DadTalk

Picking Traits of Our Children Poses Some Thorny Questions

Would you willingly choose to have a dwarf or deaf child instead of a “normal” one? Apparently, some parents are doing just that, writes Dr. Darshak Sanghavi in a New York Times essay.

Notice I put quotes around the word “normal.” Why? To some dwarfs and deaf people, their traits are just that, normal. After all, these two traits can be traced deep into recorded human history.

But while the Times’ essay focuses on the moral right or wrong of favoring or choosing these traits, I have a different question. As our societies increasingly use materials that permanently damage human DNA and create new traits, should we allow them to propagate into the human genome? Should we stop them? Should we pick and choose?

Some of these traits will take care of themselves: the very traits may damage reproductive ability or kill at a young age. Some of these traits even may be deemed beneficial.

But many may fall somewhere in the middle. Take this hypothetical: Let’s say industrial hormones that contaminate our drinking water permanently alters human DNA in some people to create androgynous children.

These children are healthy in every way, but in this scenario each has male and female genitalia. Now this trait occurs occasionally in nature, but in this case we’re looking at a permanent, artificial cause. Mutation before they have children? Or because the trait is benign – at least biologically – should they be free to let the genetic mutation swim out into the gene pool?

I think most people will reflexively pick their respective sides. But I don’t see clear-cut answers here. How does society determine what is a good trait and what is a bad one? Mutations have been occurring throughout the evolutionary process.

The dwarfs mentioned in the Times essay, prefer short stature. They don’t care how they came by it. It may be that our hypothetical androgynes don’t care how they became that way either.

Should we?

Infertility Road Show Heads for Los Angeles

Because my wife and I are having our children late in life, we had some concern over fertility. Two miscarriages scared us prior to having Seth and a longer-than-desired delay made us apprehensive before my wife’s second pregnancy. But we now have Seth and expect a girl in July.

Not all couples are so lucky, as you can discover by reading A Little Pregnant or Chez Miscarriage. For those of you still struggling out there, I received a press release recently about The Fertility Road Show, which will be in Los Angeles while I’m out of town.

The educational show is designed to help couples trying to conceive and includes topics such as in Vitro Fertilization, financing, coping with infertility, fertility 101, alternative treatments and adoption. While I can’t vouch for the quality of the program, it is being sponsored by inFertility times magazine. It costs $45 per person or $80 for a couple.

The show was in Chicago on Saturday, but here’s the rest of the schedule:

• May 21 – Los Angeles
• June 4 – Houston
• June 11 – New York

DadTalk a Second Time Over

Since my most recent post was about fertility, it’s only fitting that this post be too. Specifically speaking, our own fertility: my wife, Anne, is preggers.

For those who don’t know us, we’ve had a few problems with fertility, though nothing along the lines suffered by the couples at Chez Miscarriage and a little pregnant. Still, we’ve been through two miscarriages before finally getting Seth. And we’ve been trying for 1.5 years before this pregnancy kicked in. It seems the two rounds of Clomid did the trick.

We didn’t want to announce anything until we saw the first ultra sound, which wasn’t scheduled until January, but as my wife explains, we needed to go in for one today. So, barring any unpleasant surprises, the little bugger is due in late July.

For Millions, ‘One is Enough’ But one American family is relieved to finally have their first

Add China to the list of countries such as Germany, Singapore and Japan worried about declining birthrates. That’s pretty ironic considering that the world’s most populous nation limits most couples to just one child.

But apparently, the program has been too successful in cities such as Shanghai and Beijing, reports the Los Angeles Times. Nationwide, China’s birthrate of 12 children per every 1,000 residents is just slightly below the United States, but in Shanghai only four babies are born each year for every 1,000 residents.

Zhang Xiaofeng is a dedicated father in China, but he represents the new cultural attitude spreading much deeper than the old national policy. “I bathed him, fed him and changed his diapers. I did all those things,” Zhang told the Times. But, he adds, “One is enough.”

About 80 percent of 20,000 young people surveyed in Shanghai agree with Zhang that one is enough. Another 5 percent don’t want children at all. Government leaders probably never imagined that China could so successfully alter its own culture that parents would prefer one child. But fertility rates were probably destined to drop anyway as the nation industrialized.

In the United States, Catholic Latina women choose, within a generation of living here, to have fewer children, reports The New York Times. In California, for example, Latinas will have only 2.6 children in their lifetime as opposed to 2.9 in the early 1990s.

But let’s face it, affording children nowadays is daunting, and increasingly young people worldwide seem to dislike the “inconvenience” of having to care and pay for many children. Zhang Qi, who is a middle school official, explained to the Times this self-centeredness: “Every student thinks she’s in the middle of the circle. They consider little of others. I think it’s a great harm to our nation.”

While that may be true, there are millions of people in the Western world desperate to have even one child, much less five. Take Julie at a little pregnant, for example, who has battled through endometriosis, miscarriages, Clomid and In Vitro fertilization in her effort to become a mom. Oh, and she’s had one of the most harrowing pregnancies, which included placenta previa, gestational diabetes and preeclampsia, I’ve ever heard or read about. But she finally gave birth prematurely to little Charlie by emergency Caesarean Section. Congratulations Julie and Paul for bucking worldwide trends.

Japanese Town to Try Forced Paternity Leave

Pappies changing the nappies
Found the work was so crappy
None were pleased; not a single iota.
                      – Haiku on Japan Today

The “haiku” above was posted in response to stories that the Japanese city Ota plans to require male city employees to take a mandatory, paid 40 days off during their children’s first year of life.

Why a forced effort? The city, which has a fertility rate of 1.29 children per couple, is looking for ways to encourage its citizens to start procreating, reports the UK Times Online. City leaders believe that one reason women refuse larger families in Japan is because men there do not contribute enough to raising baby or doing household chores.

That perception seems to be mostly accurate, writes the Times:

Across Japan, short paternity leaves are part of a work culture that has historically made fathers who spend too long with their babies feel like wimps. During the childrearing period, a husband in Japan spends an average 48 minutes per day on household work, compared with around three hours in Europe and the US.

The Japan Today article was a short two paragraphs, which left out the reasoning behind Ota’s leadership. So it’s no surprise the city’s plans were quickly condemned by readers.

One major bone of contention: Many working women in Japan do not receive any sort of maternity leave while men get paid for having a child. Writes a commenter: “Another working wife just had to take maternity leave. Her employer has a ‘congratulatory payment’ for men whose spouses give birth, while for women employees who give birth there is nothing!”

But the plan was also attacked for denigrating men: “It’s condescending, and it’s sexist against men by presuming that all of them are dithering idiots when it comes to being good fathers to their newborn kids.”

Looks like Japanese officials need to think things through a bit before finding a solution to their horrible birth rates.

Where Have All the Babies Gone?

Germany’s birth rate is so low that hospitals are fighting over expectant mothers, reports The New York Times. While many Third World countries would be thrilled by fewer babies, Germany’s population drop, despite an influx of immigrants, is a sign of economic trouble.

Without immigration, the population of Germany would drop from 82 million people now to 24 million by 2100. Even at today’s immigration rate, Germany’s population will drop by 700,000 over 15 years.

The result is a society increasingly growing older. By 2050, one in three Germans will be over 65. The population decline is already stressing that nation’s ability to provide social services, but the situation will worsen as more and more Germans retire with fewer youngsters to work and pay taxes.

Why so few children? A trend seems to be emerging in Germany that matches anecdotally what’s apparent in other nations with dropping birth rates: society no longer values having multiple children. Here’s the Times’ take on Germany:

Slobodanka Jovanovic, a Bosnian who came to Germany 13 years ago, just gave birth to a girl, her second child. Recovering in the maternity ward, Ms. Jovanovic said she would not contemplate having a third child. “The biggest reason is financial,” she said. “We don’t get enough support from the state.”

A blunt-spoken woman who works as a hairdresser, Ms. Jovanovic, 32, said she also felt that children were neither particularly welcome nor prized in German society. Her neighbors, she said, complained more when her child cried at night than if she threw a party or played music.

“They want their houses, they want their cars, they want their peace,” she said, apologizing to her German roommate, Simone Schönhoff, and her husband, Thorsten, who were preparing for the birth of twins.

“It is partly selfishness,” Mr. Schönhoff agreed. “They want a Mercedes, and it costs so much that they can’t afford a child.”

Mrs. Schönhoff noted, however, that women were motivated by something else: a fear that they will cramp their professional options if they stay at home too long. While German family leave laws are generous, allowing either parent to take three years off and return to their jobs, Mrs. Schönhoff, a secretary, says she plans to stay at home no longer than six months.

The comments mirror those coming out of Singapore, which I wrote about in September. In that country, Singaporeans complain that they are so focused on work that they’re too stressed to even have sex, much less consider having a child. Women repeatedly express fears that taking maternity leave will cost them their job. In that country, the lifetime birth rate is 1.25 children per woman, compared with Germany’s 1.5 rate.

America’s current rate is closer to 2.1 children per woman, which would keep population constant, but the overall birthrate is falling. Immigration is the only reason America continues to grow. The birthrate in 2004 (so far) fell to an all-time low of 13.8 births per 1,000 women versus 16.7 births in 1990, reports Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some of the same forces in America are likely contributing to the smaller if not empty nests. Simply put, it’s expensive to have children in this country. The simple cost of buying a larger car, car seats, strollers, extra food and a bigger house can scare many families away from having children. Also to blame are fertility problems caused by women who have children late in life and environmental factors that damage reproductive systems of both sexes.

But the drop in births may also be hidden in America’s changing social values, because many people seem to me less tolerant of children. While we still get a lot of people who say, “Oh, Seth is so cute,” we get an equal number of stares that say “He’s cute, but keep him, and all kids, away from me.” Indeed, I have numerous friends who say they’ll never have children. Or maybe it’s simple materialism as mentioned by the German mother above.

I should note that I’m not sure this drop in fertility is a good or bad thing, considering the planet is already overpopulated, but it is a phenomenon industrialized countries will have to cope with for decades to come.

