A 62 year-old woman, past menopause, last month became France's oldest mother. The woman conceived the child through an artificial insemination procedure in the United States. The procedure is illegal in France.
She revealed today that the father of the child is her brother. The mother, known only as 'Jeannine' admitted in an interview today that she tricked doctors in Los Angeles into believing that she and 'Robert', the father, were actually husband and wife.
What, if anything, should be done here?
------------------ When you get off work tonight, meet me at the construction site, and we'll write some notes to tape to the heavy machines, like "We hope they treat you well. Hope you don't work too hard. We hope you get to be happy sometimes." -the Weakerthans
[This message has been edited by Dzuunmod (edited 06-20-2001).]
posted
It isn't just one child, it's two who are fraternal twins concieved by brother/sister incest. All I can suggest is that IVF doctors be very careful about documentation for the doners of the egg and sperm. To outwit falsification, perhaps a DNA sample from each doner should be provided and compared before the IVF takes place.
People should not be permitted to play Russian roulette with their genes. What will be the reaction if one or both of these children turn out to have genetic diseases?
Question. Should the brother/sister couple be allowed to have custody of these children? I don't know the applicable French law. What was done was illegal in France. Is there any law affecting the progeny? If not, there probably will be in short order.
BTW, friends of mine had all 5 of their children (including triplets) concieved by IVF.
------------------ We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
- Albert Einstein
[This message has been edited by Bobolink (edited 06-20-2001).]
posted
You're right, Bobo, in one sense, there are two children, but in another, there aren't. The second child wasn't conceived through any sort of incestuous relations, rather, it went to a woman in California who had no relationship whatsoever to the father.
The other thing is, that neither of the children have any chance, as I understand it, of any sort of genetic problems due to the parents. See, woman A and man A are brother-sister. Woman B has no relation to either of the others, and she donates her egg to woman A who is 62 and can no longer have children on her own like that. Man A fertilizes woman A and another egg from woman B which subsequently gets placed back in woman B. You see, 'Jeannine' gave birth to her brother's child, but it wasn't really even her own child, in that it wasn't her egg: it doesn't have any of her genes.
I misunderstood this at first, but this is what I'm getting now. It's a pretty crazy and complex situation, and I'm no longer sure that I see anything wrong with it.
------------------ "...we're all thinking the same thing/let's not settle for satisfaction/we are women and men of action/let's stop clapping let's start doing/a dream for the teens and in-betweens and twenties yet unseen" -Braid
posted
Well, I think it's pretty inethical to have a child at that age, as there is a greater possibility that the parent/s won't be able to care for the child to the best of their abilities, but I don't see anything wrong with the brother donating his sperm and another woman donating her egg.
Posts: 2710 | From: Australia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is another article about this whole thing here. As was pointed out on another board I frequent, isn't this basically the same as the scenario on Friends, when Phoebe surrogates her brothers triplets?
Comparing those two scenarios, they're basically the same. The only ethical issue here is the 'mother's age. Thats just unfair.
posted
Unless I am misunderstanding this case, there is no other woman who was an egg donor. One egg was THIS woman's, the the sperm was her brothers, making this very dangerous in terms of health risks and disorders for the child, and that child's offspring.
Do I have that right? It seems the one article stated there were two babies, but the other listed an egg donor as the sole egg involved....
------------------ Heather Corinna Editor and Founder, Scarleteen
My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground." -- Kay Bailey Hutchinson
[This message has been edited by Miz Scarlet (edited 06-21-2001).]
Posts: 63416 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard that children born from a surrogate mother have 3 sets of DNA. One from the owners of the sperm and egg (each) and one from the surrogate mother (carrying the child). So actually, this kid has three parents. If what i heard was true ... But you can't really totally form in someone elses body and not come out w/ some part of them or another.
Posts: 7168 | From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Miz Scarlet: Unless I am misunderstanding this case, there is no other woman who was an egg donor. One egg was THIS woman's, the the sperm was her brothers, making this very dangerous in terms of health risks and disorders for the child, and that child's offspring.
I'm pretty sure the 'other woman' donated both eggs, which were fertilized with the brothers sperm. One egg was implanted into the egg donor, the other was planted into the sister.
From the first article:
"Robert's sperm was used to fertilise two eggs donated by a Californian woman: one was brought to term by "Jeanine", the other by the donor."
"Although the baby was not the product of test-tube incest -- as the egg was donated by a woman outside the family -- French professor Axel Kahn said it nonetheless raises disturbing ethical issues...
The sperm of Jeanine's 52-year-old brother Robert, also fertilized another egg from the American donor, Le Parisien reported. The French and American women gave birth eight days apart."
quote:Originally posted by LilBlueSmurf: I've heard that children born from a surrogate mother have 3 sets of DNA. One from the owners of the sperm and egg (each) and one from the surrogate mother (carrying the child). So actually, this kid has three parents. If what i heard was true ... But you can't really totally form in someone elses body and not come out w/ some part of them or another.
hmmm.. I didn't make it right through biology in college, so my word ain't gospel, but this really doesn't seem right.
The DNA from Person A and Person B creates Baby zygote C, which is a mix of each. I'm sure there isn't a way to introduce a third set of genes into the genetic pool there without some seriously freaky side effects.
Humans have 46 chromosomes, 23 inherited from each parents DNA. Each chromosome is distinct, so if you added another set of genes into the mix, you'd either end up with 69 chromosomes (impossible) or 15.3 from each 'parent', meaning that some chromosomes wouldn't be included.
I guess with genetic engineering it's possible to add genetic characteristics from a third party..
But the fact of the matter is, the fertilized egg (zygote?) is made up of the 23 chromosomes from each parent. Where the egg is 'housed' will make no difference whatsoever, because the genes of the zygote have already been defined by the biological parents.
------------------ Attend the annual MINNESOTA MOSQUITO FESTIVAL! Rain or Shine, from Just Before Memorial Day to Just After Labor Day! Free admission!!
Copyright 1998, 2013 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic