Posted on 10/06/2007 5:53:56 AM PDT by NYer
A man of 72 is to donate sperm to try to father his own 'grandchild'.
He has been cleared to provide the sperm to his daughter-in-law to allow her to become a mother.
Any baby born will be its grandfather's genetic child and a halfbrother or half-sister to the man it takes to be its father.
What do you think about the case? Join the debate
The case - believed to be the first of its kind in the UK - raises ethical questions about how well the child will cope with such unusual family circumstances.
The Harley Street doctors treating the couple, however, say that the child's interests were paramount when taking the decision.
The couple, whose identity is being kept secret, opted for donor sperm after IVF treatment with the husband's own failed.
They turned to the husband's father, rather than an anonymous donor, because they wanted a child as genetically similar to both families as possible.
Peter Bowen-Simpkins, codirector of the London Women's Clinic which is carrying out the procedure, said the couple and the grandfather had undergone extensive counselling.
"I've certainly never come across a case like this before," he said.
"But advancements in fertility treatment have overcome a lot of taboos in science which means that people are prepared to consider all sorts of options.
"Obviously, the wife's mother-inlaw also had to be included in all of the conversations but she has no objections.
"Society has also changed its perceptions of what is and what is not acceptable.
"In this case, keeping the genetic identity of the child similar to their own was a huge factor.
"The husband does not have a brother, which is why he chose his own father to assist."
Kamal Ahuja, the clinic's scientific director, said: "We spent many, many months deliberating this case and discussed it with our ethics committee and with counsellors and have come to the conclusion that they shouldn't have been denied treatment."
It is not known if the couple, who are in their thirties, intend to tell the child about its parentage.
The child will be able to track down its biological father on turning 18.
Critics cautioned that the child could face major identity issues.
Philippa Taylor, of Care, a Christian charity, said: "The reproductive whims of parents to do some deliberate and unnecessary social engineering should not be put before the welfare of the child.
"Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should."
A spokesman for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said donations from family members were legal and relatively common.
Preliminary tests at the clinic suggest that the 72-year-old's sperm is viable.
When was the last time you heard any Republican or conservative politician speak out against IVF? It’s a losing proposition, given the hope and joy the process has brought to many couples who would otherwise have remained childless.
Right or wrong, that battle was decided years ago, and IVF is here to stay.
Googling’s like a box of chocolates. . . .
No. They won’t speak out against it, but it doesn’t mean the Catholic Church can’t say it is morally wrong. The worst part is the destruction of the “extra” embryos either through experimentation, research, or simply the medical waste bin. This particular situation takes things way too far. This man is impregnating his son’s wife!
Sperm donoring is adultery as far as I’m concerned.
Especially when the resultant child has none of the father’s genes.
It should be legal for the husband to immediately divorce any woman who gets pregnant from some other man’s sperm no matter how it is delivered.
Well since it’s all in the family, why not skip the pretending and just have the old guy jump into bed with his daughter in law and get it over with?
Rather than pretend it’s somehow less disturbing to use a syringe.
re: your relative — it is just not good to separate children from the only parents they have known — I’ll pray that they get to keep this child. Makes NO sense to me.
It seems like adultery to me too. Granted her husband has consented and it’s a different method, but she’s still having his sperm inserted inside of her. Whether he does it through a test tube or the natural way, the same end is occuring. Either way she’s having the child of her husband’s father.
“re: your relative — it is just not good to separate children from the only parents they have known — I’ll pray that they get to keep this child. Makes NO sense to me.”
I know...me either...I have a sister who had a baby die at birth...it was the saddest thing...so completely devastating...this is very close to that...although I do know that the child will live...what he is facing is awful..and to them, he will basically be dead.
It makes me want to vomit...
And the story is so MUCH MUCH bigger than that..
What the courts have done and not done.
What the bio mother has done and not done.
And, the fact that the judgement on the termination for the parental rights to the young girl was made in the spring...and now, less than 6 months later this “mother” has somehow MIRACULOUSLY turned herself into a citizen who is responsible enough to “parent” is laughable...
LAUGHABLE!
"i have them at 50 and they are more manly than most of their mousey peers"
That's because you are a man, and your wife appreciates a man.
So do I. ;o)
a supposedly conservative poster thinks one should explain the birds and bees to a child as soon as they can talk?
that is crazy...the graphic nature of what mommy and daddy (especially about mommy...) do to make babies is not something most kids under 8 or 9 should know about...and even some immature kids should be older
All our children knew mommy carried babies in her “belly”...kinda hard to hide that even from a toddler
and tadpoles and eggs come into play too around 4-5 years old but you can sorta just leave that it’s God’s work...he makes this happen....which is not lying just leaving out some stuff
sooner or later they sorta get it that sex is about nudity and affection....they can get the details soon enough
man, i am constantly amazed here
Not only is that highly unusual, but it is also a severe mistake. By age 3 your child should be fully versed in sexual anatomy, fluids, desire, orgasm, positions, DNA replication, genetic inheritance, etc.
Here is a simple example showing just 2 chromosomes to show you how this happens. Line=chromosome, Char 1=ancester (e.g. Alan, Betty, Donna), Char 2=chromosome pair #.
Grandpa's Parents
A1 A2 B1 B2
A1 A2 B1 B2
| |
\---+----/
|
Mother Grandpa Grandma
D1 D2 A1 B1 C1 C2
D1 D2 A1 B1 C1 C2
| | |
+-------^--------+
| |
Baby Father
D1 B1 A1 C1
D1 B1 A1 C1
Here you see that baby has NONE of its father's DNA even though half its DNA came from its father's father.
So it is a statistical problem, where only the expected amount of DNA can be predicted. The range is actually 0% to 50%, both of which are unlikely (about 1 in 8.4 million).
When you factor in random mutations and mitochondrial genetic material, the expected value goes down even further. When you factor in genetic material shared within a population pool (mother may have some of the same genes as father), the estimate then goes up slightly. But overall, the expected amount will be a bit under 25%, with a sizeable variance.
“Professional ethicists have a problem with this but not. Would you agree that it is okay to harvest unfertilized eggs from an aborted fetus so some infertile woman can give birth to a child.”
At this time it is probably legal.. Ok? No.
That question was really answered after WWII.. Both the Japanese and the Germans conducted terminal experiments with prisoners. The Japanese do not appear to have really used the scientific method much in their “experiments”. The Germans for the most part did and made some potentially valuable observations. There was a palaver between allied scientists and the other movers and shakers of the time. It was determined to use the results of those experiments would be to sanction to some degree the unlawful murder of the prisoners. Quite rightly they rejected the use of any test results obtained in those “experiments”.
An intellectually honest human being must conclude Abortion is the premeditated murder of an unborn child.
Not sure how else to define an abomination on top of an evil which is what you are describing.
Abortion is simply a modern form of Infanticide.
In our modern world there really is no excuse for it.
W
Oh, okay.
I wasn’t actually intending to convey the idea that the baby would share 50% of the father’s genetics, in a way that his exact genetic sequence would be passed on. What I meant, rather, was that the baby’s genes, including both the ones that are dominant, and the traits that are recessive, would be passed on from a set that the father’s body contained. That was the 50% I was referring to, and not that the baby’s genetic structure would be 50% identical to the father’s.
Thanks for the clarification!
“that the baby’s genes...would be passed on from a set that the father’s body contained”
Most likely, but not necessarily.
“It seems like adultery to me too. Granted her husband has consented and it’s a different method, but she’s still having his sperm inserted inside of her. Whether he does it through a test tube or the natural way, the same end is occuring. Either way she’s having the child of her husband’s father.”
Wrong
They get mixed in a test tube.
The fertilized egg is implanted.
Not sperm.
It's posted in posts 52 and 32 on this thread. I never heard that song, but it must be well-known.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.