Amy Ingram

A well-known young farmer from the north-east has hailed a recent trip to Canada as a once in a lifetime opportunity to meet other young farmers from across the world.

Amy Ingram, whose family are well-known sheep breeders at Logie Durno, near Pitcaple, Inverurie, attended the 4H Summit in Ottawa thanks to financial support from the Gregor Award Trust.

Ms Ingram, who is currentlying studying embryology and developmental biology at university, said: From a very young age the Canadian Rockies and the cowboy lifestyle has always fascinated me.

This summer I was lucky enough to be selected with two other Scottish Association of Young Farmers Club (SAYFC) members to represent Scotland in the 4H summit in Ottawa and to visit Canada.

She said the trip not only gave her the chance to meet her peers from across the globe, but also improve her presentation skills. Myself and the other Scottish delegates presented a 90-minute talk on SAYFCs mental health campaign, Are Ewe Okay, in association with Scottish Association of Mental Health, said Ms Ingram.

She said the trip has inspired her to look into the possibility of going back to Canada next summer to work on a ranch. When she is not studying, Ms Ingram works full-time on the family farm helping take animals around the summer show circuit and preparing for the familys on-farm tup sale.

View original post here:
Aberdeenshire young farmer hails SAYFC trip to Canada - Press and Journal

Home > Judgments

Case summary coming soon

Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 2176 (Fam)Case No: LE17P00251IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEFAMILY DIVISIONBirmingham Civil Justice CentreB4 6DS

Date: 23/08/2017

Before :

MR. JUSTICE KEEHAN- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :

M Applicant- and - F 1st RespondentSM2nd Respondent- and -A (BY HIS GUARDIAN)3rd Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Andrew Powell (instructed by JMW Solicitors LLP) for the The ApplicantThe 1st Respondent did not attend and was not representedKatherine Duncan (instructed by Mills & Reeve) for the The 2nd RespondentMartin Kingerley (instructed by CAFCASS) for the The 3rd Respondent

Hearing dates: 4th July 2017- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Judgment Approved

MR. JUSTICE KEEHAN

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Mr. Justice Keehan : INTRODUCTION1.In early 2017 A was born. His biological parents are the applicant, M and the first respondent, F. His legal parents are, however, the second respondent, SM and F, although he does not have parental responsibility for the child.

2.A was born as a result of a gestational surrogacy arrangement between the applicant and the first respondent. Their gametes were used to create an embryo that was then implanted in the second respondent on 29 May 2016. Immediately upon his birth the second respondent surrendered care of A to the applicant.

3.During the course of the second respondent's pregnancy, the relationship between the applicant and the first respondent ended. Unless the law is changed to permit applications for parental orders by a single applicant, the applicant will not be entitled to obtain this transformative order to become A's legal as well as biological parent.

4.In order to provide stability for the child and some legal status for the applicant, the court made A a Ward of Court on 28 February 2017, granted care and control of him to the applicant and prohibited the first respondent from removing the child from her care. The order contained the following recital:

"And Upon the court reading the letter of the first respondent dated 24 February 2017, in which the first respondent indicates that he has taken the decision not to be involved in these proceedings or the child's upbringing."

5.The matter was then listed before me for directions on 12 April 2017 and further on 4 July when the parties invited me to give this judgment.

BACKGROUND6.For the purposes of this judgment I can set out the background to this case very briefly. The applicant and the first respondent began a relationship in 2011. They wished to have children but for medical reasons the applicant was unable to conceive. A cycle of IVF treatment, funded by the NHS, was unsuccessful and the couple could not afford to pay privately for further IVF treatment.

7.The applicant and first respondent then considered surrogacy and were delighted when the friend of a family member volunteered to be a surrogate for them.

8.In 2015 they engaged a fertility clinic to assist them. Once all the necessary formalities had been completed an embryo was created using the applicant's and first respondent's gametes. The second respondent was implanted with the embryo on 29 May 2016.

9.During the course of the pregnancy the relationship between the applicant and the first respondent deteriorated and finally they separated before A's birth. I do not propose to include in this judgment how or why they separated.

10.Since A's birth the second respondent has surrendered his care to the applicant. She has no wish to be involved in the upbringing of A and would be content for a parental order to be made in favour of the applicant if that route was in law available to her. She would support A remaining in the care of the applicant and any orders which would terminate her parental responsibility for him or prohibit her from exercising her parental responsibility.

