Where Do (Modern) Babies Come From? - by Alana S. Newman

In The Public Discourse

“Eggsploitation” reveals the predatory practices of the fertility industry, which lures young women in need of money to undergo medical procedures that carry the risk of severe long-term health problems.

In 2000, a California nurse named Jennifer Lahl founded a nonprofit in the East Bay called The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network. CBCN is dedicated to educating the public about the troubling bioethical issues unfolding in the modern medical field.

Although she had no previous experience in filmmaking, Lahl managed to raise some money and set out to create a documentary. The resulting film, Lines That Divide, explored the stem-cell research debate, highlighting its terrifying connection to human cloning, and revealing how it required vast quantities of human eggs in order for the research to progress. As she began to write and speak publicly about egg donation and its risks, Lahl started to receive emails from women who had been harmed by selling their eggs.

Concerned for her three daughters, and for all young women, she began work on her second documentary Eggsploitation, which was originally released in 2010. Eggsploitation captured the attention of women’s advocacy groups around the country, including the National Organization for Women. It was the first film to shine light on the predatory nature of the fertility industry and its exploitation of college-aged women. It gave a voice to women who were lured by money and ended up sacrificing their health, fertility, and—in some cases—their very lives.

The original film had a low budget and was clearly the product of a nurse on a mission, not an experienced filmmaker. But, like a Bob Dylan song, the film’s powerful content broke through any aesthetic weaknesses, and it won Best Documentary in the 2011 California Independent Film Festival. So far, it has sold over 6,000 copies worldwide, with translations in Italian, French, and Japanese. Lahl has become an effective public advocate, making a huge impact and appearing on national TV shows such as Dr. Oz.

In the last three years, young women have poured out their stories, affirming Eggsploitation’s thesis that egg donation harms healthy young women. If you visit the film’s website you can read interviews with women like Y, who became infertile at 28 and suspects that her early menopause was caused by her egg harvesting, or Americus Dotter, who shares her frightening experience with postpartum psychosis.

In fact, so many more women came forward with their stories and concerns that Lahl felt she had to compile a second cut of Eggsploitation. The expanded film features new stories and updated facts and footage that show the unadvertised power dynamics and big money involved in this industry. The production value of the new Eggsploitation has dramatically improved. The cast is comprised of both familiar and new interviewees. The audience gets a helpful history of IVF, including its startling failure rate (70 percent) and price tags ($12,000+ per cycle).

The human stories are the heart of the documentary, and the egg donors in the film are given the compassion and generosity they deserve. Yet respect for scientific research and medical facts is equally central. It is this combination, undoubtedly a byproduct of Lahl’s decades of experience as both a nurse and a mom, that makes the documentary so extraordinarily compelling.

“Egg donors are not sick, yet they assume all the risk in order to help someone else.” –Jennifer Lahl

Kylee and Calla, two egg donors interviewed in the documentary, suffered strokes as a direct result of their egg harvesting. Alexandra lost an ovary and eventually developed breast cancer (a condition which does not run in her family). Sindy almost bled to death. Linda and Latoya were hospitalized with Ovarian Hyper-Stimulation Syndrome. And Jessica was diagnosed with colon cancer at age 29, then died at 34.

One of the primary drugs used in egg harvesting is Lupron–which has never been approved by the FDA for fertility use. And in the thirty years the human egg trade has existed, there has never been one peer-reviewed study confirming that egg harvesting is safe long-term.

“Economic desperation causes healthy women to accept risks that are against their own health interests.” –Jennifer Lahl

The elite and wealthy who hope to further science or become parents may assume that these women undergo such invasive treatments altruistically, because $8,000 is an inconsequential sum to them. But a few thousand dollars can mean the world to a broke and ambitious young woman. It’s a needle-length journey into a whole new class—through a college degree, the “right” address, or travel experience.

The exchange of money is problematic because the commissioning parents may feel entitled to mistreat and use the egg donor as just another service-provider. And it is problematic to the donor, in particular, because she risks her health in exchange for money. But money can’t buy back her health once it’s gone. This is why we don’t sell organs. It threatens human thriving.

