Ah, frozen embryos. But no divorce.
Oh, look: we’re allowed to faff around in a lab producing multiple embryos and now we’re even going to be allowed to freeze them so that we don’t have to stick the lot of them in the womb at one fell swoop because letting them die is a crime.
But we’re not going to be allowed to divorce in Malta (though we allowed to divorce elsewhere).
Fascinating.
timesofmalta.com, tonight
Committee on assisted procreation issues report, suggests embryo freezing
Embryo freezing, which is unavailable in Malta, is one of the recommendations made in a report published tonight by a parliamentary select committee on assisted procreation.
Chaired by Nationalist MP Jean Pierre Farrugia, who is a doctor, the select committee based its recommendations on the advice given by medical experts, who argued that embryo freezing would lower the risk of multiple pregnancies caused when multiple embryos are implanted in a woman’s womb. Freezing would also reduce the pain caused to the woman by hormone stimulating therapy, which is necessary to harvest the ova.
While calling for government to regulate the sector, the report says that in-vitro fertilisation should be made available to heterosexual couples in a stable relationship and not just to married couples. The report says that an independent regulatory authority should be created to oversee the sector.
Rather than having a restrictive law, the report argues for guidelines that stipulate how many embryos should be fertilised and how many should be implanted. However, it also says that if the guidelines are not adhered to the doctor must submit the reasons why in writing since the medical history of various women differed.
Two other doctors, Nationalist backbencher Francis Agius and Labour MP Michael Farrugia set on the select committee.
The report was agreed unanimously.
Dr Farrugia said this was a ‘pro-life- report where the committee sought to protect the interests of those people who had difficult to procreate.
56 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Har har. And what happens to the extra frozen “unborn children” once the mother is succesfully impregnated? Your guess is as good as mine. Goes to show how a bunch of semi-literate hicks calling themselves MPs (and medical doctors to boot!) can be duped into giving the green light for abortion.
Speculation, Baxxter. Speculation. Didn’t you hear the embryo donation part – i.e. for couples whose bodies lack the ability to produce the ingredients?
Daphne, it is utterly unselfish, insensitive and wrong to put these two issues next to eachother and try to compare. Divorce is required only when one or both parties decide to call it quits following wrong judgement of the other person in the past (or changing circumstances after marriage).
Infertility: most infertile people are born infertile, or somthing beyond their control prevents them falling pregnant in the natural way.
[Daphne – They are entirely comparable, if we are going to approach divorce from the aspect of ‘social order’ or ‘morality’, which is what the anti-brigade are doing. I am merely pointing out the holes in their reasoning: if divorce is bad, then so is IVF, particularly where donor embryos and donor sperm are concerned. The ban on adultery – religious AND secular is not a ban on sex but a ban to avoid the birth of children to only one of the spouses. I wouldn’t like to examine the mind of somebody who says that divorce is wrong but implanting in a woman an embryo to which she is not genetically related is OK.]
And you, as a woman should know that your maternal instinct is far stronger than wanting to remarry at some point.
[Daphne – Men so often make this misjudgement about women, without bothering to look around them. Based on my own observations, I think it’s the other way round: that the strongest desire most women have is to find a mate and not to have a child. I know many people who don’t want children and not a single woman who doesn’t want to find her soul-mate or, at a push, a decent and solvent man to keep her company through life.]
If divorce doesn’t make it, then we have a half-baked solution – poggi. There is no half-baked solution for infertility as far as I know.
[Daphne – Yes, there is: adoption. But then of course we have to distinguish between what you call the maternal instinct (the instinctive need to look after something) and the purely selfish but entirely natural desire to reproduce one’s own genes.]
And ultimately, I hope that divorce is introduced because I am pro-choice.
Amazing. We fulminate against the morning-after pill, and here we are trading in human life, with frozen embryos up for sale (or donation). Hats off to the Catholic Church for its consistency on this issue. I’m really starting to think that what is presented as a moral stand by our anti-brigade is nothing more than the “cute factor” argument: don’t kill cute babies. But then the morning after pill would only be killing a microscopic bunch of cells, so I’m not too sure.
On the subject of the safe storage of those embryos (“until we find a suitable womb”), if it’s anything like the reserve collection at the Archaeology Museum (“until we find a suitable room”), then there will be quite a few unborn children lost along the way.
I thought you’d go as low as mentioning adoption. Just let us know:
[Daphne – Why low? Adoption is a beautiful thing. I have far more admiration for those who adopt an abandoned and suffering child than for those who jump through self-deceiving hoops with donor sperm and somebody else’s eggs, and sometimes both.]
1) how many children are put up for adoption every year in Malta;
2) how many of these remain homeless;
3) if (1) is not an option, then what it costs to adopt from other countries.
[Daphne – It costs less than IVF, which almost never works the first time round, and it certainly costs less than the massive resources needed to look after severely premature multiple babies born as a result of the process. And in emotional terms, it costs the woman a lot less than repeated miscarriages, too.]
Some people must pay (in advance) to satisfy their instictive need to care for “something” as you have put it.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with implanting a genetically unrelated embryo in a woman. It’s like adopting, but one which creates a bond between parents and child at a much much earliler stage.
[Daphne – How would you know? You can have no basis for comparison as there is no possible ‘control group’. Nobody can know. The bond between mother and child doesn’t come from pregnancy and birth (if that were the case, mothers who give birth naturally would be more well bonded than mothers who have Caesareans) but from recognition and from knowing that the child is your own. That’s the biological bond, or if you like, the genes ‘talking’. If you know that the child is not biologically yours, then the situation is no different to what it would be if you’ve adopted. Birth changes nothing. It just allows the mother to experience something so she doesn’t feel deprived of that experience. If birth really made a difference, fathers would love their children less than mothers, but that’s not the case, is it.]
Assumptions about women: you might be right if you use your friends/acquaintances as a representative sample. If you use mine, you’d be totally wrong, and this is not a case of social strata. That’s mostly bull anyway nowadays and something that comes from the British influence. I have many foreign friends and colleagues, and it is always invariably the British who are concerned about social class.
[Daphne – Marelli, who mentioned social class? The difference in your attitude and mine, or perception if you will, is fundamental and obvious: you are a man and I am a woman. You assess women from a man’s perspective and I don’t have to assess women at all because I have direct experience. And there are social classes throughout Europe, maybe not as finely stratified as in Britain, but there all the same. If you think this isn’t the case, then your friends are the sort who say (and think) that there are no social classes where they come from because they’re not too happy with their own and have disguised their origins through laudable social mobility.]
Our upbringing/culture – in general – pushes us to become husbands and wives, parents, later wanting to become grandparents… and this is why the divorce issue has taken centre stage because most rush into marriage without the commitment necessary.
There you go. We can’t agree on this matter. If you had it all rosy in life as far as procreation is concerned, don’t assume that others can and will become pregnant when and how they want to.
[Daphne – Everybody can become pregnant as and when they want to, as long as they do it when nature intended, rather than when nature intended them to become grandmothers. The problem here is that society is now at odds with biology. What really makes me cross about this is that there are so many women who think of themselves as infertile and ‘less than whole’ because they have tried to have a baby at 35 and failed, when their only mistake was to buy the false notion that as long as you menstruate you can get pregnant.]
And what happens if there are so many extra embryos is not something that I as a common citizen need to worry about. I don’t worry about other people’s kids, whether born or unborn, unless they are friends.
You wait till the vergni puri mifqughin bit-tfal johorgu jghajjtu kontra l-IVF.
Lanqas hareg jghajjat Anton Gouder, ahseb u ara…
My views on abortion have been made known on this blog (abortion now!), so I wasn’t bemoaning this IVF decision. I was merely pointing out how incredibly stupid our leaders have become. Perhaps they really think those frozen embryos will be kept in suspended animation for ever.
Paul Vincenti, you disappoint me.
“Lanqas hareg jghajjat Anton Gouder, ahseb u ara…”
but others did, just in case you haven’t yet noticed. And you needn’t look far.
HP,
Alla l-abort ma jridux.
Ciccio, jekk Alla ma jridx l-abort, ghax ma jibghatx karestija/gwerra/pestilenza/armageddon halli jnehhi ftit mis-surplus population? Ghax ma nahsibx li fl-gherf kollu tieghu qatt immagina li se jkun hemm 9 biljun ruh jiggieldu ghal ftit spazju fuq dal-pjaneta.
Mela l-billboard tieghi se tghid:
IL-BIEBA TAL-FREEZER MIFTUHA: ALLA MA JRIDHIEX
You’re so right.
