Fighting for better IVF embryo donations

2038 IVF embryo donations

A fertility clinic, IVF Australia to investigate allegations in IVF embryo donations that a Sydney woman led them to believe the pregnancy of her donor developed baby had failed. As a result, the child will never know about his genetic history unless the recipient family tells him about it.

The embryo donations happen with people having extra embryos from IVF cycles are removed and stored in frozen condition. These left over embryos implanted in other with price bargaining, the genes of the embryos not known because they donated anonymously. Also no guarantee that each and every embryo gives birth as child as it depends upon the quality of the embryo cell.

In Australia, a mother has faced embryo robbery. She still fights for the regulation in fertility donations as anonymous recipient of her embryo claimed that she miscarried.

MS Parker wanted to help a couple after knowing their story decided to donate her embryos. Both the families maintained a relation among them and siblings know the information about the extended family. The embryos of MS parker implanted in recipient and believed that the embryos didn’t work for her.

As she found the photos of the recipient with the baby boy she got stubborn after seeing it like her own son. As she assumed that she had baby Lust.

Finally, IVF Australia confirmed to Ms Parker that the dates of embryo transfer and pregnancy do line up.  Now, Ms Parker has shared her story to fight for the rights of the child to know their genetic history. Since currently, there is no state or federal legislation protecting them.

The donors fertilization experts believe that the loophole first of its kind has exposed in Australia. They claim that law should protect the donor developed children and the donors. These causes raise the query about IVF industry protect the welfare of the patients

The Facebook post with photos of baby have become noticeable in similar with the transfer of MS parker embryo in 2014. And it is believed baby developed by other means. The images of baby in Facebook vanished when browsing the profile.

MS parker insisted that even if it is direct donation the donors should be maintaining contact with children via these fertility methods. Also encourage the relationship between the genetic siblings.

Ms Parker and her donor recipient quickly built up a talk over emails exchanging details of their families and lives. Ms Parker said that as part of the donation process, the two couples agreed to remain in contact after the birth of any child. Exchange yearly photos and occasionally meet up with their respective children so the genetic siblings could know each other.

The transfer of Ms Parker’s embryo was due to take place in early November 2014.  However there was a hold up getting Ms Parker’s embryos to the recipient’s clinic. So on November 18, Ms Parker emailed her recipient, “I just got a call from the lab at ISIS [Fertility] and the embryos have been picked up so they are on their way to Sydney now.”

A year later, IVF Australia called Ms Parker. The transfer of two embryos had failed, with the recipient advising them over the phone of bleeding.

The recipient posted a photo on Facebook of the baby captioned “five months today”. This suggests he was born on August 20, 2015. Approximately nine months after Ms Parker’s embryo would have arrived at the clinic in Sydney. She suspected something unexpected had happened.

Ms Parker contacted IVF Australia the next morning. Hoping they would prove wrong by telling her the embryo transfer didn’t happen as scheduled. The Associate Professor Illingworth offered to apply for the Parkers’ details placed on the donor conception register. So a record is maintained of their embryo donation even if it wasn’t linked to the child born.

Ms Parker said the clinic told her they asked the recipient to come in for a blood test to confirm whether or not there was a pregnancy when she advised them of bleeding, but the woman declined.

IVF Australia has declined to answer questions about its procedures. Including whether it guarantee as the first time such a case had arisen or whether it would change its processes.

Ms Parker support in taking responsibility to implement changes to donor conception laws to prevent this happening again.