images

FLL Logo
Invitro Logo
M&M Logo

The AFA thanks Google, a premiere sponsor, for their online advertising grant.

Google Logo


The American Fertility Association Blog

Pee in a Cup

July 31, 2009 - Friday
Posted by admin

That’s all it takes, suggests a recent study on bmj.com, to determine if you have an STD which could stand in the way of you successfully conceiving a child.  Chlamydia is the most common STD in the United States and it can lead to serious long term health complications in women, including infertility.  Guys, you’re not far behind.  Recent studies show it may also cause infertility in men.  When I say recent, I mean yesterday. 

And, as part of The AFA’s male reproductive health program, now underway with several other “A-listers” like the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction (SSMR) - an official branch of the American Urological Association, Men’s Health Network, and the CDC, an extensive amount of research is currently being launched to determine the best ways to educate younger men and the most effective ways to approach them with that education. We have a lot of work to do, without a doubt, but all of us are really excited about making an impact in this area. In addition to STD prevention, we’re going to be looking at the effects of environmental toxins, steroid and other drug use and testicular self-exams as a way to get guys more “in touch” with their own reproductive health.

Five minutes with your doctor and a urine sample are all it takes to “flush out” (sorry, it’s Friday and I’ve been caffeine-free for two weeks) the possibility of carrying an undiagnosed STD.  If you want some incentive to do so, while getting a European vacation out of the deal, head to the UK where you’ll get an iPod just to get tested for STDs. Seriously. This is a real program and you may read about it here. 

Read Article about STD Testing:

Simple Urine Test Could Help Cut Chlamydia in Men

Brian Armentrout
Communications Director
The American Fertility Association

Categories
Family Building • Fertility • Fertility Preservation • Infertility • Male Factor • Reproductive Health • Sexual Health

(0) Trackbacks • Permalink



Looka!  Looka!

July 27, 2009 - Monday
Posted by admin

Tonight I am going to Coney Island with my kids to see the fireworks.  We will ride the Cyclone first (at least they will, you can’t get me on a roller coaster to save my life) and then Nathan’s, and after that we’ll hang out on the board walk until the display starts a little after sundown.  I love Coney Island, I’ve been going there since I was a kid.  My dad used to take me to the chick hatchery and put me smack in the middle of the fluffy little yellow things until I had my fill of patting their soft downy coats.  I used to love that, and I cried bitter tears when it closed.

But there was a place my dad didn’t take me, a place I didn’t even know existed until this week, my friend Barbara saw a TV show on PBS about it. 

Ironically, had my own kids been born in 1945 instead of 1995, I would have known about this place all too well.

The most popular attraction at the Coney Island Freak Show, next to the midgets, bearded ladies, and other assorted poor souls that we as a society could not find in our hearts to accept in those days, were the incubators.

For human infants, born too soon.

Like mine.  Connor and Caitlin were born on the first day of my third trimester.  I never made it to a LaMaze class and didn’t have time to paint the nursery.  My babies were 2 lbs. 3 oz (Caitlin) and 2 lbs. 6 (Connor) and lived in state of the art incubators for over two months.  The incubators that helped to save my babies lives cost $4,000 a day each and were not covered by my health insurance. (Did I mention that I’m divorced?)

But from 1903- 1945 there was only one place premature babies could be cared for and that was in a side show, not in a hospital.  Doctors from around the country rushed premature infants to Coney Island for treatment. There was no other option available for these most fragile of souls. 

File this under Where There’s A Will, There’s A Way.  He was a visionary, he was a failure.  He was a showman, he was a man of medicine.  He was a savior, he was a public joke.  Sometimes revered, sometimes ridiculed, but he didn’t stop.  Dr. Martin Couney was determined to save premature babies, when the world assumed they did not have a chance, when infant mortality rates were so high that these tiniest of the tiny were not even an afterthought.  Even, unbelievably so, for their parents, who often abandoned them at birth.  Dr. Couney continued to experiment and refine the incubator system in the only place he could, among the barkers and cotton candy sellers.  6,500 out of 8,000 babies lived, because of The Incubator Baby Exhibit in Luna Park.  The development and application of an important, ground breaking technology was paid for with each sticky handed admission, ten cents at a time.  There was no other way for him to fund his work. 

