Pregnant mother forced to give up IVF baby

[Christa]

A pregnant woman has spoken of her pain at having to give up the IVF baby with which she had been mistakenly impregnated.

Mother-of-three Carolyn Savage was trying to have a fourth child through IVF, and was overjoyed to find she was pregnant again.

But just two months into the pregnancy, doctors told her husband Sean that the child his wife was carrying was not their own.

The nightmare mix-up means that eight-months pregnant Carolyn, and husband Sean, will have to hand over the baby boy when she gives birth in just two weeks.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1215090/Eight-months-pregnant-mother-IVF-baby-doctors-gave-wrong-embryos.html



*

[BlooInBloo]

1. Oh boy.

[BuyingThyme]

2. Umm...

Holy shit!

[Beetwasher]

3. Whoa, Paging Solomon

n/t

[damntexdem]

24. No need for Solomon -- just a clear focus on reproductive rights.

She is the one pregnant. The IVF folks screwed up (so to speak). It's her kid now.

[Beetwasher]

32. You Would Think

But obviously someone disagrees

[cbdo2007]

41. If the bank screws up and deposits someone elses check in your account....

that's not your money now. It's still the other person's money, it just happens to be in your account by no fault of yours or theirs - banks fault. The bank then must ask for the money back from you to give to the correct owner.

This isn't about reproductive rights, it's about property rights.

[MattBaggins]

40. No shit.... To think that we once thought "The handmaidens Tale"

was a strange story. What's that they say about truth and fiction?

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. That is a hell of a costly mistake

so who is paying the medical bills? Let's forget the psychological here.

[BuyingThyme]

7. And rent?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. That would be included in the medical

IFV is a hell of a an expensive procedure, can go all the way to the 100K easy

[cbdo2007]

19. Hmmmm....MOST IVF's are in the $12,000-$20,000 range but this was a

frozen embryo transfer which would be under $1,000 most likely, even w/o insurance. The main costs of a typical IVF are creating the eggs (lots of drugs), removing the eggs, and fertilizing the eggs. They skipped all of that in this step, they would have paid that high cost earlier when they had their first IVF kid. These were left-over embryos from that so the only cost is thawing them and putting them up inside of her.

[ddeclue]

5. yeah we "need" tort reform... right...

:eyes:

[marybourg]

18. All them "frivolous lawsuits." nt.

[adamuu]

95. good observation n/t

[Barack_America]

96. Yep, cause every medical lawsuit is a IVF baby.

No one is suing doctors for not giving their kid antibiotics for viral infections.

Besides, tort reform never works.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/43607962.html

:eyes:

[Shell Beau]

6. This was a storyline on Private Practice.

What a terrible ordeal to have to go through.

[Sultana]

8. OMG, I would raise holy hell if I were in her position

Just damn....:wow:

[LisaM]

10. So this is the last time she can get pregnant but now the are looking for a carrier

for the remaining five embryos? Why do costly IVF treatments for someone who already has three kids?

And this is one of the things that drives me crazy. There are insurance carriers that won't even cover birth control. There are others who will apparently shell out thousands and thousands to impregnate women who already have kids.

[marybourg]

16. What makes you believe this was covered by insurance? nt

[LisaM]

23. Well, I know two people who used IVF and both were covered by insurance

I don't know this particular woman's circumstances, and didn't say she was covered. However, I don't think insurance should cover it, at least after the first baby.

[rebecca_herman]

64. They didn't do the procedure for a 4th child

These were leftover embryos, they did the actual IVF years earlier. Frozen embryo transfers are not that expensive, most of the costs are in the initial egg retrieval and fertilization. They didn't want to destroy the embryos or leave them frozen forever so they decided to go back for them.

IVF is very, very rarely covered by insurance. It is likely they paid for the treatments themselves.

[cbdo2007]

67. They had 2 kids naturally 15 years ago and an IVF baby1.5 years ago. This would be their 4th child.

Except they're giving it back. But they are still getting a surrogate for their remaining 5 embryos to try to get babies out of them.

[WeDidIt]

11. In the U.S., she would not be forced to hand it over

Based upon everything I've seen in U.S. case law, they would keep the baby here.

And she and her husband would be listed as teh biological parents, too.

[cbdo2007]

15. they are in the US - they are in Ohio

They are not the biological parents - the woman is the carrier. The Embryos are actually owned by the couple who's egg and sperm it is, unless they give them up.

So, the original couple OWN the Embryo so they will own the baby.

[damntexdem]

25. No, she carried the fetus -- so she's the mother.

The couple whose embryo was used should sue the IVF provider -- and take them for all they're worth. The mother should fight this -- leave the state of Ohio if necessary.

