydrated.

It's a sad situation and one that makes a couple of things very clear: 1. The laws in India are woefully antiquated. And 2. If you're going to hire a surrogate mother, you should probably make sure that a. you want to stay married to your husband and b. you really want that child.

Apparently the girl's birth certificate has been issued and that lists only her father's name, which might help her get a visa to go to Japan. For the baby's sake, we can only hope she gets better and goes home soon.

Image: CNN.com

"Baby Factory" Spurs Controversy in Poland

Amy Kuras — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:02:00 GMT

A controversy has erupted in Poland over the opening of a "baby factory" in Warsaw. Nurse Elizhbeta Shimanskaya, who is 32, is charging parents the equivalent of about $21,000 for a surrogate mother to bear their babies. Parents must adopt the child birthed by one of the 37 surrogate mothers housed at the home no matter what its medical condition.

Most Poles support the issue, but its faced vocal opposition from the Catholic Church, which is very powerful in Poland.

I'd like to know what the surrogates are getting paid. If it's all are most of the fees the parents are paying, then I don't consider it all that exploitive. But if all they are getting out of it is three hots and a cot and a nominal fee, well, that doesn't sit well.

About 1.5 million couples in Poland are struggling to conceive and this "baby factory" could allow them to become parents. As such, I just don’t understand the church' opposition to this (and all ART, really, but that's another post). If having children is important enough to be included in the Catholic marriage ceremony (one of the vows is to accept children gladly) then why not broaden people's opportunities to do just that?

And while I certainly understand concerns that the surrogate mothers could be exploited, treated only like a rent-a-womb, the story doesn't tell me enough about whether or not that's the case (or whether that in fact is at the root of the church's opposition – but as a Catholic who underwent fertility treatment, somehow I think not).

Related Post:

Divorced Wife to Surrogate Mom: Eh. Nevermind

Tough Times Drive More Women To Sell Their Eggs

Amy S.F. Lutz — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:32:00 GMT

I just saw Les Mis for the 400th time, and I couldn't help thinking about poor Fantine as I read a report this morning that found a 30% increase in the number of women selling their eggs. If only Fantine had lived in current times, she could have sold her eggs instead of her body, and easily supported Cosette on the $7000 or so she would earn from each donation. If she were willing to serve as a surrogate, she could take down upwards of $30,000.

According to fertility specialists, egg donation is a relatively easy, painless process that lasts approximately three weeks.

Still, it's not for everybody. Some women feel uncomfortable with the idea they may have children they've never met out in the world somewhere.

But the money is compelling. And if you meet the particular religious, physical, or educational requirements some recepients are looking for, you might earn $10,000 or more.

Have you ever sold your eggs, or would you ever consider it?

The (Donor) Kids Are All Right

Amy Kuras — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:02:00 GMT

Two new studies show that children who were conceived via donor gametes or surrogacy ought to be told of their origins as soon as possible. But those kids are doing just as well and are just as close with their parents as those whose kids were conceived "naturally" according to the Centre for Family Research at Cambridge University.

One study showed that children who were told of their origin early on handled the news much better than those who were not told until they were over 18.

More than two-thirds of those told when they were older than 18 reported feeling confused, anger at being lied to, shock and numbness, while only a third of those told when they were aged four to 11 felt the same.

Same-sex parents and single parents were much more likely to have told their children early, while fully a third of heterosexual parents waited until after the child turned 18. And kids generally wanted to meet their biological parent after they found out, researchers said.

The other study, which followed a fairly small number of such families until their children were seven, showed that children conceived with donor sperm or eggs or through surrogacy experienced about the same amount of difficulties with relationships, conduct problems and so on as children conceived without help. They were also just as close to their parents, based on their own evaluations of their families.

There was a slight increase in the mother's emotional involvement with the child, especially in donor egg or surrogacy situations versus door sperm. Researchers chalked that up to the difficult the mothers went through in conceiving their children. This makes sense to me – if you've gone through hell to get your kid, you're going to have harder time backing off. But researchers didn’t express concern about this either, because the levels of emotional involvement didn’t set off alarms.

The upshot: Assisted conception good, secrecy bad.

Related posts:

Switched at Birth? Keep it to Yourself

Transgender Man's Baby is Coming Soon, But What About the Birth Certificate?

Erin White — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:00:00 GMT

As the mother of two children with edited birth certificates, I am all about altering this official document when one of the parental categories just doesn't apply. But in the case of Thomas Beatie and his wife they both apply, just not to the right person.

So what's a pregnant man to do?

According to Slate, Beatie and his wife can do what lesbian parents (and gay and straight parents of children conceived through surrogacy) have been doing for years: they can ask for a new birth certificate that accurately documents their family structure. While Beatie will have to appear on the original certificate as "mother," he and his wife can petition the court to issue a new certificate which lists Beatie as the child's father and his wife as its mother.

And maybe then, when everyone is officially and legally just who they want to be, this news story will draw to a close and the Beatie family will live out their days quietly, far from the public eye.

Somehow I doubt it.

Having "The Talk" Gets Complicated

Amy Kuras — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:33:00 GMT

When we were kids, "the talk" about how babies were made was probably pretty simple. Man, woman, love each other very much, special kind of hug, yadda yadda.

But it was always a more complex world than that. More of us are facing the same kind of talk with our kids that may involve two mommies, two daddies, petri dishes, sperm donors, birth mothers, long plane flights to a foreign land and any combination of the above.

Even those of us whose own stories are pretty straightforward and mainstream want to make sure we're inclusive of all the types of families our child may encounter. My daughter's preschool friends include two kids who were adopted from foreign countries, and one child born through surrogacy -- and that's just the stories I know about.

The Washington Post talked about that in a story this week (which I found through Salon's Broadsheet blog). As people become more open about things that used to be discussed in whispers if at all, it's more important to talk with our kids honestly and most importantly, early, experts interviewed for the story said. "You should start talking to children about sex from the day they can talk," said Maureen Lyon, a clinical psychologist at Children's National Medical Center. "Hopefully, when they reach adolescence there's a little bit of groundwork done."

Studies show adolescents whose parents can talk to them openly about sex – not just biology-class reproductive basics but relationship issues and such – are closer to their parents and most importantly, less apt to engage in risky behavior.

Hoo boy, am I behind. Do they make a board-book version of "Our Bodies, Ourselves"?

Friends Think Depressed Surrogate Mom to 8 is Crazy

Madeline Holler — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:35:00 GMT

There are a couple of things going on in this story of a surrogate mom that are just, nicely put, very interesting. First, she is trying to get pregnant for the eighth time on behalf of someone other than herself. Wow, eight pregnancies is a lot of babies for any woman to bear. (Please don't confuse her with the surrogate mother to 12. Twelve!)

The other thing is that this mom who has made a second career as a baby-haver is 43 years old and things are getting tough and she's starting to get depressed. She wanted to bear a sibling for the little girl, Isobel, whom she gave birth to in 2006, but nine weeks in to that pregnancy -- her egg and the 51-year-old father's sperm -- she miscarried. Her family is starting to worry.

But the most striking thing for me is that this woman is not a mother. She has no children of her own!

Here's what she says about surrogacy:

"I really love being pregnant and my body is very good at it," she said. "I am very proficient at giving birth. But I still don't want children of my own, not in the slightest.

"A lot of people won't understand how I feel - but everyone's different. After seeing how happy Isobel and her parents are, I really wanted to provide them with another child so they can complete their family.

"Her parents have become my friends and I see this pregnancy as helping friends out. But this one is definitely my last. I can't keep on going for ever."

What now?

Photo: Daily Mail