Eventually hospitals caught up to Coney Island, with Cornell being the first, and of course the rest of the world followed.
So tonight when I’m oohing and aahing at the fireworks I’ll be hearing the barkers yelling “Looka Looka!  See the Babies no Bigger than Chickens!” and remembering a time when my own babies looked like a two pack of Cornish hens.  I’ll say a silent thank you to Dr. Couney, and remember to never give up.

Corey Whelan
Program Director

Please visit these links for more information:

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1994/2/1994_2_24.shtml
http://www.neonatology.org/pdf/NYT_BeardedLady.pdf
http://www.coneyislandhistory.org/collection/index.php?g=detail&object_id=602

 

Categories
Family Building

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink



What do male frogs with eggs, genital defects and your everyday products have in common?

July 20, 2009 - Monday
Posted by admin

By:  Heather Sarantis

Yesterday as I trolled the New York Times, I was excited to see that Nicholas Kristof was at it again. I am a fan of his under normal circumstances, but his recent columns focusing on hormone (or endocrine) disruptors just really hit the nail on the head.

Hormone disruptors are substances not naturally found in the body that interfere with the production, release, transport, metabolism, binding, action or elimination of the body’s natural hormones. They can scramble messages that natural hormones normally transfer between cells.

They are used in numerous everyday products, including plastic bottles, cosmetics, the lining of food containers, medical devices, pesticides and many others. And the vast majority of people are being exposed to them–some tests showing more than 90% of the people tested by the Centers for Disease Control having certain hormone disruptors in their bodies.

Kristof’s columns highlight several important trends. First, we are seeing evidence of hormone disruptors in wildlife, such as male fish developing eggs, which means their use is widespread enough that they are dispersing into the environment. Second, we are seeing evidence in humans – for example, baby boys developing genital malformations or young girls entering puberty prematurely, which means we are putting ourselves and our children at risk for reproductive and other health problems.

Researchers have known for years that hormone disruptors may cause health problems. For example, Bisphenol A, a hormone disruptor found in some plastic bottles (including some baby bottles), was known to have potential health problems as early as the 1930’s.  But scientific consensus about chemical safety–and subsequent regulation–is often a tough row to hoe. Last month marked a big success in the struggle – the Endocrine Society released a ground breaking report stating that exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals are a growing threat to human health and well-being. Recognition from professional societies such as this is critical in tipping the scales toward better safety regulation of chemicals, and many of us who work on chemical safety applaud the Endocrine Society for taking a bold stand on this issue.

So, what do hormone disruptors mean in everyday terms? If you are reading this blog, you are likely either thinking about having children or are several months or even years into trying have children. This is a good time to be learning about these chemicals.  What a woman is exposed to throughout her life, especially during pregnancy, can have long-term impacts on her baby’s health. There are too many hormone disruptors, and too many health risks from exposure to list them all here, but they can increase risk for a wide range of reproductive health problems, such as impaired fertility or infertility, polycystic ovarian syndrome, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, miscarriage, shortened lactation and breast cancer.  For a more complete understanding of these issues, see Girl, Disrupted: Hormone Disruptors and Women’s Reproductive Health.
No formula currently exists that can determine the exact effects hormone disruptors will have on a person’s health. Research indicates that the effects depend on the potency and dose of the chemical, the timing of the exposure (especially if exposure happens during pregnancy), and overall health. Taking good care of your general health is important, and other ways to protect your and your potential future babies’ health include:

1. Support policies to prevent exposure to hormone disruptors and other chemicals that have not been proven safe. Current standards for chemical use do not adequately protect us. New national policies are needed to identify and phase out harmful chemicals and to require that safer substitutes be used.
2. Use healthier products when possible. There are many easy, affordable and simple changes anyone can make at home to reduce their exposure to environmental contaminants. For ideas on how to make these changes, please see www.womenshealthandenvironment.org.

Heather Sarantis is the Women’s Health Program Manager at Commonweal/Collaborative on Health and the Environment. She is the author of the women’s health and environment toolkit, works on the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and does many other things to help people reduce the exposure to harmful chemicals.

Categories
Endometriosis • Family Building • Fertility • Fertility and the Environment • Infertility • Miscarriage • PCOS • Pregnancy Loss • Reproductive Health

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink



Oh Bitch Please!