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. It's about the genetics not the host mother. That's how they rule on these things.

[surrealAmerican]

20. This IS in the US.

They live in Ohio, despite the story being in the UK press.

[Maine-ah]

12. possesion 9/10ths of the law?

seriously though, wtf?

[CoffeeCat]

13. This woman and her husband were on...

...the Today show this morning.

They had the option of terminating the pregnancy or going through with it--knowing they would have to
relinquish the baby to the rightful egg donors.

This woman wanted one more child, but this was the last baby that she could carry. So now another IVF
round is out of the question for her.

These two people are incredibly unselfish and compassionate. What they are doing for this couple really
is a gift. The woman could barely speak on Today...she was on the verge of tears, knowing that she
would give birth to this child, have a brief time to say good-bye and then hand him over. She was
clearly devastated, as was her husband.

I can't even imagine how difficult this must be for this woman and her family, but I was truly inspired
by how selfless and caring she was.

[cbdo2007]

21. My wife and I saw this on the Today show literally 10 minutes after our own IVF transfer

this morning. We weren't freaked out personally cause we know this is extremely rare, though do understand this can occur.

It is very sad from both angles - the parents having the baby that isn't theirs and then having to give it up to the genetic parents. Also though from the other POV, the people who had a frozen embryo who wouldn't get to use it now cause the docs gave it to the wrong parents. Sad all around, but I'm sure both parties will get a large $$$ payout.

[rug]

34. This is interesting.

The law that holds the parental rights belongs to the biological parents versus the law that upholds a woman's right to control her body.

How would the court rule if the biological parents sought an injuction to prevent an abortion?

[AngryOldDem]

50. I have one question about that.

If this baby legally belongs to the other couple, then how could the Savages legally terminate the pregnancy? To put it in crude terms, that would be like destroying someone else's property, especially in light of the fact that they have to give up the baby at its birth.

Just too bizarre and tragic.

[rebecca_herman]

65. I doubt they could prevent an abortion

The pregnancy was in her body, so she had the right to remove it from her body if that is what she decided. If a biological father can't prevent an abortion legally I don't see how the bio parents could have stopped it if this woman sought an abortion.

[rvablue]

66. Sad. Hopefully the biological parents can keep some

channels of communication open and maybe include some visits in the future.

[CoffeeCat]

69. From what was said during the interview...

...it sounds like the biological parents weren't open to that.

The mother who is carrying the baby said that they would want the baby to know what
happened, and would want to know them--but she said that ultimately those are decisions
for the biological parents to make.

[kestrel91316]

14. Note: this is in the UK. I suspect in the US she would be keeping the baby.

[marybourg]

17. They are in the U.S. - Ohio. nt.

[kestrel91316]

28. oops, my bad

[Fuzz]

22. Seriously fucked up.

[dysfunctional press]

26. why would they HAVE to turn it over...?

if my wife were impregnated by another man- i'd still be the legal father and legally responsible for the child.

how is this any different?
if she gives birth to it- it's HER child.

[cbdo2007]

33. Couldn't the "other man" sue you for legal rights though, cause it is "his" child.

The difference here is that when you get your embryo's frozen, they actually belong to you and you pay the hospital hundreds of $$$ per year to store them for you for future use. I'm sure the birth parents could fight to keep the baby, but I'm also pretty sure they probably signed some legal forms prior to their IVF that spell out their rights in this situation, which are the options they were given.

[dysfunctional press]

43. lots of states haven't updated their laws on what constitutes parentage(?)...

and in many states, no- the other man couldn't sue for legal rights, because he wouldn't have any. and in the same respect- the cuckolded 'father' wouldn't be able to get out of his parental responsibilities to the mother and child.

[Liberal_in_LA]

37. Seems like the genetic parents are getting a freebie...Someone else's uterus carried the baby

[dysfunctional press]

44. i would hope that they get a VERY NICE settlement...

perhaps enough to afford their own surrogate mother, at least.

[cbdo2007]

48. Yes - I read in another article today that they are going to make sure the

fertility clinic is held completely responsible, which means $$$$

If I were them though I think I would go to a different fert. clinic to have the rest of their eggs transferred to a surrogate...don't want another mix-up.

[LisaL]

57. The biological parents didn't ask for this to happen either.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

27. Did I miss something in the article? I can't see where they are being legally forced?

IMHO, they are doing the right thing by giving the baby to its biological parents.

[cbdo2007]

29. The doctor gave them two options: have an abortion or give it up to the genetic parents.

I'm sure there was Legal mumbo-jumbo explaining what would happen in this situation, that they probably signed before doing the IVF procedure. So the doctors would have just gone with their standard protocol in this situation.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. 'The couple, from Sylvania, Ohio, decided early on that they would not terminate the pregnancy but

hand back the baby, which is not genetically theirs.'

Nothing in the article said that the doctor gave them those options.

Being decent people, it seems that they are doing what's best for the child and its parents.

[cbdo2007]

35. Hmm, I've read a couple of articles on this and it's unclear.

Most of them say something to the effect of "She had the option to terminate the pregnancy or act as a surrogate" but does not say who gave them these options. It almost sounds like it was implied what the procedure was in this circumstance.

Here is the article I saw before that says the doctor gave them the choice:

http://www.current-movie-reviews.com/off-beat/2009/09/21/wrong-embryo-implanted-in-woman/

But seeing as how it's from "current-movie-reviews.com" I don't know how good this source is.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

36. It seems they were suggested choices by the doctor...from your article.

'The doctors told Carolyn she had two choices, terminate the pregnancy or have the baby and give it up to its rightful parents. Due to their faith, abortion was not an option, and though difficult, they decided to have the baby and give it up at birth.'

'Carolyn told the baby’s mother, “We want a moment to say hello and goodbye,” and expressed that this choice is “difficult…but we’ve made the right decision”.'

[Maru Kitteh]

71. The doctor could not force them into either of those options. THINK people. THINK.

A physician can't force you to get an abortion and has not shit to do with your legal custody issues beyond describing her or his role in the pregnancy.

[liberalhistorian]

81. I would think, however, that in cases of IVF,

or similar situations, the laws and requirements would be a bit different so that there was protocol that has to be followed. I don't know for sure, though.

[Maru Kitteh]

88. Often there are various legal contracts written up, especially where donor gametes are used

HOWEVER - This isn't a situation where a custody/privacy issue was expected. It is but one case shy of being unique.

[cbdo2007]

89. There are forms you sign before both egg retrieval and embryo transfer...

and based on the birth couple's attitude and demeanor, I'm guessing when the doctors called to give them the news they filled them in on what all the fine print was about.

It may not be a specific situation where custody/privacy was expected, but legally any fertility clinic would be absolutely insane to not address this with couples beforehand and have them agree to their protocols.

[Maru Kitteh]

91. Oh please. None of that fine print says "If we slip you the wrong embryos"

We get to take away your legal rights to make custody challenges. The clinics are not countries, they are not courts, they are not parents. They have to abide by law as it is formed. They do not form it, and they certainly have no capacity to enforce.

Once pregnancy is achieved the job of the fertility clinic is done.

[cbdo2007]

94. I apologize - I was thought I was discussing this with someone who knew what they were talking...

about.

Not someone who just likes to argue.

Good luck to you and your uninformed viewpoint.

[cbdo2007]

100. For anyone interested - here is a link to some IVF consent forms

http://www.ivf1.com/consent-forms/

[liberalhistorian]

102. How do you know that? Have YOU read the fine print?

Being in the legal field, I know that such clinics have their own protocol and forms and that they're legally binding. You don't think they'd have had every possible scenario covered in all the legal forms that had to be agreed to and signed? Believe me, they would have. And the reason the host parents probably chose to give it up was precisely because of the legal precedent that had been set in the previous case. If there hadn't been any other such case, then maybe they would have taken their chances. But given the fact that there had been, and the courts are likely to use that as a basis for any decision, they rightfully figured that it wouldn't be worth it to spend all that time and money, and further bonding with the child who would then get to know them as parents, just to have to hand the child over anyway. You really should know what you're talking about instead of just using strident statements to argue for the sake of arguing.

[cbdo2007]

83. They can't keep something that isn't theirs...note the bank error reference...

If your bank accidentally deposits someone else's paycheck in your account, it is not your money. It is the other person's money which you must return to the bank so they can deposit it in the correct account.

In this case, the embryo belongs to the biological parents so the birth parents really only have one option - return it. HOW they return it is their choice - dead or alive.

[Maru Kitteh]

85. You equate children with property. Nice.

[cbdo2007]

87. They are in this case. The biological couple pays hundreds of $$ per year

to have them stored in the freezer of a fertility clinic. They own them and pay rent for them each year. It's their property, just like if you had a couch in a storage shed.

[Maru Kitteh]

90. That argument makes an elderly parent in a skilled facility a piece of property too

but it's dumb on a more obvious level yet.

You do not buy a finished child the way you pick up a Yorkie at the shelter. You pay a physician, or physicians, surgeons, facilities, nurses, etc. for the expertise, knowledge, tests, medications, and the use of their facilities, etc., in the hopes of achieving a pregnancy.

