The NYC Gathering

The NYC Gathering
Our Community

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Fwd: From Amy Demma : RESOLVE's efforts to help pass the NY Child Parent Security Act



Sara Axel
516-967-7430
Sent from my iPhone


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Sara Axel" <saxel95@aol.com>
Date: June 9, 2013, 8:45:11 PM EDT
To: "'Sara Axel'" <saxel95@aol.com>
Subject: From Amy Demma : RESOLVE's efforts to help pass the NY Child Parent Security Act



I am supporting RESOLVE's efforts to help pass the NY Child Parent Security
Act and I am hopeful that you will, too.

As you know compensated gestational carrier arrangements in New York State
are currently illegal/ A bill in the New York Assembly and State Senate
seeks to reverse this law and make compensated, gestational carrier
arrangements legal in New York. This means New York residents who choose to
use a gestational carrier (surrogate) to become parents and build their
family can stay in New York to do it! This bill also protects families built
through donor cycles.

Please click through to the below link to show your support for this very
important piece of legislation.

https://secure2.convio.net/res/site/Advocacy?cmd=display
<https://secure2.convio.net/res/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id
=463> &page=UserAction&id=463

Warm regards, Amy

Amy Demma, Esq



Sara Axel

516-967-7430



Fwd: Resources on Disclosure from Diane Allen



Sara Axel
516-967-7430
Sent from my iPhone


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Sara Axel" <saxel95@aol.com>
Date: June 9, 2013, 8:43:27 PM EDT
To: "'Sara Axel'" <saxel95@aol.com>
Subject: Resources on Disclosure from Diane Allen





Along with a number of other books for adults & children about donor
conception, the books published by the Donor Conception Network (DCN) in the
UK are sold in USA/Canada by our small charity based in Toronto. This
includes their:



* My Story / Our Story series of illustrated storybooks for children (3-6

yrs) in 5 separate versions for children born through donor insemination to
heterosexual or same-sex couples or single mothers, egg donation to
heterosexual couples, and double (i.e. sperm & egg) donation or embryo
donation to heterosexual couples



* 'Telling and Talking' about Donor Conception booklets for parents and
professionals in 4 separate versions: 0-7 years; 8-11, 12-16, 17 and over.



There are also 2 professionally-made DVDs, by a DCN member:

* Telling & Talking About Donor Conception - parents and children in 10
families answer questions about their experiences of Œtelling¹ and
continuing to talk together as children grow and change. Features single
women, a lesbian couple and heterosexual couples who used anonymous or known
egg donation, anonymous sperm donation, or double (egg & sperm) donation.

* A Different Story which shows varied positive, thoughtful reflections by 7
young people, aged 7-20, conceived through anonymous donor insemination (DI)
by heterosexual couples and told the facts of their conception at an early
age by their parents.



For complete details, please see:

http://www.InfertilityNetwork.org/store_dc





Sara Axel

516-967-7430



Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Fwd: Next Support Group Meeting with Patricia Mendell, LCSW



Sara Axel
516-967-7430
Sent from my iPhone


Begin forwarded message:

From: ritz469@aol.com
Date: June 4, 2013, 6:11:06 PM EDT
To: ritz469@aol.com
Subject: Next Support Group Meeting with Patricia Mendell, LCSW

FYI

The next Monthly Support Group Meeting will take place on Thursday, June 6, 2013.  I hope you will all look at the flyer and give it to anyone you think might gain something from the program.
 
Please let me know if I can expect to see you there.
 
Thank you,
Patricia Mendell, LCSW
 
 

Monday, June 3, 2013

The Complexity in a Sperm Donation - Modern Love - NYTimes.com

Really sweet article.

A Choice Not as Easy as It Looked

When my husband's friend Maggie asked him if he would donate his sperm to get her soon-to-be wife pregnant, he said he had to ask me first. It's the kind of hypothetical question one might pose at a dinner party: "If your friends, a lesbian couple, ask your husband to donate sperm so they can have a child, would you agree?"

Hypothetically, without hesitation, I would.

My husband called me at work, excited about the prospect. Perhaps he sensed the couple's desire to get started right away. I hesitated. I had questions: "Will you go to a clinic and do it into a test tube? Or are they asking you to have sex with her until she gets pregnant? Because one is very clinical and the other seems potentially problematic."

"No," Ben said. "I give it to them in a Baggie and they use a dropper."

The turkey-baster method.

A few years back, Maggie had asked my husband to be a sperm donor when she was thinking about getting pregnant herself.