I am referring to what H.P. Baxxter wrote and not to WhoamI? says
That really hurts, maryanne.
Sorry to be a bore but have to clarify again. I wrote after Baxxter’s very first comment and I still agree with him. Then you answered and the discussion took another turn. I differ from him when he asserts that he is in favour of abortion.
Probably the embryoes will be frozen until abortion would be legalised. They just want to create a legal loophole in order to make an abortive procedure legal.
Wow you’re really smart, I bet nobody realised that.
Did Dr Michael Axiak agree?
He’s not an MP.
I’ve just read an article about Robert Edwards, Nobel prize winner in medicine, 2010. He is the one who discovered IVF. It is estimated that there are 4 million humans who were conceived with IVF.
The Roman Catholic Church is also against this procedure. That means 4 million lives and not abortions. It seems that those couples who are desperate to become parents do not give a damn and go for IVF, so why doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church shut up and accept the fact that its preaching is useless.
I am sure that even the most fervent Catholic who has problems with getting pregnant would go for IVF. The maternal instinct is much stronger than what the clergy would imagine.
Even if the whole world population was to reject the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, this would not mean that any of those principles are incorrect.
It so happens that in your statement that “even the most fervent Catholic… would go for IVF”, you choose to speak on behalf of each and every Roman Catholic. This is nothing but a hyperbolic statement that does not add value to this debate. In my opinion, it actually weakens your contribution.
As for when you state that the 4 million humans conceived through IVF can be seen as a counterbalance for 4 million abortions, here again your argument does not follow. Actually, I would rather consider all those embryos that remain unutilised and disposed of (??). My moral dilemma would rather be on whether this utilitarian approach to treating infertile couples is simply another illogical way of how to try and solve things that do not please us. Now please, do not jump the gun and assume that I am from that school of thought that accepts fatalistically the hand nature has dealt me.
Dear c abela triganza,
The Catholic Church is not against the IVF procedure per se but against the selective abortion of fertilised eggs (or embryos) that takes place during the procedure in order to avoid multiple births. The irony being that in the process to creat life, life is selectively destroyed in the process.
Your other argument is flawed too. Should the Church change its teaching to suite popular trends and beliefs or personal needs? Since abortion is so frequent in many countries than, with you argument, the Church should change its stance and become pro-abortion.
Your last statment is contradictory. How can a fervent Cathloic be in facvour of a procedure that can result in multiple abortion of embryoes? If one does, one is no longer Catholic. You cannot have the cake and eat it.
R camilleri, you are completely in error. The catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is categoric in that IVF is intrinsically evil
“Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”
This is the official teaching the link is here see 2377 -2379 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Abortion is the deliberate act of terminating the potential life an unborn living being.
Washing away unused embryos might be close to abortion but it’s not. There is much less chance for an unimplanted embryo to make it to its birthday (if implanted) than a growing foetus which is already living off its carrier’s resources (and I am using “carrier” on purpose because I am also in favour of allowing surrogacy).
You may just want to check out the success rates of:
1) IVF
2) conventional pregnancies
“The irony being that in the process to creat life, life is selectively destroyed in the process.”
The Roman Catholic Church should discuss this issue with God, as that is exactly what evolution does. And God has of course created evolution by natural selection.
So flushing embryoes down the drain equates to the same process of natural selection. I cannot see the link, as here there is no natural selective pressure.
During a discussion about abortion, I clearly remember Edwin Vassallo saying on Smash TV that at conception, when the nuclei of the male and female gametes fuse, the zygote is formed including the 23 pairs of chromosomes and their genomes. Cleavage, by which a singular cell is transformed into a multicellular body, then becomes the embryo. He concluded that since the genotype is, therefore created, abortion is similar to murder.
There seems to be no worry, now, as to what happens with the living embryos when they are frozen. And now he is against divorce. Is he?
We make treading the fine line an art. Frozen is not dead, so our good old Catholic values are upheld. Hyperbole, anyone?
I’m not being facetious, but we shall need one hell of a gigantic freezer if we are to keep Malta abortion-free. I mean, honestly, where is Paul Vincenti when you need him?
Who needs Paul Vincenti?
It is Norman Lowell who we need. Remember his grand plan to conserve the human DNA by sending samples into space for eternal conservation? On the same trip, we can send all those frozen embryos into the Universe.
Freeze that marriage.
IVF and divorce are two issues which are very different from each other.
The legislator’s interest is not what the Church says about a particular issue, even if he may, at his discretion, wish to refer to the Church’s teachings.
The point of reference for the legislator is what is in the best public interest and how new or changes to legislation will impact on the public interest.
In this context, the discussion on IVF is very different from that on divorce.
there you go Daphne. perhaps the reply from jae is much more sophisticated than mine. nonetless the punchline is what it is – “IVF and divorce are two issues which are very different from each other”.
[Daphne – You know, sometimes I feel like beating my head against the wall. This is not an argument about the NATURE of divorce and IVF. It is a comparison of morality which raises questions about judgement and principles. Let’s say a person is in favour of abortion but against divorce. Abortion and divorce are very different. BUT it is entirely valid to question the thinking of somebody who says that abortion is all right but divorce is not. It’s the same with people who think nothing of giving IVF treatment to women who wish to get pregnant by somebody who is not their husband (while their husband tries to make somebody else pregnant) and then think even less of freezing the resulting crop of embryos – but who object to divorce on principle.]
Your interpretation is not very faitful to what I said, is it? Now you bring in abortion. IVF, abortion and divorce are three entirely different and independent matters that merit completely separate discussions.
[Daphne – You haven’t understood a word of what I’ve written, so just forget it. We’re talking at cross purposes here. When assessing a person’s moral judgement, you don’t have to compare ‘like with like’. Rather the opposite, you have to compare their stances on two moral issues which are of a different order, otherwise there is no comparison to be made. A discussion about the moral judgement of a person who frowns upon theft but thinks nothing of defiling children is not the equation of theft with paedophilia, but a comparison of one person’s attitudes to two different moral issues.]
I am in favour of IVF and divorce, but in principle against abortion. i.e. I feel perfectly OK about IVF and divorce, but would never (in my current state of mind) contemplate abortion and if asked to vote for or against, I would vote in favour and then choose not to do it. People should be able to make their own choices.
[Daphne – I thought you were a man. In what situation would you ever contemplate abortion? Please don’t tell me we are now talking about implanting donor embryos in men.]
As regards the moral issues – I think we should allow each individual to make his/her own choices and be guided by his own moral values (jew il-kuxjenza ghal min iridha hekk).
Daphne, what difference does it make whether I am a man or a woman?
Have you never heard a couple say “We’re pregnant?”
[Daphne – No. And I can’t imagine anyone among my friends or acquaintances saying it, either.]
The way you speak about men makes me think that there really is a case for sperm donors. It seems to be the only thing a woman ever needs from a man and which she can’t source from elsewhere.
[Daphne – The way I speak about men is factual. I rather suspect that if some of your men friends say things like ‘We’re pregnant’ it’s because they can’t bear to be left out of the picture and not take the starring role. A well-balanced man would say ‘My wife is pregnant.’]
Implanting donor embryos in men – now that’s really some creative writing. Implanting them where? In the intestines perhaps, or stomach?
[Daphne – I’m sure they’ll come up with something. They’ve already done a pretty good job of writing women out of the conception and incubation process. The next step to total control of the one thing that women could do and men couldn’t: artificial wombs for men. What do you mean by ‘where’? If a womb can fit inside a woman, it can fit inside a man. It’s not like you have a different set of internal organs, and if anything, a man’s torso is a lot wider.]
@WhoamI & DCG – this is hilarious.
WhoamI – Please do tell us if you’re male or female!
[Daphne – He’s a man.]
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Pregnant-Man-Thomas-Beatie-Gives-Birth-To-Baby-Girl-In-Oregon/Article/200807115024216?lid=ARTICLE_15024216_Pregnant Man Thomas Beatie Gives Birth To Baby In Oregon&lpos=searchresults
!… should be made available to heterosexual couples in a stable relationship…”
Can someone explain to me who is going to determine who is in a stable relationship?
How would you prove it? Produce a marriage certificate? That’s no guarantee.
A copy of the receipt for bathroom tiles is sufficient proof of a stable relationship in Malta.
“in-vitro fertilisation should be made available to heterosexual couples in a stable relationship and not just to married couples”.
If some Maltese are against divorce, how can they be pro IVF for unmarried couples? As far as I know the Catholic Church does not permit either divorce or co-habitation.
Any answers anyone?