11.The first respondent has played no role whatsoever in A's life. He has not seen him. As noted above he does not wish to be involved in his child's upbringing. He is, of course, the only biological and legal parent that A has, as matters stand.

12.The applicant is in the process of issuing an application for a parental order within six months of A's birth. She recognises that the application will be stayed pending a change in the law following on from the President's declaration of incompatibility in Re Z (A Child) (No.2): see below.

THE LAW13.A parental order made pursuant to s.54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 ('the 2008 Act') provides for the child to be treated in law as the child of the applicants. The order may be made if the conditions set out in s.54 of the 2008 Act are satisfied.

14.The act provides that:

(1) On an application made by two people ("the applicants"), the court may make an order providing for a child to be treated in law as the child of the applicants if

(a) the child has been carried by a woman who is not one of the applicants, as a result of the placing in her of an embryo or sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination,

(b) the gametes of at least one of the applicants were used to bring about the creation of the embryo, and

(c) the conditions in subsections (2) to (8) are satisfied.

(2)The applicants must be

(a) husband and wife,

(b) civil partners of each other, or

(c) two persons who are living as partners in an enduring family relationship and are not within prohibited degrees of relationship in relation to each other.

(3) Except in a case falling within subsection (11), the applicants must apply for the order during the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the child is born.

(4) At the time of the application and the making of the order

(a) the child's home must be with the applicants, and

(b) either or both of the applicants must be domiciled in the United Kingdom or in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

(5) At the time of the making of the order both the applicants must have attained the age of 18.

(6) The court must be satisfied that both

(a) the woman who carried the child, and

(b) any other person who is a parent of the child but is not one of the applicants (including any man who is the father by virtue of section 35 or 36 or any woman who is a parent by virtue of section 42 or 43),have freely, and with full understanding of what is involved, agreed unconditionally to the making of the order.

(7) Subsection (6) does not require the agreement of a person who cannot be found or is incapable of giving agreement; and the agreement of the woman who carried the child is ineffective for the purpose of that subsection if given by her less than six weeks after the child's birth.

(8) The court must be satisfied that no money or other benefit (other than for expenses reasonably incurred) has been given or received by either of the applicants for or in consideration of

(a) the making of the order,

(b) any agreement required by subsection (6),

(c) the handing over of the child to the applicants, or

(d) the making of arrangements with a view to the making of the order,unless authorised by the court.

15.For the purposes of this judgment the relevant statutory provisions of s.54 are:

i)s.54(1) which requires the application to be made by two people;

ii)s.54(2) which requires the applicants to be either husband and wife, or civil partners or persons who are living as partners in an enduring family relationship; and

iii)s.54(4)(a) which requires that the child's home must be with the applicants.

16.In Re Z (A Child: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: Parental Order) [2015] EWFC 73 the President declined to read down the provisions of s.54 of the 2008 Act to permit an application for a parental order by a single applicant.

17.In Re Z (A Child) (No.2) [2016] EWHC 1191 (Fam), [2016] 2 FLR 327, the President made a declaration of incompatibility in respect of s.54 in the following terms at paragraph 17 "sections 54(1) and (2) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 are incompatible with the rights of the Applicant and the Second Respondent under Article 14 ECHR taken in conjunction with Article 8 insofar as they prevent the Applicant form obtaining a parental order on the sole ground of his status as a single person as opposed to being part of a couple."

18.The transformative legal effect of a parental order cannot be overstated. The only alternatives are:

i)An adoption order, but, on the facts, it would be inappropriate for the biological mother to become in law the adoptive mother of her own child in order to gain the status of being the child's legal parent; or

ii)Making the child a ward of court, granting and control of the child to the applicant and making such ancillary orders as to minimise the number of occasions the applicant would have to apply to the court: see Re Z (A Child) (No. 2) above and the judgment of the President at paragraph 7. But these collections of orders do not make the applicant the legal parent of the child.