Pregnancy does not equal child.

[GodlyDemocrat]

45. They are doing the right thing, but the clinic has to pay out of the wazoo for this

And they will, most definitely.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

59. According to what I read, they hired a surrogate to carry their remaining embryos, and they've

gone through psychological counseling. I'm sure that they are not going to have to pay a cent for those things and I'm sure they will also receive money for damages.

[REP]

38. But giving up a newborn for adoption is so much easier if it's your own DNA, right?

Right?

I just want someone to tell me why surrendering a newborn for adoption is such a great option.

[cbdo2007]

39. I'm not sure I understand your question.

[Gwendolyn]

42. Are you talking about anti-abortion idiots who claim that a good alternative...

to an unwanted pregnancy is carrying to term and then just handing it over for adoption?

[uncle ray]

46. for many people for who it is an option, there are no "great" options.

would you rather that option be removed?

[brendan120678]

49. Because some people are opposed to abortion, perhaps? (nt)

[LisaL]

55. Not adoption. The baby will go to the biological parents who

very much want the baby.
I think your question is way off base.

[Dorian Gray]

47. My heart goes out to them

Their hearts must be breaking right now.

[daedalus_dude]

51. I don't think they should be forced to give it up.

IMO much is to be said for a bond existing between the child and the woman who carried it, regardless of DNA.

[LisaL]

54. But it is known who the biological parents are, and these

parents want the child.

[daedalus_dude]

60. Hww. The question how one defines "biological parent" still looms.

Sure, DNA is a criterium, but how about the fact that the woman carrying is sharing her blood with the baby?

I know the question is not an easy one. But I am wondering which party will be harmed more by losing the child. The party that endured nine months of stress or the party that did nothing except donate a few cells.

From what I understand, the woman carrying was free to terminate the pregnancy. So she has the right to destroy the child but not to keep it? That somehow seems weird to me.

[cbdo2007]

62. Biological - connected by direct genetic relationship rather than by adoption or marriage.

from Websters dictionary in reference to "biological parent"

So the Biological parent is the one who is the genetic parent. The birth mother in this case is just a host.

[cbdo2007]

63. "which party will be harmed more..."

From what we know, which there is a lot we still DON'T know...

The couple giving birth here still has 5 frozen embryo's, so they could theoretically have more kids if those work in a surrogate, though it is still sad she can't carry them herself (there is a medical issue of some sort so she can't have her own kids after this one)

but we don't know anything about the other couple except that they "donated a few cells". First off, it probably costed them thousands of $$$ to produce the egg and have it fertilized during their own IVF procedure; but also we don't know if they were ever able to have their own kids. If their IVF did not work and they were hoping this frozen embryo would be their lucky charm and now it's gone, adding insult to injury it DID work in someone else's body, that could be considerably more upsetting than the 9 months this couple is going through carrying the child they know they have to give up. They could have been struggling with this for years...we just don't know, but to someone going through IVF and experiencing infertility it is definitely more than "donating a few cells".

It is an interesting question regarding the birth mother's right to terminate the pregnancy, and I'm guessing this just follows the fertility clinic protocol of what to do in this situation.

[Maru Kitteh]

72. They were not forced. It was their decision. I saw an interview of the couple.

They came to this decision themselves.

[LisaL]

78. This is the article posted on CNN.

There is a legal precedent case and they knew they would lose custody if they decided to keep the child.
""We knew based on legal precedent that custody would be lost, and we agree with that precedent," said Carolyn, alluding to a similar case of errant IVF in 1999 in New York in which custody was awarded to the genetic parents."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/22/wrong.embryo.family/index.html

[Maru Kitteh]

80. This idea that they were "forced" is utter and complete, sloppy nonsense.

ONE previous case hardly qualifies as settled law.

THEY did what THEY wanted to. They were NOT forced.

[Bill McBlueState]

52. I have to wonder about the word "forced"

The story in the couple's local newspaper, which I posted earlier today, gives no indication that they were "forced" to give up the child.

My reaction to this story turns pretty strongly on whether they were forced to give it up or whether they chose to.

[LisaL]

53. They were told they would have to give the child up,

when they were informed of the mistake, according to them. Now, I don't know if they could have decided to legally fight it or not. But they were told they will have to give the child up.

[Maru Kitteh]

73. No. They came to this decision of their own volition. A doctor can't enforce custody or

force someone to have an abortion.

I saw an interview of this couple on CNN. They came to this decision on their own.

[LisaL]

77. The doctor can not but a court can.

Not force to have an abortion, obviously, but to give the child up. They would have lost custody had they decided to keep the child. I didn't see them on CNN but I saw them on today's show and at no time did they say they could have kept the child but decided not to.