Leah Campbell, a former egg donor, wrote a book called Single Infertile Female: Adventures in Love, Life and Infertility detailing her inability to conceive and her struggles with IVF just two years after selling her eggs. Speaking publicly at a recent event, Campbell said that when she told the clinic about her infertility—probably caused by her egg donation—they delightfully offered to connect her with a similarly unsuspecting young egg donor to aid in her now-desperate efforts to have a baby of her own. They were happy to have her back as a customer.

The infertility industry works hard to recruit “smart” egg donors, because good grades and name-brand colleges sell better. But when those same young women use their intelligence to ask questions about proper dosages and try to advocate for their own health, their concerns are dismissed or ignored entirely. They are pressured to continue painful cycles against their intuition in order to have a successful harvest, because medicine wasted is money wasted.

I remember when I was twenty and sold my eggs.

That $8,000 seemed like the gateway to millions more. I had never seen that much money, and it seemed like the answer to all of my heart’s desires. I was small and compliant as I interviewed with the agency personnel. I didn’t want to make a fuss or be difficult in any way, because my eye was on the check. My only act of defiance was insisting on being open for contact if the children ever wanted to know my identity.

During the week of the egg harvest, my body cavity was as dense and inflexible as the trunk of an oak. I couldn’t so much as lightly jog due to the pain. I used part of the money to record my first EP—my musical debut. In the recording studio, I made my sound engineer uncomfortable as I writhed on the floor in pain, unable to sit in a chair for the pressure I felt in my abdomen. But I’m one of the lucky ones. I was still able to have children later when I met my husband.

But beyond the temporary physical pain, there is a guilt that lingers: the realization that I sold my children. To strangers. It’s a reasonable conclusion to come to when you start to unravel the euphemisms.

Eggsploitation is just what the doctor ordered—or fears, rather—in the debate on reproductive technologies and stem-cell research. Show it to every college-aged woman you care for. And if you’re trying to make a case against third-party reproduction to an audience you think might be antagonistic, this powerful documentary is the perfect place to start.

3.8 million human embryos created to produce 122,000 live births – success rate of 3.2% - by Peter Saunders

August 18, 2013 ( PJ Saunders) - The Daily Telegraph this weekend reports on a new expert study which has raised fears that some clinics may be offering techniques that put the embryo at risk for their own profit.

 

The review, carried out by Dr Justin McCracken, the former head of the Health Protection Agency, highlighted a new technique, known as Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening (PGS), as one which is possibly being offered inappropriately for commercial reasons.

 

For a fee, which can run into thousands of pounds, clinics can check embryos created by a successful IVF cycle for certain genetic abnormalities and only implant those that appear normal.

 

The process is becoming especially popular for older couples seeking IVF, because embryos created from their sperm and eggs have a higher chance of abnormalities. As it involves the removal of a cell from an embryo (see picture) it carries some risk for the embryo being tested.

 

Dr McCracken said the jury was still out on whether PGS improves the chances of having a baby and warned there is a risk of harm to the foetus. He said it was vital that the regulator checks that clinics are not simply recommending it to boost profits.

 ‘I understand that there is no clinical consensus regarding its efficacy, but there is a real risk to the embryo in carrying it out.’ (emphasis mine)

This is a somewhat curious statement. Dr McCracken seems (appropriately) concerned about the risk of damage to a few hundred embryos each year undergoing PGS.

 

But he is curiously silent (or perhaps unaware) that over three million embryos have perished or been deliberately destroyed since 1990 as a result of procedures made legal by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

 

Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Alton recently asked in parliament how many embryos have been created in each year since the commencement of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and how many of these have resulted in live births.

 

Figures given in reply by the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health Earl Howe showed that 3,806,699 embryos have been created since 1990. Between 1992 and 2006 a total of 122,043 live births occurred according to figures from the HFEA given alongside his reply (see also here).

 

122,043 live births from 3,806,699 embryos represent a success rate of 3.21%. Or, to put it another way, 3,684,656 embryos never made it to birth.