Daphne, the title you chose is the zenith of “false advertising.” Forgive me for saying so.
Are the two groups of people (i.e. the ones campaigning against divorce and the ones proposing this half-baked freezer thingy) the same?
[Daphne – Yes, though campaigning is the wrong word. I would speak in terms of ‘frowning upon’ and ‘favouring’.]
Were there any bioethicists on this panel? Philosophers? Ethicists? My guess is that somebody stands to make a fat buck from all this.
[Daphne – That is irrelevant. You can make a buck, fat or thin, from almost anything. The point is that frozen embryos are a solution to a real problem in a situation where destroying an embryo is a criminal act – even though I am not certain how the law against abortion considers the situation of embryos outside the womb, which strictly speaking are already outside their mother and so incapable of survival. As the situation stands, IVF leads to the creation of multiple embryos. Because these cannot be destroyed (illegal, though the law hasn’t been tested) or frozen (strictly speaking not illegal because there is no law that says you cannot freeze embryos, which is not the same thing as killing them) all the embryos are implanted at once in the woman’s womb. All or some of these are then miscarried at varying points throughout the course of the pregnancy, sometimes as late at the third trimester. If they are carried to full term, they place a massive burden on the Special Care Baby Unit because they are usually severely premature and very weak. And this is nothing compared to the massive burden on the parents. So there is a real determination to do something that does not involve abortion, and that something has to be either banning IVF (not kind or realistic) or freezing spare embryos. Compare that to the reluctance to do anything about divorce, because the problem with one in three children born out of wedlock doesn’t seem to be as pressing – because those children aren’t at risk of dying like the embryos.]
Besides, IVF reduces human embryos to disposable commodities. I don’t think that this is the place to discuss where human life begins, but I imagine that most people would agree that an embryo is a rudimentary human being. I’m sure that when the time comes for the Roman Catholic Church to nip any equivocation in the bud, it will come down strongly on the side of respect for the dignity of the human person and life. You’ll be very hard pressed to find the whiff of a contradiction there.
If you want to take a pot shot at the hypocrisy of certain so-called Catholics that’s another matter.
[Daphne – The Roman Catholic Church has had decades to come up with a position on IVF. The world’s first IVF baby is 32 years old: Louise Brown. It was so long ago that we actually called them test-tube babies back then.]
I was just going to ask whether not implanting an embryo constitutes abortion. I was under the impression that abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy. If there’s no pregnancy, there’s no abortion.
No Campari – no party.
No pregnancy – no abortion.
Legally it is not abortion and at considering that IVF in Malta is not regulated, one can do as one pleases – this is the reason why some sort of regulation is required.
What I meant about the Roman Catholic Church coming into the ring I meant this local “debate”
The Roman Catholic Church is not in favour of IVF in the real world, and as the technology stands today. (Does it matter why?)
Another point. I agree that freezing isn’t the same as killing, but you, of all people, should know that even the law discerns between wilfully killing someone or placing someone’s life in grave danger which may or may not result in death.
Just a couple of clarifications.
IVF does not lead to the creation of multiple embryos. One can decide to fertilise a fixed number of oocytes. In fact the German Law stipulates a maximum of three embryos and that these are all implanted in the womb of hte mother at one go. It is a known scientific fact that around 70% of the IVF embryos have chromosomal abnormalities that does not let them implant (the reason is that we are not letting nature choose the strongest sperm but are mixing all the sperm that are available or even choosing one and inserting it directly – ICSI). Does the risk of multiple pregnacies is in actual fact very low – they are more common during hyperfertility treatment.
The only reason for freezing is that to undergo IVF, the mother is undergoing a treatment that increases morbidity and mortality. Thus if one freezes the embryos, and the first pregancy is not succesful, there is no need to have a new horomone therapy so as to implant a second embryo.
The problem with the freezing of embryos include both ethical and financial problems. The ownership of embryos and final fate of stored embryos are two of the ethical problems. Keeping embryos frozen costs money – one has to top up the liquid nitrogen on a daily basis – so expensive both on consumables and personnell – or else if one uses ultra low temp freezers (-196 C), then the expense would be one of electricity. And the question would then be, who shall pay?
IVF does lead to the “production” of multiple embryos. You then choose the best embryos – i.e. the ones with the best chances for survival – for transfer and implantation.