19.In Re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time Limit) [2014] EWHC 3135 (Fam) the President said at paragraph 54

54. Section 54 goes to the most fundamental aspects of status and, transcending even status, to the very identity of the child as a human being: who he is and who his parents are. It is central to his being, whether as an individual or as a member of his family. As Ms Isaacs correctly puts it, this case is fundamentally about Xs identity and his relationship with the commissioning parents. Fundamental as these matters must be to commissioning parents they are, if anything, even more fundamental to the child. A parental order has, to adopt Theis J's powerful expression, a transformative effect, not just in its effect on the child's legal relationships with the surrogate and commissioning parents but also, to adopt the guardian's words in the present case, in relation to the practical and psychological realities of X's identity. A parental order, like an adoption order, has an effect extending far beyond the merely legal. It has the most profound personal, emotional, psychological, social and, it may be in some cases, cultural and religious, consequences. It creates what Thorpe LJ in Re J (Adoption: Non-Patrial) [1998] INLR 424, 429, referred to as "the psychological relationship of parent and child with all its far-reaching manifestations and consequences." Moreover, these consequences are lifelong and, for all practical purposes, irreversible: see G v G (Parental Order: Revocation) [2012] EWHC 1979 (Fam), [2013] 1 FLR 286, to which I have already referred. And the court considering an application for a parental order is required to treat the child's welfare throughout his life as paramount: see in In re L (A Child) (Parental Order: Foreign Surrogacy) [2010] EWHC 3146 (Fam), [2011] Fam 106, [2011] 1 FLR 1143. X was born in December 2011, so his expectation of life must extend well beyond the next 75 years. Parliament has therefore required the judge considering an application for a parental order to look into a distant future.

20.I respectfully agree.

DISCUSSION21.Following the President's declaration of incompatibility in Re Z (A Child) (No. 2) above, the Government is actively considering the terms of a remedial order to address the incompatibility identified in that case: see paragraph 17 above.

22.The applicant earnestly hopes that that the terms of the remedial order will be such that she will be able to apply for a parental order. This 'transformative' order would enable her to be a legal parent of A.

23.In the meantime I am satisfied that it is in A's welfare best interests for the court to approve the continuation of the wardship and the grant of care and control in respect of him to the applicant.

24.In giving this judgment I have well in mind the words of the President in Re Z (A child) (No. 2) where at paragraph 26-28 and 30 he said

26. They submit that the use of the remedial power under section 10 is "appropriate and necessary in this case because it would ensure that [the father] could apply for a parental order with minimum delay, and would prevent Z remaining in a legally vulnerable position for any longer than is absolutely necessary."

27. Going even further, they invite me to "pass comment (by way of obiter dicta) about the merits of Parliamentary review of the scheme of section 54" and to "express any view as to the desirability or necessity for future reform as may be considered appropriate.

28. I absolutely decline to do any of this.29. On behalf of the Secretary of State, Miss Broadfoot and Miss Gartland understandably counsel great caution. First, they point out correctly as it seems to me that there are various different ways in which the discriminatory effect of the present legislation could be cured. Secondly, they observe that this is an area of social policy in relation to a matter surrogacy which is controversial. Thirdly, they submit, and I agree, that it is constitutionally a matter for the legislature to determine its response. Fourthly, they submit, and again I agree, that it is entirely a matter for the government to decide whether or not to utilise the Ministerial power under section 10. It is important to note the language of section 10(2). It is a matter for "a Minister", therefore not for a judge, to "consider" whether there are "compelling reasons." Moreover, as they point out, the court can be in no position to know whether such compelling reasons exist, as this may depend upon a number of factors of which the court can have no knowledge or in respect of which it may be lacking in relevant expertise. Fifthly, and finally, they caution that any observations I might be tempted to make may have unintended implications and unforeseen consequences."

25.Once again, I respectfully agree.

Read the original here:
M v F & SM (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008) [2017] EWHC 2176 (Fam) (23 August 2017) - Family Law Week

FROM being put into stocks in Bolton to campaigning to ensure people with Downs Syndrome are not discriminated against, Dr Brian Iddon has given a detailed insight into his life as a Bolton MP in the second volume of Science & Politics: An Unlikely Mixture.

Volume One of Dr Iddons autobiography was published in 2015 in which he told of his remarkable career as a scientist and, in his recently released second part, he explains how he found himself representing Bolton South East at Westminster for three years.

Volume Two is billed as the most detailed account of a Parliamentary career written in modern times by a back-bench MP and, says Dr Iddon, has been written to help dispel the myth that MPs have an easy life.

He said: A lot of people do not know what MPs do. That is why I have produced this - we have family lives as well.

Some MPs are lazy but I did not want to be like that I wanted to go to Parliament and do something.

It was killing me, the pace I was going, I could not keep it up. It was my fault I got involved in far too many things and I went to too many meetings. I was just weighed down in the end.

I was almost 70 when I retired. I promised myself that I would go at 70. I wanted a life beyond Parliament, but my constituency members wanted me to do at least one more term, which was nice.

He added: Volume One of the autobiography is all about my chemistry career, my education and early life in the village of Tarleton. Volume Two is all about my political career and the rest of my family life.

Its is a heftier tome than first one was but there is a lot of humour in the book.

The opening chapter of the book is about Dr Iddons move to Bolton in 1972 in the Firwood Fold area, from Boothstown.

I came to Bolton because I loved the people, and the service in the shops was exceptional. People talked to you in the shops, he said.

Thats what brought me to Bolton, the friendliness of the people.

Dr Iddon writes about how he became involved in community politics after he disagreed with changes in his neighbourhood and started Tonge Moor Residents Association.

He said: I was a member of the Labour Party when I came here and joined Tonge Ward Labour Club.

My family has always been Labour and my family has always been immersed in the community.

He soon became vice-chairman and chairman of the local constituency party and found himself standing in local elections after the candidate who had been selected forgot to sign important paperwork and had gone on a pilgrimage to Lourdes.

But it was not until 1977 that he was elected councillor for Church, East and North Ward, which until then had been strongly Conservative.

I won accidentally, third time lucky, he said.

During his council years he started Bolton Bond Board, which celebrates its 25th anniversary next year, and Careline, which is now run by Bolton at Home. The first public sector neighbourhood dispute service, which he proposed be set up in Bolton, has been extended.

Dr Iddon and his colleagues would help out in other ways.

He said: I dressed up as Biggles and we did all kinds of things to raise money for charity, usually Mencap.

There would be a flan a councillor day. We built some stocks or borrowed some and put them in the precinct and gave people custard pies.

They had to pay a fortune for shoving one in our face but some people were nasty and banged them in our faces. We produced ducking stools for a duck a councillor day we did all this stuff in the 70s.

Dr Iddon said: I built my entire political career on what I did in Bolton but I was never seeking a Parliamentary seat.

Councillors, party members and members of the public kept asking me to stand for Parliament. I had been asked why I wouldnt stand 1,000 times. In the end I thought where am I going at Salford University?

It was a big decision but I took it. I wouldnt have done it in a marginal seat, because I was loving what I was doing at the time and it was a big change in direction.

He was elected to the safe Labour seat with a 21,311 majority in 1997 after the previous sitting Labour MP, David Young was deselected by the constituency.

As MP, Dr Iddon enlisted the help of John Prescott to allow Fred Dibnah to operate his house as a museum - producing smoke legally.

He also enhanced protection for tenants, who would find themselves homeless because the landlord had defaulted on mortgage payments.

Dr Iddon said: In Westminster I got three Acts of Parliament through.

I am proud of my case work what we did for people like putting the Womens Land Army on the map, getting Fred Dibnah his licence, even if he was a Tory all his life

The most important piece of work I was involved with was The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

We realised that the technology was way ahead of the legislation.

Practitioners were doing things that hadnt been legalised. They were not illegal, but some people considered they were immoral. It was ethics versus science and we had to put this right. It was one of the most controversial bills ever considered during my 13 years in Parliament.

Dr Iddon also helped put an end to people with Downs Syndrome being denied medical treatment and the European Parliament from getting rid of MRI scanners the only European regulation or directive that I have known to be stopped and it was rejigged because of us, said Dr Iddon.

He said: The best part of the job was being able to open doors for people.

I miss the excitement. Parliament is an exciting place there were no dull days.

I miss being able to help people. Thats the reason I went down in the first place and boy did we help people thousands of them.

I could write another book about that but I cant, I am sworn to secrecy.

I feel immensely privileged to have served in Parliament.

More:
Dr Brian Iddon details his life as a Bolton MP in second volume of ... - The Bolton News

Embryology is the study of development of an embryo from the stage of ovum fertilization through to the fetal stage.

The ball of dividing cells that results after fertilization is termed an embryo for eight weeks and from nine weeks after fertilization, the term used is fetus.

Once an egg is released from the ovary during ovulation, it meets with a sperm cell that was carried to it via the semen. These two gametes combine to form a zygote and this process is called fertilization. The zygote then begins to divide and becomes a blastula.