 

These figures make McCracken’s concern about PGS embryos alone look like what Jesus called ‘straining a gnat whilst swallowing a camel’ (Matthew 23:23-24).

 

In a letter to the Telegraph, as yet unpublished, disability rights advocate Ann Farmer has highlighted the fact that, in addition to the vast wastage of embryos, some women have also died from complications of infertility treatments such as OHSS. She comments:

‘The whole point of the infertility industry is to manufacture babies out of embryos… A car factory that managed to accumulate 3,684,656 surplus models between 1990 and 2012 and in addition killed some of its customers would surely have gone out of business long ago.’

In 1948 the World Medical Association adopted the Declaration of Geneva which included the affirmation, ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even against threat’.

 

Today’s doctors, it seems, take a contrary view.

 

If you agree with today’s doctors that early human life can be treated as a disposable commodity then the figures that Lord Alton has uncovered (not much short of the current population of New Zealand!) will probably not bother you much at all.

 

But if, like me, you believe that they are special creations made in God’s image, which should be granted respect, wonder, empathy and protection you will no doubt be very concerned indeed.

A tomar nota para não esquecer - por Nuno Serras Pereira

07. 07. 2013

Como Sacerdote não me compete analisar ou comentar a actual crise político-partidária-governativa naquilo que ela tem de opinativo, enquanto sujeito a juízos prudenciais sobre a pluralidade de soluções legítimas, uma vez que dizem respeito a assuntos negociáveis e não a absolutos morais, isto é, princípios inegociáveis. Mas a verdade é que este tumulto ou motim no governo revela, por omissão, com uma nitidez de giga-pixéis, a natureza corrompida do actual cds/pp (Paulo Portas), escravizado ao seu derrancado presidente.

Convirá, em primeiro lugar, recordar que a aceitação ou melhor a adesão incondicional desse partido à “lei” profundamente iníqua da legalização do aborto 6/84, à qual sempre se tinha oposto, foi realizada, ditada, propagandeada e promovida precisamente por PP (Paulo Portas). Este mesmo partido que tanto tinha publicitado o seu grande empenho contra a liberalização do aborto provocado, aquando do referendo de 2007, uma vez conseguidos os votos que lhe proporcionaram uma subida ao poder, em coligação com o abortófilo psd, logo esqueceu a defesa da vida de cada ser humano; e, no entanto, tinha muitos modos e alguns bastante fáceis de o fazer. Mas a verdade crua e assustadora é que não deu um único passo nessa direcção. Nem a demissão “irrevogável”, logo revogada, do presidente/PP/ministro-dos-negócios-estrangeiros se deveu a qualquer princípio inegociável como o aborto, a reprodução artificial, a experimentação em pessoas na sua etapa embrionária, a clonagem, o infamemente apelidado “casamento” entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, a “co-adopção” por parte desses pseudocasais. Nada disto provocou qualquer incómodo, desconforto ou sequer um suspiro no PP/cds. 

Caso se confirme o que a comunicação social noticia, a saber, que PP reforça o seu poder e o do seu partido-marionete no governo será provável que seja reeleito com apoio unânime, ou perto de isso, no congresso que se realizará no daqui por duas semanas. Se assim for sentir-se-á confirmado na sua cegueira, nos seus erros, na sua política maquiavélica. 

Satanás é bem capaz de conceder tanto quanto possa àqueles que lhe vendem a alma, pessoas ou partidos, mas tarde ou cedo apresentará a factura. E depois a condenação é eterna, caso não haja verdadeiro e sincero arrependimento, o qual é muito dificultoso para quem se obstinou em pecados da maior gravidade.

Entrevista ao Dr. João Paulo Malta sobre apoio a mães grávidas, contracepção, NaproTechnology

A Possessão dos católicos portugueses - por Nuno Serras Pereira

27. 05. 2013

Como diz a malta nova “não dá para acreditar!” De facto, como podem crer em Cristo e a Cristo aqueles que verificam que um “povo católico” (que deveria ser povo de Deus, Corpo Místico de Cristo) serve escravocraticamente o Maligno?; e que imensos Prelados têm como prioridade evangelizadora o serem simpáticos, o agrado mediático, a consonância com a mentalidade reinante?; com pânico de chamar as coisas pelos nomes, pressurosos em manter-se na ambiguidade, incapazes de serem sinal de contradição?; julgando, contraditando desse modo o exemplo de Cristo e dos Santos, que basta anunciar o bem e se podem dispensar de combater o mal? Santo Atanásio, salvador da verdadeira Fé na antiguidade, seria, nos dias de hoje, dado como agressivo, mente obcecada, afugentador de fiéis, de pagãos, de ateus, remetido a um ermo enclausurado, senão mesmo excomungado.

Quando há Pastores (eclesiásticos ou civis) que por acção ou omissão, por cumplicidade, por indiferença ou tacticismo político não protegem nem defendem adequadamente os mais vulneráveis e inocentes (arriscando os seus cargos, as suas carreiras e se preciso for as suas vidas), isso significa que não são tais, mas sim lobos vorazes e predadores.

Eu tenho consciência, e isto não é retórico, da enormidade das minhas limitações, sei bem que em comparação com os demais confrades eclesiásticos sou um deficiente. Mas porra! (“expressa uma reacção de dor”, in Dicionário Houaiss. Etimologia: prov. de porro, vegetal de talo largo e um bulbo num dos extremos, sugerindo a comparação com um bastão de cabo grosso; Corominas comenta que um lat. *porrèa, de caráter adj., '(maça) semelhante a um porro (alho)', der. do lat. pòrrum ou porrus,i 'porro (alho)' poderia explicar o voc. port.; ver porr-), não há quem entenda a gravíssima escravidão demoníaca de numerosíssima porção dos católicos portugueses!?! Não há quem o veja e lhe dê remédio?!? As mais graves possessões demoníacas não são aquelas que, subjugando a liberdade, levam as pessoas a fazer ou padecer coisas contra sua vontade e que, por isso, delas não são responsáveis. O maior mal consiste na sedução diabólica que as conduz a consentirem no mal que praticam e na omissão do bem. Esta cumplicidade da multidão (de cada um que compõe essa massa) produz “estruturas de pecado” que se apropriam do poder, fortalecendo e perpetuando os grilhões malignos.

Quando deparo com a insurreição evangélica continuada dos franceses tenho vergonha, confesso, de ser um católico português; quando leio os textos de uma jornalista (um e dois), Maria Teixeira Alves, não ter medo de sofrer insultos e ameaças, como tem padecido desde que os redigiu, dou muitas Graças a Deus por suscitar nos aparentemente “de fora” aquilo que em primeiro lugar e principalmente competiria aos “de dentro”; quando me maravilho com a clareza brilhante de um artigo de um Sacerdote, pergunto-me se o Episcopado português é incapaz de redigir algo semelhante; quando exulto com a leitura de uma crónica desassombrada e clarividente de um economista, logo me entristeço por sei uma raridade singular.

Cinquenta crianças nascituras, CINQUENTA, são em “virtude” do voto católico, legalmente dizimadas quotidianamente, TODOS OS DIAS, no nosso país, por capricho das mães grávidas; devido ao voto católico, foi “legislado” e “promulgado” o “pseudo-casamento” entre pessoas do mesmo sexo; o mesmo povo católico elegeu aqueles que aprovaram a co-adopção de crianças por “casais” do mesmo sexo (quem não se opôs mas se absteve objectivamente conluiou com os promotores), como segundo passo (o primeiro foi o “casamento”, pois quem admite este, lógica e necessariamente desembocará na adopção) para a adopção plena e para o recurso dos mesmos “casais” ficcionais à reprodução artificial. Esta, como já indiquei em outros textos (ver aqui, por ex:) faz uma multidão incontável de vítimas humanas.