[Maru Kitteh]

82. ONE solitary court case does not = settled law. They did what they wanted to do, not forced to.

Unless you are the worlds greatest clairvoyant you have no clue what the outcome of a custody case in this matter may have been, with only one other such case on record in the entire country.

They decided the right thing to do was to freely carry and give the baby to it's biological parents.

Why are you so eager to take this bit of dignity and nobility away from them? What they did was selfless and loving. What's up with you?

[cbdo2007]

86. Don't look too deep here - this is a property rights issue. The embryo belongs to

the biological parents. They own it.

The birth couple here would have received their pregnancy test results when the embryo was at 14 days along, which is the same time they found out it wasn't theirs. Then the doctor said they have to give it back to the biological parents but it's their choice as to whether to do it that day or 8 months (approx) later.

You can't keep other people's property if they don't want you to have it. That's theft.

[Maru Kitteh]

92. Embryo does not = pregnancy. Pregnancy does not = child. Child does not = property.

I hate it when people like you make me repeat myself.


You do not buy a finished child the way you pick up a Yorkie at the shelter. You pay a physician, or physicians, surgeons, facilities, nurses, etc. for the expertise, knowledge, tests, medications, and the use of their facilities, etc., in the hopes of achieving a pregnancy.

Pregnancy does not equal child.

Children are not property.

[cbdo2007]

56. This is unclear to me also but it the embryo isn't theirs, whether they're "forced" to give it back

or not.

[Doremus]

58. No, they weren't forced to give it up. They're doing so voluntarily.

The birth mother has rights that aren't usurped by the dna of the fetus.

If she wanted to she could keep the child.

The inevitable trial and court decision would prove very interesting.

[suninvited]

61. I read the story yesterday

and it was being reported that it was her choice to give up the baby.

[LisaL]

68. No. According to them, they could have aborted the fetus or

given the baby to the biological parents. They are against abortion so they chose to give him to biological parents.

[Maru Kitteh]

74. You are correct. It was this couples choice to give the baby to the bio parents

Doctors cannot enforce custody, and they can't enforce abortions either. This article is trash.

I saw the couple on CNN this morning. It was their decision.

[LisaL]

75. Not exactly. Legally they will have to give up the child to

the biological parents. If they don't give the child to the biological parents, they will lose custody to the biological parents anyway.
""We knew based on legal precedent that custody would be lost, and we agree with that precedent," said Carolyn, alluding to a similar case of errant IVF in 1999 in New York in which custody was awarded to the genetic parents.""
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/22/wrong.embryo.family/index.html

[Maru Kitteh]

84. You're like a virus, aren't you? You don't know how a challenge would have turned out based on ONE

case. The couple made a voluntary decision not to fight for custody. They did a loving thing, with free will. Why are you trying so hard to discount their kindness and generosity?

[LisaL]

99. Just because I point out the fact that the law was not on their side,

and they know it, doesn't mean that my intentions are to discount their kindness and generosity. Nothing that happened to them was their fault, and they seem to agree with the law that giving the baby to the genetic parents is the right thing to do. It obviously doesn't mean they couldn't have still taken it to court. But based on the legal precedent, they likely would have lost. None of it has anything to do with my opinion regarding their kindness and generosity.
Jeez.

[Maru Kitteh]

70. Misleading headline. The couple talked it over and decided it was the right thing to do.

She wasn't "forced."

[LisaL]

76. Had they decided to keep the baby, they would have lost

custody anyway.
There is a precedent case in which custody was awarded to genetic parents.

[Maru Kitteh]

93. I admire your perfect ability to predict the future based on ONE case. You must win like EVERY

lottery in your state.

You are SO smart.

[LisaL]

98. Do you have any understanding as to what "legal precedent"

means?

[cbdo2007]

101. Don't need legal precedent anyways - bottom line is you can't keep

someone else's kid just cause it was given to you by mistake.

Here's another good analogy, let's say you have a 5 year old on a soccer team and you drop him off at soccer practice. You have an appointment later and can't take him home from practice so you ask one of the other parents to bring him home for you after practice. That parent isn't familiar with where you live so they take him to the wrong house.

Ok, now who has custody of the kid? The person who's house he was dropped off at or do you still have custody? Would they be forced to give him back or should they go to court to keep him?

[BoneDaddy]

79. wow what a horrible

position to be in. I feel deeply for all involved.

[cherish44]

97. She's doing the right thing

I know there have been lawsuits with surrogate mothers who have carried a baby for another couple who tried to sue for custody of the child and lost. The law isn't on their side. They have three children, that's a blessing. There are many people who would kill to have just one.