The blastula develops in one of two ways, which actually divides the whole animal kingdom in half. The blastula develops a pore at one end, called a blastopore. If that blastopore becomes the mouth of the animal, the animal is a protostome, and if it forms an anus, the animal is a deuterostome.

Protosomes are invertebrate animals such as worms, insects and molluscs while deuterostomes are vertebrates such as birds, reptiles, and humans.

The blastula continues to develop, eventually forming a structure called the gastrula. The gastrula then forms three germ cell layers, from which all of the bodys organs and tissues are eventually derived. From the innermost layer or endoderm, the digestive organs, lungs and bladder develop; the skeleton, blood vessels and muscles are derived from the middle layer or mesoderm and the outer layer or ectoderm gives rise to the nervous system, skin and hair.

Reviewed by Sally Robertson, BSc

Originally posted here:
What is Embryology? - news-medical.net

FROM being put into stocks in Bolton to campaigning to ensure people with Downs Syndrome are not discriminated against, Dr Brian Iddon has given a detailed insight into his life as a Bolton MP in the second volume of Science & Politics: An Unlikely Mixture.

Volume One of Dr Iddons autobiography was published in 2015 in which he told of his remarkable career as a scientist and, in his recently released second part, he explains how he found himself representing Bolton South East at Westminster for three years.

Volume Two is billed as the most detailed account of a Parliamentary career written in modern times by a back-bench MP and, says Dr Iddon, has been written to help dispel the myth that MPs have an easy life.

He said: A lot of people do not know what MPs do. That is why I have produced this - we have family lives as well.

Some MPs are lazy but I did not want to be like that I wanted to go to Parliament and do something.

It was killing me, the pace I was going, I could not keep it up. It was my fault I got involved in far too many things and I went to too many meetings. I was just weighed down in the end.

I was almost 70 when I retired. I promised myself that I would go at 70. I wanted a life beyond Parliament, but my constituency members wanted me to do at least one more term, which was nice.

He added: Volume One of the autobiography is all about my chemistry career, my education and early life in the village of Tareleton. Volume Two is all about my political career and the rest of my family life.

Its is a heftier tome than first one was but there is a lot of humour in the book.

The opening chapter of the book is about Dr Iddons move to Bolton in 1972 in the Firwood Fold area, from Boothstown.

I came to Bolton because I loved the people, and the service in the shops was exceptional. People talked to you in the shops, he said.

Thats what brought me to Bolton, the friendliness of the people.

Dr Iddon writes about how he became involved in community politics after he disagreed with changes in his neighbourhood and started Tonge Moor Residents Association.

He said: I was a member of the Labour Party when I came here and joined Tonge Ward Labour Club.

My family has always been Labour and my family has always been immersed in the community.

He soon became vice-chairman and chairman of the local constituency party and found himself standing in local elections after the candidate who had been selected forgot to sign important paperwork and had gone on a pilgrimage to Lourdes.

But it was not until 1977 that he was elected councillor for Church, East and North Ward, which until then had been strongly Conservative.

I won accidentally, third time lucky, he said.

During his council years he started Bolton Bond Board, which celebrates its 25th anniversary next year, and Careline, which is now run by Bolton at Home. The first public sector neighbourhood dispute service, which he proposed be set up in Bolton, has been extended.

Dr Iddon and his colleagues would help out in other ways.

He said: I dressed up as Biggles and we did all kinds of things to raise money for charity, usually Mencap.

There would be a flan a councillor day. We built some stocks or borrowed some and put them in the precinct and gave people custard pies.

They had to pay a fortune for shoving one in our face but some people were nasty and banged them in our faces. We produced ducking stools for a duck a councillor day we did all this stuff in the 70s.

Dr Iddon said: I built my entire political career on what I did in Bolton but I was never seeking a Parliamentary seat.

Councillors, party members and members of the public kept asking me to stand for Parliament. I had been asked why I wouldnt stand 1,000 times. In the end I thought where am I going at Salford University?

It was a big decision but I took it. I wouldnt have done it in a marginal seat, because I was loving what I was doing at the time and it was a big change in direction.

He was elected to the safe Labour seat with a 21,311 majority in 1997 after the previous sitting Labour MP, David Young was deselected by the constituency.

As MP, Dr Iddon enlisted the help of John Prescott to allow Fred Dibnah to operate his house as a museum - producing smoke legally.

He also enhanced protection for tenants, who would find themselves homeless because the landlord had defaulted on mortgage payments.

Dr Iddon said: In Westminster I got three Acts of Parliament through.

I am proud of my case work what we did for people like putting the Womens Land Army on the map, getting Fred Dibnah his licence, even if he was a Tory all his life

The most important piece of work I was involved with was The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

We realised that the technology was way ahead of the legislation.

Practitioners were doing things that hadnt been legalised. They were not illegal, but some people considered they were immoral. It was ethics versus science and we had to put this right. It was one of the most controversial bills ever considered during my 13 years in Parliament.

Dr Iddon also helped put an end to people with Downs Syndrome being denied medical treatment and the European Parliament from getting rid of MRI scanners the only European regulation or directive that I have known to be stopped and it was rejigged because of us, said Dr Iddon.

He said: The best part of the job was being able to open doors for people.

I miss the excitement. Parliament is an exciting place there were no dull days.

I miss being able to help people. Thats the reason I went down in the first place and boy did we help people thousands of them.

I could write another book about that but I cant, I am sworn to secrecy.

I feel immensely privileged to have served in Parliament.

See the original post:
Dr Brian Iddon details his life as a Bolton MP in second volume of his Science & Politics: An Unlikely Mixture - The Bolton News

According to data released by the Health Ministry, last year (ended in March), 12,281 women put in applications for the medical termination of their pregnancies. The figure was 23.4% higher compared to the preceding year.Permission was granted to 8,537 applicants, which indicates that the number of permits increased by 19.8% compared to the preceding year, said Ahmad Shojaee, head of the Legal Medicine Organization, ILNA reported.Provinces with the highest number of medical abortions were Tehran (1,145), Khorasan Razavi (966), Khuzestan (911), Fars (606), Isfahan (516), Kerman (330), and Alborz (320).Termination of pregnancy is legal in Iran unless the woman can prove that giving birth would pose a health risk to herself or her baby.Verified genetic testing, ultrasound, written consent of mother, gestational period of less than 19 weeks of the fetus, besides approval by three medical specialists is mandatory for therapeutic abortion, Shojaee said.The reason for the increase can be attributed to the peoples raised awareness of genetic counseling. Counseling and genetic tests are the most effective ways of preventing congenital defects in new born babies.

Unsafe AbortionsAccording to the World Health Organization (WHO) induced abortion rate declined significantly in the developed world between 1990 and 2014, but not in the developing countries. A womans likelihood of having an abortion is slightly elevated if she lives in a developing region. Currently, there are 29 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years in developing countries, compared with 24 per 1,000 in the developed world.The WHO defines unsafe abortion as a procedure for terminating a pregnancy that is performed by an individual lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both.According to Mohammad Mahdi Akhundi, head of Iranian Society of Embryology and Reproductive Biology, import of abortion pills is banned in Iran. However the pills (misoprostol) and vials (prostaglandin) that can cause miscarriage are available in the black market and from peddlers in Nasser Khosrow Street near Tehrans downtown Grand Bazaar.Stating that mortality due to unsafe abortions is categorized as maternal death, he said Annually around 290 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. The other causes of maternal deaths include preeclampsia, infections, heart related disorders and embolism. Iran has committed to reduce maternal mortality to zero by the year 2030.

Follow this link:
Rise in MTP Rates | Financial Tribune - Financial Tribune

TEHRAN The Royan International Research Award will appreciate ten Iranian and foreign researchers for their achievements during a ceremony which is scheduled to be held in Tehran on August 30.

Iranian researchers along with foreign researchers from around the world will accept awards on behalf of their scientific achievements concurrent with Royan International Twin Congress on Reproductive Biomedicine and Stem Cells Biology and Technology (August 30-September 1).

According to the Royan congress official website the event is a unique scientific event in its own fields in Iran and the Middle East. The congress is a joint of two separate congresses with different themes held by Royan Research Institute Reproductive Biomedicine and Stem Cells Research Center. Speakers from the UK, Europe and the U.S deliver speeches at the event annually.

Thank you for all of exceptional assistance in arranging my most interesting visit to the Royan institute and Iran. It was the best congress I have ever been at, everyone was extremely conscious, kind and helpful, said Stuart Howards, Professor of University of Virginia Charlottesville, U.S., about the event published among the views on the event in Royan congress website.

Elsewhere Professor Jorge Ferrer, Chair in Genetics and Medicine, Section Head, Genomics and Genetics Theme Leader, Imperial College London, UK said thank you for your note and most importantly thank you for all of exceptional assistance in arranging my most interesting visit to the Royan institute and Iran.

Professor Maarten van Lohuizen, Researcher at Netherlands Cancer Institute and invited speaker of 15th Royan Congress also said best of luck with your work, I am very impressed with the achievements you make at the Royan stem cell Institute and sincerely hope that the restrictions will be soon lifted to aid your scientific work.

Each year the prominent researches with outstanding help in solving problems in reproduction and stem cell fields, are announced, appreciated and rewarded. This annual award is a prize given to prominent research projects in the field of reproductive biomedicine, stem cell biology and technology and other related subjects.

Royan annual award is extending into a higher quality event every year, increasing the scientific level and number of the submitted papers. The submitted research articles are categorized according to nine scientific groups: female infertility, reproductive genetics, epidemiology, ethics, embryology, andrology, reproductive imaging, stem cell biology and technology and biotechnology.

This years winners are comprising of 5 Iranian and 5 foreign researchers.

Thomas Braun from Germany for his research on compaction of chromatin seals quiescence of muscle stem cells, Riccardo Fodde from the Netherlands for his research titled diet, inflammation, and stem cells: trading off regenerative response with cancer risk, and David Greening from Australia for his research entitled exosomes: a new paradigm in embryo-maternal cross-talk for successful implantation.

Two Japanese researchers will accept the award: Kaei Nasu for his research called roles of aberrantly expressed microRNAs in endometriosis, and Khaleque KHAN for his research on Mmolecular detection of intrauterine microbial colonization in women with endometriosis are the five winners of the award.

Moreover, Iranian researchers including Mahnaz Ashrafi for her research titled assisted reproductive outcomes in women with different polycystic ovary syndrome phenotypes: the predictive value of anti-Mllerian hormone, Mahdi Sheikh for his research focusing on granulocyte colony stimulating factor in repeated IVF failure, a randomized trial, and Hossein Ghanbarian for his research examining RNA-directed programming of embryonic stem cell.

Additionally, Fereshteh Esfandiari for her research entitled in vitro generation of meiosis-competent germ cells from embryonic stem cells by engineering the delivery of BMP4, and lastly Kambiz Gilany for his research called untargeted metabolomic profiling of seminal plasma in Non-obstructive azoospermia men: a non-invasive detection of spermatogenesis are announced as the winners of the annual award.

Royan International Research Award was founded by the late director of Royan Institute, Dr. Saeed Kazemi Ashtiani, with the aim of encouraging the researchers and appreciation of their efforts. This annual award is extending into a higher quality event every year, increasing the scientific level and number of the submitted papers. The research papers are evaluated through an intense jury procedure by Awards national and international Jury board.

Royan Institute is a public non-profitable organization which is affiliated to Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research (ACECR) and was established in 1991 by the late Dr. Kazemi Ashtiani as a research institute for reproductive biomedicine and infertility treatments. In 1998 this institute was approved by Ministry of Health as Cell Based Research Center. Now this institute acts as leader of stem cell research and also one of the best clinics for infertility treatment.

Excerpt from:
Royan Intl. Research Award to honor Iranian, foreign researchers - Tehran Times

The legal procedure for obtaining a parental order in England and Wales is complicated. It can be both confusing and expensive for applicants.

In Re Z (Foreign Surrogacy: Allocation of Work: Guidance on Parental Order Reports) [2015] EWFC 90 Russell J said that international surrogacy cases invariably involve some legal complexity. As a result, all proceedings under section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (s54 HFEA 2008) where the child was born outside of England and Wales are allocated to a High Court judge.

At the moment, applications for parental orders in international cases involve two hearings. The first is a directions hearing at which the judge timetables the filing of evidence, directs a parental order report and lists a final hearing. The second is the final hearing at which the order is made, usually without complication.

However, as surrogacy has increased in popularity, so has the number of relatively straightforward cases and the need for reform is clear. Not all international cases involve legal complexity, yet the stringent rules and processes continue to apply.

In these cases, it would seem eminently sensible if the two hearings could be condensed to one. This happened in a recent case, run by Penningtons Manches partner Simon Blain, instructing Andrew Powell of 4 Paper Buildings, where only one hearing was required.