Os católicos subjugados pelo pecado têm escolhido e promovido os partidos que os têm subjugado. Desde há muito que as opções que nos têm sido impostas são as de escolher entre Satanás e o Demónio, como se não foram o mesmo. Numas organizações partidárias ele apresenta-se de carranca ameaçadora e feroz em outras de aspecto simpático e lisonjeiro, mas é sempre o mesmo Maligno que manipula os bonifrates, que se dizem e/ou se têm por católicos. Mas, infelizmente são possessos, para usar as palavras de Jesus Cristo, têm por pai o Diabo (Jo 8, 44).

É tempo de dar o “grito do Ipiranga” e de exorcizar a multidão dos demónios que nos infesta. Pela minha parte, confesso, que para além do pouco que procuro fazer (segundo não poucos, melhor seria para todos que nada fizesse e me silenciasse), se fora exorcista procuraria imitar frei Silvestre. Andavam as gentes da cidade de Arezzo em raivosas lutas intestinas, num desvairamento de mútuas agressões homicidas, quando S. Francisco de Assis acompanhado de frei Silvestre, que para lá se dirigiam, avistou um amontoamento de dianhos imundos por de cima das ruas e habitações influindo malignamente nos cidadãos. Logo tomou a decisão de enviar o seu confrade às portas da cidade para a exorcizar, enquanto ele se detinha orando com instantes súplicas ao Altíssimo, Omnipotente e Bom Senhor, de modo a garantir toda a eficácia ao esconjuro. Foi feliz o sucesso: os diachos puseram-se em fuga espavoridos, o povo aquietou-se, as aversões deram lugar a reconciliações, a paz foi estabelecida a contento de todos. Santos, conheço eu que me poderiam assistir com as suas orações enquanto, como exorcista, logo me dirigiria ao parlamento, à sede do governo, à presidência da república, etc., etc.

Mas enfim, cada um com a sua missão e/ou profissão, Sacerdote, Religioso, Diácono, Leigo, crente ou não crente pode dar o seu contributo. Mas tem que começar já! Com toda a determinação! É tempo de despertar do torpor mortal! Lázaro, povo de Deus, levanta-te! Ressuscita!

À honra de Cristo. Ámen.

A Formidanda Desumanidade do Ministério da Saúde - Nuno Serras Pereira

N. B. Estas escreveduras que redijo, a conta-gotas, para serem adequadamente compreendidas devem ser lidas como fragmentos (ou no contexto) de um todo constituído não só por todos os outros rabiscos da minha autoria mas também dos escritos de muitos outros autores, que têm sido publicados no boletim Infovitae e no blogue Logos, e à luz do Magistério da Igreja.

Hoje, apesar de em Portugal isto ser silenciado pela nova censura, é um dado adquirido e indiscutível que o crescimento exponencial do cancro da mama é fruto da pílula contraceptiva e do aborto provocado. De igual modo, um enorme número de nascimentos prematuros é causado pela procriação tecnicamente substituída (indevidamente apelidada de procriação medicamente assistida), e pelo aborto provocado em mulheres que posteriormente dão à luz novos filhos. Para além dos múltiplos problemas de saúde que em geral afectam estas crianças, importa adiantar que em não poucos casos, pela sua maior precocidade, elas não sobrevivem muito tempo ao parto. Ademais as insalutíferas consequências físicas e psíquicas graves (que podem, para dar um exemplo, chegar ao suicídio) dessas práticas nas mulheres são bem conhecidas e aceites na comunidade médica internacional. Deve-se por fim considerar atentamente que nenhuma das intervenções impropriamente realizadas em nome da saúde constitui um acto médico. A contracepção qua contracepção consiste em adoentar as mulheres saudáveis – é verdade que a pílula pode ser usada, em algumas circunstâncias (embora raras se comparadas com o uso primário) com fins terapêuticos mas uma vez que há outros fármacos a que se pode recorrer sem os seus efeitos perniciosos é malvadez recorrer à mesma; o aborto directo, isto é, querido como fim ou como meio, não cuida de um paciente nascente, pelo contrário, destrói-o violentamente; a procriação medicamente substituída não cura nem a infertilidade nem a esterilidade do homem ou da mulher – limita-se a substituí-los na fecundação -, depois mata à farta multidões de pessoas na sua etapa embrionária sujeitando-as a graves sevícias ou/e congelando-as. Tudo isto é do pleno conhecimento do ministério da saúde e da direcção-geral da mesma.

Esta elementar verificação indica evidentemente o seguinte:

a) - Os gastos económicos com as injustiças da contracepção, do aborto e da procriação artificialmente substituta não se limitam ao financiamento e patrocínio estatal destas práticas mas também às suas sequelas devastadoras.

b) – Estes suplícios tamanhos infligidos a tantas pessoas - quer as que padecem directa e indirectamente estas agressões cruéis e sanguinolentas quer as que são vítimas de um desamparo malvado, em virtude da subversão da justiça na aplicação dos recursos -, só poderão ser advogados por uma política maquiavélica e desalmada.

17. 11. 2012

A positive ruling underpinned by fragile foundations - by José Ramos-Ascensão

In europeinfos

The ban on heterologuos assisted reproductive technologies in conformity with the European Convention of Human Rights.

In November 2010, judging the case S. H. v. Austria, the European Court of Strasbourg decided that banning certain assisted reproductive technologies (ART) does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

ART, originally meant to help infertile couples to have the child they wanted, have been successively expanded to encompass situations of increasing manipulation, selection and destruction of embryos, access not only of infertile couples but of single persons or same sex couples, use of gametes other than the couple’s (heterologous ART), recourse to a third-person’s womb, all situations that raise increasing social and ethical concerns.

With specific regard to heterologous ART, it has been limited by some members of the Council of Europe, for example, Austria, Germany, Italy and Lithuania. Austrian legislation in particular, prohibits both ova and sperm donation for IVF, while in the case of insemination (where sperm is introduced into a woman's reproductive organs), sperm donation is permitted.

What was at stake in the present case was the question of knowing whether such provisions in Austrian legislation constitute an offense contrary to the ECHR. In a first judgment of 2010 by a Chamber of the First Section of the Court, it was ruled that such prohibition violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).

On 4 October 2010, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber which, on 3 November 2011, reversed the previous judgement at Chamber level, concluding both that there is no obligation on the State to allow certain forms of ART, and also that prohibiting some of them – or indeed all of them – is still within its margin of appreciation.

In the Court’s view, such margin is quite wide, as there is no consensus or clear common ground among Member States and the respective legislations concerning the interests at stake and the proper means to protect them, which is common when what is in question are sensitive ethical issues.

The ruling, despite its utmost importance and very positive features, does indeed present some undeniable flaws, some of them pointed out by Judge Vincent A. de Gaetano, in a far-sighted Separate Opinion.

The Court accepted, in apparent contradiction, that Article 8 is applicable to the case, which means that, in its understanding, such legal disposition comprises the “right of a couple to conceive a child and to make use of medically assisted procreation for that purpose”. Nevertheless, this understanding is aligned with a previous one held in the case Dickson v. UK, where the Court found that the “right to respect for (the spouse’s) decision to become genetic parents” is incorporated in Article 8.

Such individualist perspective, together with lack of proper acknowledgement and of a weightier definition of the parameters of Article 8, and a relativistic assessment of the interests, values and goods at stake (among them human dignity and dignity of procreation, or the best interests of the children to born), seems to be a fragile foundation for a ruling, to say the least.

Moreover, while affirming that it should scrutinize only whether the prohibitions in question were justified at the time the Austrian National Court considered the case, the Strasbourg Court has not relinquished its right to have regard for subsequent developments. And, although recognizing it cannot substitute for the State in determining the most appropriate policy with regard to ART – not because of considerations of competence, but because the State is “in a better position” to do that – the Court nevertheless made it clear that Austria’s policy is misaligned with an “emerging European consensus” with regard to allowing gamete donation, suggesting that it should be reviewed.

Therefore, it is likely that the question will be posed again, maybe in a judicial challenge to another, similar, piece of legislation from another member of the Council of Europe; and it is possible that a different, less positive ruling will then be issued.