Schizophrenia Risk Grows for Kids of Older Men

It’s long been known that women should not wait too long to have children because the risk of genetic defects such as Down’s Syndrome grows, but recent studies have been finding that men should also be cautious about waiting. In fact, a new study confirms that 15 percent of schizophrenia cases can be attributed to men over 50 years of age, reports The Sydney Morning Herald.

The Swedish study, which also found that men over 50 are four to five times as likely to have children that develop schizophrenia, tracked more than 700,000 children.

The research is important as men and women in industrialized countries delay having children. “This is interesting when you have a society where the age of fathers when they have their first child has increased during the last decade,” Finn Rasmussen at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, told New Scientist.com.

Keep in mind that the overall risk for men is still very low, but if you’re really paranoid about having children later in life, you can always have your sperm stored at a cryogenic repository.

Sperm Popularity Is Color Coded

How can a man father 101 children – even if he’s a virgin – and not know it? Easy, if he’s from Denmark he simply donates semen for money at a sperm bank, reports The New York Times.

While men can make as much as $40 a donation in Denmark and as much as $500 in the United States, many opt out because of fear that their identities may be revealed some day. But Cryos in Arhus, Denmark, has been much more successful in protecting the anonymity of it’s donors and has grown accordingly.

Although most countries limit how many children can be sired by a single donor, sperm banks can send one person’s DNA to multiple countries. That’s how one Dane wound up with 101 descendants, though I was just speculating about his unlikely virginity.

Here’s how it works, according to the Times:

Every day dozens of students here (Arhus, Denmark), and in Copenhagen, walk into Cryos International, the world’s largest sperm bank and, after undergoing a battery of tests to determine their health and fertility, make an anonymous deposit.

That deposit, frozen and eventually shipped, can make its way to as many as 40 countries. Destinations include Spain, Paraguay, Kenya, Hong Kong and New York, where the company opened an office last year to meet the demands of descendants of people from the Nordic countries.

But why is Danish sperm so popular in so many nations? Maybe it’s Nordic mystique:

“It was difficult for them to get pure Scandinavian spare parts,” said Ole Schou, the managing director of Cryos International, which operates discreetly in Arhus from an unassuming office across the street from a pet shop. “We could see there was a market.”

“It’s not that people want superchildren,” Mr. Schou said. “It’s that they want someone like them, someone they can relate to.”

Let’s get real Schou; there’s no need to hide behind code words. What you mean is your customers want white babies and Scandinavian sperm offers that implicit guarantee. Don’t worry Schou, you are engaging in a form of subtle racism that most people can’t see.

Fertility Procedure May Help Boys Offers Option to Young Cancer Victims

Following on the heels of last week’s announcement that an infertile Belgian woman gave birth to a healthy girl using a novel procedure, scientists revealed they are working on a similar technique for boys, reports The Scotsman. The procedures in both cases were developed for cancer victims who become sterilized after chemotherapy.

Although men can simply have their sperm frozen before undergoing chemotherapy, young boys often don’t have that option. The new procedure involves removing stem cells from testicles and then freezing them until needed. In the case of the Belgian woman, portions of her ovaries were removed and frozen before they were reimplanted.

Although human trials may start within three years, it may take up to 20 years before it is known if the procedure is safe. One of the biggest concerns is reintroducing cancerous cells in the patients.

But experts believe the research is worth the effort:

Dr. Stewart Irvine, a consultant gynecologist who is leading the project at the human reproductive science unit, said: “I’ve spent my life as an infertility specialist seeing people who have lost their fertility or never had it. It’s a devastating problem to suffer. And there’s no doubt that speaking to childhood-cancer survivors, when you ask them to rate the various problems they have been left with, that infertility comes very high up the list. They are very upset they are non-fertile.”

In the best of worlds, though, maybe another scientist will find a gentler, less-damaging way to treat cancer, reducing the need for such drastic measures. But if your child is facing cancer treatments now, a trip to Edinburgh, where the research is being performed, may be in order.

Sterilized Woman Gives Birth to Girl

A Belgian woman who was sterilized by cancer treatment became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy baby girl after frozen pieces of her original ovaries were transplanted back into her body, reports The Washington Post. The procedure, which still is considered experimental, may prove a form of insurance for women treated for cancer or women who might want to have children later in life.

Reports the Post:

“It’s quite exceptional,” said Wulf Utian, a gynecologist and executive director of the North American Menopause Society in suburban Cleveland. “This woman has essentially been restored to a normal reproductive state after having been made temporarily menopausal by chemotherapy.”

Doctors had removed five samples of Ouarda Touirat’s ovaries before treating her for Hodgkin’s lymphoma about seven years ago. After receiving radiation treatment and chemotherapy for six months, her ovaries stopped functioning.

Touirat decided she wanted a baby last year and doctors re-implanted some of the ovarian tissue. After five months her menstrual cycle restarted and after 10 months she became pregnant. The 8-pound girl was born earlier this week.

Hopefully, the treatment will become available to more women soon.