Implantation rate decreases with age, so the older the woman (older than 35 – 40, if I remember well) the more embryos are implanted.
The implanted embryos are human embryos. They will develop – if they live long enough – into human beings. They will not develop into something else. We are there dealing with humans, albeit at a very early stage of development.
when IVF fails for whatever reason – generally related to sperm deficiencies, however – some people opt for ICSI. This procedure still necessitates the production of multiple embryos which may or may not survive.
Reuben, sorry, but your science is pretty inaccurate.
1. IVF does not necessarily produce multiple embryos.
2. The success of IVF is of around 70-80%. The problem is implantation where the percentage goes down to around 20-25%. This is not due to problems with sperm but problems with the embryo. 70% of the embryos produced through IVF have severe chromosomal abnormalities (and this is even higher in ICSI) and thus they do not implant. It is nature’s way of eliminating these abnormal embryos. Again, this is why implantation rate decrease the older the woman.
3. So in those countries (Germany, Austria and Switzerland – just to mention three) where freezing of embryos is not permitted, three oocytes are fertilised and and all are implanted and when successful, but one gets implanted.
4. This fact was not part of your reasoning, but I thought that I should mention it here. Multiple pregnancies are not usually due to IVF but to fertility treatment. Dr Paul Soler’s argument that was quoted in the select committee’s report has been inaccurately reported by a number of commentators – basically giving the impression that IVF ends in multiple pregnancies.
I concede that I got some of my facts only partially right but:
a) you keep mentioning Germany where you say that IVF is quite strictly regulated, but there are countries – one of which is England – where they produce more than 3 embryos and whether they implant or freeze the “best” ones is discussed with the parents
b) in these cases the “extra” embryos are used as insurance against the high fail rate (because you cannot say that the procedure was successful until the baby is born)
c) my issue is with these “hedge” embryos. They are produced just in case, to be disposed of at a later stage
You also mentioned that the low success rate of the procedure is partly due to chromosomal abnormalities, which nature “kills off” because they are not good enough. This is acceptable only when it happens of its “own accord”, without human interference.One would be knowingly producing people with a higher chance of death. How ethical is that?
So let’s say a woman has conceived and her spare embryos are frozen, and, these are donated to another couple in Malta, who in turn have a child from the aforementioned woman.
[Daphne – Mistaken premise: spare embryos are not the result of a woman conceiving. They are made in a laboratory.]
The DNA of both these children will be the same. So what happens if by coincidence these two children meet up, fall in love and want to get married? Malta being so small this could happen, so shouldn’t we also introduce DNA testing before marriage?
What is the opinion of +9 on the matter?
Daphne, I see a lot of philosopy about abortion, IVF and divorce above. It is all interesting to read. However, I am afraid that your post above is a consequence of the fact that divorce – unlike IVF, which affects a minority and where the majority of the people cannot understand the theoretical issues and would not give a hoot about them – is being turned into a political game, because it affects a lot of people.
p pace has made a very good point.
It seems that there wan’t much thought on this issue. Embyro adoption on such a small island with a population of ca 450 000 is dangerous for the geen pool.
Would children born from adopted embryoes know who their genetic parents are?
In such a small population, it would not take long before two persons meet and consider to have children, not knowing that in actual fact they are gentetic siblings. This will result in inbreeding!
Don’t worry; there is a method called called DNA hybridization that determines the similarity of DNA from different sources. Single strands of DNA from two sources, are put together and the extent to which double hybrid strands are formed is estimated. The greater the tendency to form these hybrid molecules, the greater the extent of complementary base sequence, (gene similarity). the method is one of determining the genetic relationship of species.
Yes, of course, but that means that before going into a stable relationship you have to go through DNA testing to ascertain that you are not genetic siblings.
What if you have no intention of having a stable relationship and your girlfriends gets pregnant. Then what? Do DNA testing before you decide to sleep with a person, just in case?
Dear Karl, embryo donation in such a small gene pool is very dangerous and may have serious repercussions.
Was a maximum age mentioned?
Apart from the ethical issues just mentioned, in the UK 20 women a year who are over 50 years of age give birth through IVF.
So can a woman, in a long stable relationship and is say 60 years old get IVF under these recommendations?
The report states – “women of fertile age” – so it is a bit vague. I believe that it should be defined (in my opinion – not older than 50 and preferably 45 years)