"Can we do it the old-fashioned way?" he had joked.

She half-joked back that he was a freak, then dropped it. Until now.

My husband is the kind of man (like many, no doubt) who is flattered to be asked. What, he might wonder, does the couple find biologically appealing in me?

I can answer that: He has a great sense of humor, even if his timing isn't always good. He's tall, sturdy, healthy, intelligent and warmly good-looking: in other words, a good biological catch.

I should know. One night, a few months after we started dating, in the light of a streetlamp, I saw my daughter's face inside his face, and I knew he would be the man to give her to me. Four years later, our daughter was born.

Maggie's request elicited in me an oddly powerful response, the kind that sometimes happens when something feels right even if you don't know why. Although we are married, Ben and I don't have a traditional family. When we met, he was a 20-year-old undergraduate theater major and I was a 29-year-old graduate student. I was also a single mother with two boys and no child support. Naïvely or stupidly (or in that precious place where the two meet), we stumbled into a wild love affair, and shortly thereafter into family life together.

A few years later our daughter was born, and a few years after that, we were married, surrounded by our three children. For 19 years he has steadfastly loved us all.

So when the sperm donation proposition came up, it seemed to strike a beautiful biological balance. But instead of following my immediate impulse, I answered, "Yes, but we must first ask the kids."

One evening as we all sat around the dining room table, my husband explained the situation.

Our daughter, 14, said, "Cool."

The boys are in their 20s but live nearby and sometimes join us for meals. Both shrugged at first. The younger one stayed quiet. Then the older said, "It's kind of weird, but then again it doesn't really have anything to do with us."

Perhaps our daughter would be most affected because of her biological relationship to my husband. People search for their biological parents, siblings and children all the time. What if, one day, this potential child wants a relationship with our daughter because he is as much half-sibling to her as the two half-brothers she's grown up with?

Even as we acknowledged that there was much we could not know about the implications of the decision, we collectively agreed to tell the couple yes. Our daughter scooted her chair back. As she left the table, she said, "Just don't tell me the details about how you are going to do it."

A few days later, while Maggie waited in the heated car parked outside our house, my husband collected his sample, tucked the Baggie under his shirt to keep it warm, and ran with it through the freezing cold night. I watched from the front stoop as he passed the goods through the car window. "Good luck," he said.

By the grace of the fertility gods, this one donation hit its mark.

Once the pregnancy took, more questions arose. What would my husband's legal responsibilities be? (None.) What would his rights be? (None, but he would be welcome to hang out.) Who would he be to this child? (A friend.)

All these agreements were made with no witnesses, no contract, not even a glass of whiskey. There was a discussion about confidentiality. The mothers wanted to keep the paternity secret for the time being.

"Yes, of course," we agreed.

Even when biology is easy, life is complicated. Throughout the pregnancy, Ben visited the couple, but I didn't know exactly what my role was. Mostly, it had nothing to do with me. Still, as the months passed I had more and more questions.

"If I were carrying your baby," I told Ben one evening, "I would fall in love with you. Even more in love than before." I should know, having done it.

"She's a lesbian," he said, "and in love with her partner."

"But biology," I said.

"Biology what?"

"What if they break up? What if you fall in love with the child and then with the birth mother? And she decides to raise the child with you since you're the biological father?"

"What if a piano falls on your head?" he said.

And then there was Facebook, where the mothers posted news of the pregnancy, followed by many "likes" and congratulations. In subsequent months the birth mother provided details, including near-naked photos of her magnificent growing belly. One day she posted an ultrasound with the announcement: "It's a boy."

I leaned toward my computer and, for the first time, saw my husband's biological son.

At first I thought my discomfort was an issue of privacy. While our family had kept our confidentiality agreement, intimate details about the baby and mother appeared daily, sometimes hourly, on Facebook. This was compounded in real life when a few days later, my husband and I ran into a friend of the birth mother's downtown.

"What's up?" she asked, with a twinkle in her eye. She didn't wait for an answer before adding, "I know what's up."

Soon I realized what was really bothering me: I was done having children. I was also nearing an age when I wouldn't have a choice. Seeing her pregnant belly didn't change my decision, but it did bring this loss to the surface. My feelings were as private and sorrowful as hers were public and celebratory.

I confided in a close friend. She was silent and then pursed her lips. "I couldn't let my husband do that," she said. "Are you sure you can do this?"

"Yes."

Anyway, at this point, I no longer had a choice.

I ran the scenario by a progressive advice columnist I know. She knit her brow. "I wouldn't do that," she said.

Too late.

Ben and I took a walk in our favorite park and revisited the reason we agreed: We have been blessed with three beautiful children; why shouldn't we help another family have one, too?

Sometimes you have to leap into the "yes" and let life's mysteries play out, not knowing all the consequences and outcomes. The fact that my husband and I share this crazy perspective might be one of the reasons we have stayed together.

I remember when Ben's parents met me for the first time, the 29-year-old single mother with two kids at their son's college graduation. I imagine they silently suffered heart attacks. But instead of sitting him down for a serious talk, they let him live his life. They treated me with kindness and respect. Most important, they loved my two boys.

For all these years, they have been there in ways their biological father's family was not able to be. It's hard to predict who will become a part of your extended family.

A few weeks before the baby was born, the mothers invited us over to hear his heartbeat. The birth mother was glorious in those last weeks of pregnancy. When she stretched out on the couch, I saw a foot move across the moon of her belly. The midwife placed the ultrasound wand near the boy's shoulder, and the beating heart emerged: my husband's biological child in another woman's body.

There was a little boy in there whose face was inside my husband's face. And I realized there was one question I hadn't considered: What happens if I fall in love with him?

Two weeks later, when I held the baby in my arms, I did. I looked into his face, his eyes, his lips, his tiny breathing nose, all entirely his own, and I fell in love with him. I whispered in his ear. I wished him a long, happy, healthy life and all the blessings and mysteries that come with saying yes.

Lisa Schlesinger, a playwright and professor in Chicago, is working on a collection of essays.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 3, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the relationship of the author's daughter to her two sons and to the baby of the same-sex couple. The girl is not a stepsister to any of them because she shares a biological parent with each of them.



Sara Axel
516-967-7430
Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

How choice for donors and donor conceived people keeps doors open | oliviasview

One of the best articles I've seen on donor parents and children,



How choice for donors and donor conceived people keeps doors open

Bio-News had to shorten my response to Ben Saer (see previous blog) to fit their word count.  Here's the original with a link to the slightly shorter one at the end.

Having just returned from the States, I thought at first it was the jet lag.  The BioNews article I was reading couldn't possibly contain that many completely unsubstantiated assertions and assumptions and such a skewed view of what is and is not ethical in donor conception.  But second reading when more compos mentis revealed that it did.  It is hard to know where to start in addressing egg donation Dad-to-be Ben Saer's points…but I guess the first paragraph is as good as any.  Here he applauds the decision made by the British Columbia Court of Appeal to overturn the decision made in the Olivia Pratten case giving retrospective access to donor records for donor conceived children.  "Anonymity, guaranteed to the donor at the time of conception, was rightly respected" he asserts.  In the next paragraph he regrets that such respect is not afforded to donors in the UK, completely failing to mention that current donors in this country donate under totally different conditions – ie. accepting that identifiability is part of the deal – and that retrospective access to donor records is not available in this country either.   Nowhere in the world are donors forced to donate their eggs or sperm.  In the UK it is by and large a completely free choice to do so, although some might argue that prevailing economic conditions and the recent raising of the 'compensation' levels for donation might introduce a coercive element.  There have been concerns that women in poorer countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere may also donate predominantly for economic reasons.  But mostly it is a choice freely made.

Saer goes on to parrot the long-standing media myth that, 'The ending of donor anonymity in the UK cut supply overnight" without understanding that it was the attitudes and actions of many doctors that caused the shortage, not the change in law.   Doctors put the fear of God into the donors they had at the time with nightmare scenarios of children turning up on their doorsteps.  Predominantly male doctors assumed that no man would ever want to donate identifiably.  In this way clinics ran down their practices and many decided not to carry on.    It took two pioneering clinics to change the way that sperm donors were recruited – and the type of donor they targeted – for it to be shown that it was perfectly possible to recruit men who were willing to take on the responsibility of being identifiable.  There had always been a shortage of egg donors and it has similarly been a reluctance on the part of clinics to put resources into recruitment that continued this situation until fairly recently.  The National Gamete Donation Trust is quite clear that when awareness is raised of the need for egg donors, then suitable women willing to be identifiable, do come forward. Many clinics in the UK now have a surfeit of egg donors! Which raises the question of why Saer and his wife chose to go abroad, presumably to the Czech clinic he is now promoting as part of his business.  Was it because they could not find a donor in the UK or was it because they were seeking an anonymous donor?  His antipathy generally to state intervention in assisted reproduction leads me to assume the latter.   All this starts to make me think that donors, for Saer, are simply a means to an end – someone who gives up 'cells' they don't need in order to help create a child for someone else.  But no, a couple of paragraphs later we have, "Donors are heroes.  Without them, donor-conceived children would not exist.  Yet the rights of donors have been oddly marginalised by the debate."  This seems to be assuming that the 'right' that any donor in their right mind would be desiring is anonymity.  As I said before, donors do not have to donate.  They choose to do so under the conditions that prevail in this country at this time.  That is, being willing to be identifiable to young people they have helped to create from 18 onwards.  There is even some evidence from research that some donors from pre 2005 and even pre 1991 days, would have been happy to be identified but the law at that time did not allow for that.

Saer goes on to criticise the Nuffield Bio-Ethics report not only for not recommending a review of donor anonymity but also for the encouragement of donors to re-register as identifiable saying, "Hectoring them to come forward is intrusive and probably illegal".  There are of course no plans to hector donors in any way.  It does seem reasonable, however, to have a high profile campaign pointing out how valuable it could be to some donor conceived people if they did re-register, but only if they choose to do so.  It could be entirely counter productive if donors who wished to remain anonymous were 'outed' or pressured in any way.  It seems to me that donors who take on the responsibilities associated with identifiability are the real heroes here.

Which brings us to the needs of the children, who in Saer's world don't appear to be offered any choices at all.  In what feels like a veiled reference to the Donor Conception Network Saer accuses "countless websites, some with charitable status" of asserting that donor conceived children face an identity crisis later in life (if they do not know the identity of their donor).  DCN has never claimed this – and indeed all the children of the founders, including Walter's and mine, are highly unlikely to ever have identifying or even much non-identifying information because they were conceived before the 1991 HFE Act.  These young adults are doing well and have not suffered identity crises.  But there are many donor conceived people who do feel that knowledge about their donor would help them understand themselves in a more profound way. Even if they have no wish to actually contact the donor, most donor conceived young people have a curiosity about the person or persons who contributed to their existence.  Those conceived in the UK since 2005 will have a choice about what level of information to have.  They, and those conceived since 1991, are able to be in touch by mutual consent with others conceived via the same donor if they choose to do so.  These choices are not available to children conceived in the Czech Republic and elsewhere where anonymity prevails.  Saer naively assumes that "good parenting will alleviate most emotional difficulties", and this is a position I have some sympathy with as many parents and parents-to-be in DC Network hope at some level that early telling (which Saer approves of) and good parenting will somehow curb curiosity.  Particularly before actually becoming parents, recipients of donor gametes often worry that their child might reject the non-genetic parent.  Experience, however, has shown that many young people live with the curiosity without being obsessed by it and children do not reject either of their parents (at least not because of donor conception).  Good parenting is of course supportive and protective in many ways, but it does not resolve the desire of some teenagers and adults to know more about the person who helped create them.

Young adults, like our daughter, who were conceived prior to 1991 know that the culture was different then, that we, their parents, had no choices offered to us with regard to donors and that donor anonymity was the only possible option.  Nowadays, with the change in culture towards openness and transparency in all areas and the availability of identifiable UK donors, prospective parents who exercise their choice to go abroad for anonymity need to understand what this means for their child in a modern context.

Saer says that he does not question the paramouncy of putting children first enshrined in the 1989 Children Act but it is hard to square this with his deliberate choice to have an anonymous donor.  There is no 'statutory access for all" or "mandatory revealing of the donor's identity", as asserted in Saer's article, simply an option for a young person to pursue if this is what they choose to do.  Surely this is the only ethical and genuinely respectful position.

http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_301337.asp

Like this:

Like Loading...



Sara Axel
516-967-7430
Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Who owns a donors sperm

Darn spell check!

Sara Axel
516-967-7430
Sent from my iPhone

Re: His or Hers - Who Owns A Donor's Sperm

Why doesn't spell check work when you really need it?!

Sara Axel
516-967-7430
Sent from my iPhone


On Apr 23, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Sara <saxel95@aol.com> wrote:

> To me it's like trying to undo sex. What do you think?
> http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/his-or-hers-who-owns-a-donor-s-sperm-1.505332
>
>
> Sara Axel
> 516-967-7430
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Sara Axel
> 516-967-7430
> Sent from my iPhone
>