Search

Assisted reproduction often involves biological contributions by third parties such as egg/sperm donors, mitochondrial DNA donors, and surrogate mothers. However, these arrangements are also characterised by a biological relationship between the child and at least one intending parent. For example, one or both intending parents might use their own eggs/sperm in surrogacy, or an intending mother might conceive using donor sperm or gestate a donor embryo. What happens when this relationship is absent, as in the case of 'double‐donor surrogacy' arrangements (DDS)? Here, a child is conceived using both donor eggs and sperm, carried by a surrogate, and raised by the commissioning parents. In this paper, I critically examine proposals to allow DDS in the United Kingdom, and the intentionalist justification for treating this practice distinctly (morally and legally speaking) from private adoption. I argue that the intentionalist approach cannot plausibly justify such a distinction and that other approaches to moral parenthood are also unlikely to succeed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper interprets the British legislative process that initiated the first comprehensive national regulation of embryo research and fertility services and examines subsequent efforts to restrain the assisted reproduction industry. After describing and evaluating British regulatory measures, I consider successive failures to control the assisted reproduction industry in the US. I discuss disparities between UK and US regulatory initiatives and their bearing on regulation in other countries. Then I turn to the political and social structures in which the assisted reproduction industry is embedded. I argue that regulatory bodies are seldom neutral arbiters. They tend to respond most readily to special interests and neglect strategies that could more effectively meet the health needs of the people they represent. Neither national nor international bodies have aggressively pursued policies to harness the industry, reduce infertility rates, or meet the needs of people whose fertility is threatened by substandard healthcare and environmental neglect. In conclusion, I consider recent initiatives by activist groups to mount an alternative response to the industry's current practices and build a transnational reproductive justice movement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Biological rhythms, the innate cycle of changes in the body's physiological functions, are circadian if they have a 24‐hour period. It is known that sleep is a key feature of human circadian rhythm but the relation between sleep and female fertility is largely unknown. This paucity of research is surprising given that circadian rhythms are paramount to human physiology and sleep is related to major female reproductive events. This study was designed to investigate whether there is a difference between the sleep and activity parameters of women with poor reproductive outcome compared with healthy, fertile parous women (comparator group) using subjective (questionnaires) and objective (actigraphy and light exposure) measures. Material and methods: A prospective cohort study in a tertiary in vitro fertilization referral center in the UK; composed of three study groups: women diagnosed with recurrent implantation failure, women with recurrent miscarriage (RM) and a comparison group (fertile women without endometrial pathology). Comparison women were selected gynecology patients without endometrial disease (ie perineal complaints or altruistic egg donors). Primary outcome was differences in objective length of sleep in each of the participant groups using actigraphy. Secondary outcomes were subjective sleep quality and quantity, using participant questionnaires, light exposure, and the feasibility of machine learning in activity‐pattern interpretation. Results: Women with recurrent implantation failure slept daily on average for 7 hours 35 minutes (± 57 min), 53 minutes less than the comparison group (P =.03), although quality of their objective sleep, and quantity of their subjective sleep, were not significantly different. Women with recurrent miscarriage slept less that the comparison women (36 minutes less/night) but more than women with recurrent implantation failure (17 minutes more/night). No difference in light exposure was found between recurrent miscarriage and the recurrent implantation failure and comparison groups. Conclusions: This study demonstrates an objective observation of sleep time reduction in women with subfertility, although it is not yet clear if this association is casual. Given our increased understanding of the internal body clock and circadian rhythm on fertility, our observation warrants further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]