July 16, 2009 - Thursday
Posted by admin

By:  Dr. Daniel Shapiro

Today, Maria del Carmen Bousada, the Spaniard who three years ago became the oldest woman on record to conceive through IVF, died of cancer.  She left behind twins and no known biological father to care for them. On seeing the news of her passing on CNN, my 16 year old daughter reflexively yelled out ‘Oh Bitch Please!!” at the TV. Being a conscientious father (and an IVF doctor) I castigated my scion to be respectful of the dead. I further cautioned her against use of the ‘B” word in describing women.

My eldest, who suffers fools lightly, explained that she was not in any way criticizing poor Maria, but making a general comment about the absurdity of the situation. She went on to say that ‘Oh Bitch Please!” means the same as ‘Tcha, as if!?’ which she was sure I would understand since I am old and from the 80’s.

In fact, I do understand exactly what she means.

To date, there are fewer than 20 reported pregnancies ever in women over 60. ALL of the recent cases occurred as a result of IVF and donor eggs. These pregnancies occurred solely by choice and with great effort on the part of many players. The press has gleefully shown every sexagenarian pregnancy that they can and in every case the debate about whether we should do this or not rages back and forth both in print and between wonkish talking heads on the tube.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine says plainly that we should not do this. The ASRM guidelines suggest that egg donation services be limited to women at the natural age of menopause (51+) or less.

Proponents of individual rights correctly point out that men are under no such limitation and that it is inherently sexist to apply age limits to women who wish to be parents.

So what’s a society or an IVF clinic to do?

The debate really boils down to competition between the rights of the individual and the best interests of society as a whole. Though I do not pretend to know the right answer to this one, I think I can make a logical argument as to why the rights of the individual here should be secondary to societal norms.

The desire to parent is essentially an accepted form of narcissism. Though childbearing serves a social need by bringing joy to family units and creating a new generation of workers, consumers and thinkers we are all deluding ourselves into thinking that we are individually capable of parenting well. Of course no one person has the right to criticize the parenting style of any other person as long as we stay within legal boundaries and keep our children housed, fed, clothed, schooled and reasonably safe. At the same time we do have the right as members of a larger social group to limit parenting arrangements that put a child or a parent at risk.

In cases such as these the benefit to the individual is narrow and particular and does not serve the greater good. We now see in painful strokes of pointillist realism why this is so. Who now will care for Maria’s twins? Aside from the inherent benefit to the children by being born, who else benefited from this arrangement beside the doctor and those who write about this for the tabloids?

Though Maria’s death is tragic at many levels, the real tragedy is that this happened at all.  Saying this usually elicits an uncomfortable ‘utz’ in the stomachs of reasonable people: criticizing the birth of any child after that child is born goes against our natural wiring. Yet this story represents failure at many levels.

Let’s start with Maria herself. Ms. Del Carmen Bousada just wanted to have a baby. Fair enough. But at age 66, she should have asked herself how being 83 teaching her twins to drive would work. Or maybe she should have asked who would manage the house if she broke her hip at 77. Maria sadly was only thinking of herself and succumbed to narcissistic rationalization.

Now let’s consider her doctor. The clinic’s cut-off was age 55. This is outside ASRM guidelines and opens the clinic up to criticism and scrutiny. The doctor here was a ‘co-dependant enabler’ of our tragically narcissistic lead player. A simple 2-letter word, ‘NO’ would have prevented this.

Our clinic cut-off used to be 55. I personally have helped a 54 year-old conceive. We now adhere to ASRM guidelines precisely because of what we are seeing happen here.

Maria lied to her doctor about her age. The doctor is on record as saying that she falsified records from Spain. He went on to say that he should not be in the business of checking passports. Passports are not as easy to fake and frankly he SHOULD have asked to see it. She was a beautiful woman and did look younger than her real age. But 50 something is still iffy and it should be clinic policy to verify by best possible means a patient’s true age where the reality will make a difference in management. A reproductive tourist like Maria would have had her passport handy. A minimally curious doctor should also have wondered why a Spaniard would need to travel to Los Angeles when Europe’s busiest egg donor program is in Valencia, Spain!

Society as a whole is to blame for this too. Our belief that we are entitled to anything we can conjure and the unquenchable thirst we have for sensational stories create the tableau on which such a picture is painted.