There is great potential for these fast track or composite hearings to become the norm. A case may potentially be suitable for the fast track if:

Simon Blain comments: When the court procedure for dealing with international surrogacy cases was first drawn up, these cases were regarded as rare and exotic and stringent procedures were put in place. As increasing numbers of prospective parents choose surrogacy, the process has become normalised. By using a reputable agency in the foreign country, and by consulting expert lawyers in the UK, it is possible to significantly reduce the length, and therefore the cost, of the proceedings. Of course, there will always be less straightforward cases where the full procedure will need to be followed.

See the rest here:
Fast-tracking international surrogacy: reforming the law for parental orders - Lexology (registration)

A MAN whose sperm was frozen for almost 27 years has revealed how he became the proud dad of twins and a world record holder.

The musician wanted to keep his chances of becoming a dad alive after being diagnosed with cancer when he was just 21.

Doctors told him chemotherapy treatment would make him infertile so his sperm was frozen for 26 years and 243 days the oldest sperm ever successfully used for in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

When he met his partner he had to explain that she would need IVF if they were to have children.

The couple, who live in Glasgow, did not use the sperm until 2010, when he was 47 and she was 37. She became pregnant with twins and the boy and girl were born in 2011.

The musician, who asked not to be named, knew he held the record for the oldest sperm used in successful IVF but did not want publicity.

However, when the Scot discovered he could be listed anonymously by Guinness World Records he came forward and recently had his record accepted.

Its twins! Third time lucky for cancer survivor Ryan and fiance Chris as IVF family dream is fulfilled

The proud father has now spoken out to highlight how long sperm can be frozen to create healthy children.

He said: People going through chemotherapy should keep hope.

When we finally saw on a scan we were having twins I was in shock.

I kept looking for a third heartbeat, thinking we might even be having triplets.

The case raises the prospect of sperm being frozen with no time limit.

According to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority the standard storage period for sperm is normally 10 years, although in certain circumstances it can be kept for up to 55 years.

The mans sperm was stored at an NHS lab in Edinburgh before his chemotherapy and, more than two decades later, used in the landmark treatment carried out at the GCRM fertility clinic in Glasgow by medical director Dr Marco Gaudoin.

Dr Gaudoin said: Theoretically, it could be stored indefinitely.

It is another world first for the fertility specialist who helped a same-sex couple become the first in Scotland to father twins by IVF.

Last week The Sunday Post revealed how cancer survivor Ryan Walker and his partner Chris Watson, from Falkirk, are expecting the patter of tiny feet in the next few weeks, thanks to a surrogate mother who is also in a same-sex relationship.

Ryan, 32, and Chris, 28, were turned down by several IVF clinics in Scotland because they are in a gay relationship. The surrogate mum volunteered to help for free after she had a child using a donor.

In recent years the clinic has hit the headlines for its trailblazing achievements.

In 2013 the centre produced the first baby born in Scotland using new Early Embryo Viability Assessment technology.

And in October 2008, the clinic scored a world first when a baby boy was born as a direct use of a new fertility drug, Pergoveris.

Here is the original post:
'I'm a dad 26 years after cancer made me infertile': Record ... - The Sunday Post

The man argued that laws around surrogacy arrangements discriminated against single people (Picture: Getty)

A man has won the right to be a single dad through surrogacy.

The single man who fathered a child via a surrogate mother had last year arguedthat laws around surrogacy arrangements discriminated against single people.

He claimed the wording of part of the 2008 Fertilisation and Embryology Act meant only a couple could apply to become a childs legal parents.

Sir James Munby, the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, agreed with him.

The judge, President of the Family Division of the High Court, made a declaration of incompatibility after analysing the case at a hearing on London.

Following this, another judge has said ministers are now actively considering a change to address the incompatibility.

Mr Justice Keehan, who is also based in the Family Division of the High Court, has outlined Government plans in a ruling on a similar case.

He said in the hearing in Birmingham a single woman wanted to become a childs legal parent following an arrangement with a surrogate mother.

The judge said the woman had been in a relationship with a man when the surrogacy arrangement was made but that relationship had broken down.

He said a parental order application by the woman, who was caring for the child, would be shelved pending a law change.

MORE: Two arrests after terror plot van filled with gas canisters cancels Rotterdam concert

MORE: Mum desperately makes memories for girl who will die in a year

See original here:
Man wins right to be a single dad through surrogacy - Metro