Let me be clear that I do think age limits are sexist, but I also believe that the power of true feminism is not in mimicking male patterns of behavior but in giving women the power to choose wisely for themselves. Maria and her doctor chose unwisely.

Oh Bitch Please!

Categories
Donor Egg • Egg Donation • Family Building • Fertility • Infertility • IVF

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink



Dear Toronto Sun Editor

July 14, 2009 - Tuesday
Posted by admin

A columnist with The Toronto Sun provided some very concerning and damaging advice to one of the publication’s readers, basically saying there’s no need to worry about having a baby now and that 40 is the new 30.  Her remarks could mean the difference between having a baby and not being able to conceive.  Please read the article and then the response below written to The Sun by AFA’s Communications Director, Brian Armentrout.

+++

Dear Toronto Sun Editor,

As a former journalist of nine years, I was a bit surprised to see journalist Robin Anderson so presumptuously jump to conclusions regarding one’s fertility in the recent column entitled Biological Clock Tick-Tockin’ Away.

While the title is accurate her statements within the piece are completely and entirely contradictory and go against the point made in the article’s title.  As a journalist, I constantly upheld my honesty, integrity, and credibility by thoroughly investigating and researching everything I wrote and took the ten o’clock news.  It’s clear Ms. Anderson’s standards are much lower.  Let me explain.

“These days, 40 seriously is the new 30. Many women are waiting until they are more “mature” to marry and have children.”

This statement is inaccurate.  A woman’s fertility begins to decline substantially at age 27.  Ms. Anderson has fallen into the mindset for which we can thank Hollywood.  All of these 40 something actresses are getting pregnant; what they fail to tell you is they probably spent thousands of dollars on infertility treatments and medicine, not to mention to emotional agony experienced by someone dealing with such a horrible problem.  The truth is 40 may already be too late.
 
“I would, however, caution you to examine why you want to have a baby before you do anything. If it is because you think a woman needs to be a mom to be whole, or because you want something to nurture and love, please reconsider.”

If a woman wants to have a child to be whole, or want something to nurture or love, what’s so wrong with that?  A woman’s decision to become a mom is her business and her business only.  It’s not up to a columnist to tell her to not have a child because she wants something to love.

“Give yourself six months to think about things.”

Seriously?  That’s like telling a smoker to keep smoking for twelve more months before you decide to quit, not to mention the possibility of getting cancer in the meantime.  Or telling an alcoholic: go ahead keep drinking, give yourself a half a year to think about quitting and only hope your liver doesn’t fail during that time.  A woman’s fertility is constantly declining and six months could mean the difference between being able to successfully conceive child and not being able to get pregnant.  You must act quickly.  Infertility is a huge problem.

My New Career

I mentioned I’m a ‘former journalist.’  Since July of 2008 I’ve been the Communications Director of The American Fertility Association.  We strive to create fewer patients; not more.  Our mission is simple:

To help people prevent infertility whenever possible and help people build families of choice, particularly when faced with infertility.

The AFA has been around for more than a decade and we’re doing better work now than we’ve ever done.  Our biggest push in 2009 is infertility prevention in men and women, which is why it disheartens me, the entire AFA staff, and our constituents, to see this type of inaccurate editorial.  In a perfect world, I’d like to see a retraction.  While that may not be necessary, I’d like this letter to at least be forwarded to Missing Out on Motherhood.  I’d also make the request that you post this letter in its entirety in your Letters to the Editor section.  Please accept this letter in the spirit for which it’s intended.

Best,

Brian Armentrout
Communications Director
The American Fertility Association
brian@theafa.org
o: 205-425-3644

About The AFA

The American Fertility Association, a 501 (c) (3) national non-profit organization is a lifetime resource for infertility prevention, reproductive health and family building. AFA services and materials are provided free of charge to consumers and available to everyone without reservation. These services include an extensive online library, monthly online webinars, telephone and in-person coaching, a resource directory, hosted message boards, daily fertility news, a weekly newsletter and a toll-free support line.
http://www.theafa.org or 888.917.3777.

 

Categories
Family Building • Fertility • Fertility Drugs • Fertility Preservation • Infertility • Infertility Drugs • Pregnancy

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink



Page 1 of 7 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »