Should we ever justify creating a child with a dead person?

A British man has today won the right to use the embryo from him and his dead wife to try to have a baby using a surrogate. 

 Ted Jennings’ wife died in 2019 while carrying twins conceived through IVF, and since then he has fought for the right to use their remaining embryo to conceive a child through surrogacy.  

The HFEA originally denied the request, but today a judge ruled that he can use the embryo.  

I have numerous issues with this.  

Firstly, were it not for IVF, there would never have been an embryo, and the man’s choice to have a child with his now deceased wife would never have existed. 

While IVF is undoubtedly a medical miracle, the fact is that IVF is designed in order for people to become parents, without one of those parents, there surely shouldn’t be a baby.  

Secondly, he would be using a surrogate to carry the baby for him. Essentially he would be renting a woman’s womb, and she would be taking the risk of going through pregnancy and birth.  It should be remembered at this point that Ted’s wife died as a result of a uterine rupture during pregnancy, so he is all too aware of the potential risks, however rare they might be.  Is it ok to potentially put another woman at the same risk of happening what happened to his wife?  

I’ll be honest here, I don’t agree with surrogacy anyway, but even if I did, this just sounds like a step too far.  

And what of the child conceived of this arrangement? That child would be growing up without a mother. Not a mother who died when they were young, but a mother who, to all intents and purposes, never existed for them.  Given that the law changed to allow the children of egg and sperm donations to find their biological parents due to the feelings of lost identity many of them felt, how is this child expected to grow up knowing that their mother actually died several years before they were born, that their father rented another woman’s body in order to be able to have a child. A child who is growing up with no real identity.  

Ted Jennings is young enough to move forward, to fall in love again, and to have a baby with any future woman in his life.  Even if he is the one with the fertility issues, and we don’t know what that situation is, if he’s had IVF once, then he could do so again.  

Sometimes medicine is capable of miraculous things.  

But just because something can be done, doesn’t mean that it should.  

To the decent men out there, “not all men” are like that.

A discussion has emerged following the recent disappearance of Sarah Everard with regards to the way women often feel unsafe when out and about, and judged for not wanting to be the victims of sexual harassment and worse, sexual and physical violence. Many men have entered into the discussions with the statements that “not all men” are like that, and “men are victims too.” 

Now let me start by saying that we all know that not all men are sexual predators. And we all know that men can be victims of violence and crime. But when there is a discussion about women, then surely it stands to reason that it is women who are being discussed, and the way they feel, and yes, unfortunately that is normally because of the actions of men. 

Sarah Everard isn’t where the topic started. in truth whenever a woman is assaulted or even murdered there is talk of how women can be made to feel safer, and what to do with regards to sexual harassment and violence. And then the conversation is taken over by those who want to make it known that this isn’t women’s place to discuss because “men are victims too”, and thus the conversation ceases, until next time.  

A lot of the conversation in this instance has centred around how women can feel safer when out and about. How we can get to the point where women don’t feel they have to walk a certain route home, or be responsible for their friends getting home safely, But in truth the conversation goes so much deeper. 

It is indisputable that more women are victims of sexual crimes and domestic violence than men. In the past year 118 women died at the hands of men. 2 women are killed by a partner every week, and 97% of women say they have been victims of sexual harassment. 

And this is where it starts to be downplayed. A man wolf whistling at a pretty girl is seen as innocent. But actually it is objectifying that girl, but she would be told she was overreacting if she said that. So where does it stop being a woman’s “over reaction” and begin to be harassment? The truth is that it becomes harassment the instant the woman is uncomfortable with it, because the woman is the subject, and the perpetrator does not speak for her with regards to what she might find uncomfortable.  

And then we get to the point where women are expected to take responsibility. Rape trials still involve the cross examination of women where they are asked about what they were wearing, whether they might actually have consented, and what their sexual history is like. No other crime brings that kind of victim blaming so why this one? The rape conviction rate is pitifully low, partly because of the lack of evidence, but also because of the conditioning of people to believing that a woman who is assaulted was probably “up for it,” or that “well if she will go out dressed like that what does she expect?” And for every case where a rapist is found not guilty despite the fact he likely is, that rapist is back out on the streets, free to attack his next victim. Your sister, your daughter perhaps or your best friend. 

The solution here actually lies with men and not women. It is men who need to know what it is that makes a woman uncomfortable, and what behaviour is and isn’t ok. Most decent men already know that, and as such it is down to those decent men to stand up and be counted when it comes to defending women’s right to safety without blame or expectation.  

Women don’t need to be told that “not all men” are like that. We all know. My best friends are men and it goes without saying that I know they’re not like that. 

But where men need to say that “not all men” are like that is with regards to men who do feel that they have a right to a woman’s body. That a woman is something to be objectified, whose experiences need to be downplayed.  When those decent men out there think about those women and the message they feel they should be sharing, that message is that they need to stand up for what is right, because “not all men” are decent like that. 

Life and then death? Is this really the answer?

A man has been executed in Texas for the murder of his wife’s brother and parents nearly 30 years after being sentenced.  

Billie Wayne Coble is the oldest person to be executed in Texas since the death penalty was re-introduced in 1982.  

But this is not about the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, this is more about asking the question as to whether, if the death penalty does not happen for 30 years,is doing so not then delivering two sentences instead of one?  

I am thankful that I live in a country where the death penalty does not exist,even for the most unthinkable crimes.  However I do recognise that in some instances there is definitely an argument for someone to be imprisoned for the rest of their life with no possibility of their release back into society,and I do recognise that in such instances justice is punitive rather than restorative.

However, in the case of individuals such as Billie Coble, he has served a 30 year sentence which essentially equates to life in prison, and only then has he been put to death.  

While I understand that the death penalty is often delayed due to the appeals processes etc, I think it’s fair to say that 30 years is surely a stretch by a modern society’s standards, and that if after 30 years the individual is still incarcerated then it’s safe to assume that he has paid his debt to society and should rather be left to spend the rest of his life in prison rather than being put to death as some kind of last statement.  

If a country has the death penalty, should that not mean that when someone is sentenced to death, they are then put to death, rather than serving a life sentence and then being put to death?  In that instance the death penalty seems more like a statement than the carrying out of a sentence.  

Grandparents’ rights? Who should decide?

MP’s are calling for an amendment to the children’s act to enshrine the right for grandparents to see their grandchildren after a divorce in law.  Currently if grandparents want to see their grandchildren they have to go to court to obtain access.  

There have of course been a number of people who have emerged telling their stories of how they have been prevented from seeing their grandchildren, although perhaps the most notable I have seen was a couple on ITV’s This Morning programme who talked about how it was in fact their own son who has ceased contact and has gone so far as to have the police send a letter ordering the couple to cease attempts to contact his family or to risk being charged with harassment after the father called the son’s place of work to deliver a message for him to call his mother at Christmas.  

Now, while I do feel that where possible family relationships should be encouraged, and I myself would never have discouraged any kind of relationship between my children and their grandparents or extended family on either side, I do think that giving grandparents rights in law is a step too far, especially when you consider that even parents don’t have rights as such but that it is the children who have the right to a relationship with them rather than the other way around.  

I also think that family relationships can be complicated, and that if a parent is preventing the grandparents from seeing the children there are more often than not valid reasons for this being the case.  

If for instance you take a case where the parents are divorced, it could be argued that it is the responsibility of each parent to ensure the relationship between the children and their extended family on each side. And while it could be argued that in some instances there are parents who deliberately withhold access to the children from the other parent and as such are likely to do the same with the extended family, it could also be argued that there are many parents who are absent through their own choice, and as such it should not be down to the resident parent to ensure a relationship with the extended family.  

Also, if for instance a relationship breaks down due to abuse either physical or emotional and the parents have (understandably) remained loyal to their child who was the abuser, it is perfectly understandable that the other parent might not want to encourage a relationship between their children and someone who has remained loyal to an individual who has hurt their other parent and in some instances perhaps even the children.  

And Then we look at those relationships where it is the actual children of the parents who are preventing a relationship with the grandchildren due to their own relationship having broken down for whatever reason.  

In the case I saw on This Morning, the couple stated that all they wanted was to see their grandchild.  Yet I think that anyone would argue that if an individual has sought legal advice in order to prevent their parents contacting even themselves, there are clearly some far deeper reasons for the limit in contact than that they are just being difficult.  

Many people do fall out with family for multiple reasons, very few go to the lengths of getting the authorities involved to prevent further contact, and it would have been interesting to hear the other side of that story, because I simply do not believe that this was just a case of the family being prevented from having contact for no valid reason, and the idea that these people be given rights to see the grandchildren in this situation is terrifying when you consider the lengths the parents have obviously had to go to to prevent contact until now.  

In an ideal world we would all benefit from relationships with family and extended family.  However, sometimes there are circumstances which we might not anticipate which prevents this from happening.  Just because someone is family after all does not mean that they should have rights over the children whom  there may be very valid reasons for them being prevented from having a relationship with.  

Don’t go taking my heart. - would you opt out of organ donation?

Yesterday MP’s in the commons voted to change the law on organ donation to make it an opt-out rather than an opt-in system. This means that, whereas the current law means that if individuals feel they want to be considered as organ donors they should sign up to the organ donor register, they will in future need to opt out of organ donation, therefore making a very specific statement in life that they do not wish their organs to be donated in the event of their untimely death.  

It is believed that by changing this law, another 500 lives a year could be saved.  

However, there are several fundamental points here which have not really been explored.  When talking about an opt-out system, many people assume that in the event someone has not opted out of donation, their organs will automatically be harvested if they are eligible.  In fact many people assume that even now, if someone is signed up to the organ donor register, their organs will automatically be harvested for transplant in the event of their death and assuming the circumstances of their death make them eligible.  This is in fact not the case, and in the event someone is declared brain dead and the circumstances of their death would make them eligible organ donors, the final decision still rests with their next of kin.  This means that someone who is signed up to the organ donor register may still not donate their organs if their next of kin are fundamentally opposed to the idea, or, conversely, someone who might not have wanted their organs donated might still become an organ donor if the next of kin fundamentally believe in organ donation.  

In the event that an opt-out system passes into law, this will not change, and the next of kin will still have the overriding decision. This means that, rather than looking at opting in or out of a system, individuals should instead be speaking to their family, their partners, parents, children, about their wishes in the event of their untimely death, so that people are aware of what the deceased would have wanted to happen to them.

Opt out does also have one other fundamental part which I take issue with.  As things currently stand, the next of kin would have the overriding power of decision.  However, changing of the law does open up a reality where, unless you opt out, the law will make allowance for the fact that in the event of your death your body will become the property of the state.  Many people will argue that of course decisions would never be made without the consent of your loved ones, but the truth here is that once something is enshrined in law, it doesn’t take much to change that law in order to achieve a desired outcome.  

In life we as individuals demand the right to bodily autonomy.  Why then would anyone believe that it should be ok to relinquish that autonomy in the event of our death?  

I do not have any issue with organ donation.  My organs are not of any use to me where I’m going, and as such, should I end up in a situation where such conversations need to be had, I don’t have issue with my organs being donated if eligible.  I do however have an issue with this being done autonomously without the potential knowledge of my family who are my next of kin, and while that may not currently be the case, I have issue with a law which could allow it to become the case.  

As such, if opt out becomes law in the UK I will be opting out on the basis that conversations with my family mean that in the event of my untimely death my wishes will still be carried out, but they will be carried out on the authorisation of those who knew them and who are the ones who have to live with the aftermath, not by the state to whom I am just another potential organ donor.  

It is important that your family know your wishes.  The organ donor rate can only increase if people communicate in life with those who have the overriding decision making powers in death.  

Whole or pre-prepared? That is the question.

UK retailer Marks and Spencer have announced that they are to withdraw their product cauliflower steak from sale after they came in for criticism about the amount of packaging.  

A M&S spokesperson confirmed that once the product had sold out in stores they wouldn’t be ordering in any more.  

The article confirming this was posted by the Huffington post on Friday, along with criticisms of other supermarkets who sell what it believes to be over-packaged pre-prepared vegetables such as cauliflower kous-kous, broccoli rice, and diced onions.  

Now, I would be the first to agree that on the whole we use far too much packaging, and I have in fact stated as much on various forms of social media, including blasting one manufacturer for packaging a pair of 42g headphones in a box and packaging which weighed approximately 900g, (unfortunately I can’t remember at this point who the manufacturer was, just in case it might be construed that I was protecting their identity.)

Where the critic has overstepped the mark however is in their further advice to consumers on how to chop and prepare your own vegetables so that you don’t have to resort to buying pre-prepared ones, including a “helpful” video to show you how to better your chopping technique.  

I don’t doubt for a second that there are people who buy pre-prepared veg simply because they can and for convenience.  Although if that is what works for them then who is anyone else to criticise that?  However, there are also many people for whom the existence of pre-prepared vegetables is invaluable, as disabilities, co-ordination issues and other constraints which are frankly nobody’s business but theirs make it either difficult or impossible to prepare vegetables, and pre-prepared foods means the difference between being able to home cook a meal and having to resort to the ready meal option.  

Telling retailers that their products are over-packaged is one thing.  Telling people that they could prepare their own fruit and veg if only they watched this helpful video and brushed up on their technique is nothing more than patronising and judgemental.  

Let’s be honest here, the individuals responsible for writing the article didn’t really want to talk about excessive packaging or pretentious product naming.  What they really wanted to do was to pass judgement over people who buy pre-prepared fruit and veg and tell them how if only they did it “their” way they would be so much better for it.  Except to write an article purely to slate the buyers of diced onions when said buyer may have difficulties which make it impossible to chop onions for themselves, and not be in a position to invest in a food processor either due to financial or space constraints doesn’t exactly show one as someone who really cares about the planet or those who live on it, so the amount of packaging was a convenient way around it with half an article of self righteous judgement thrown in for good measure.  

So here’s the thing.  If you disagree with the amount of packaging that supermarkets and other retailers use for their products then join the cause and protest against it.  

However, if you disagree with the use of pre-prepared products such as fruit, vegetables and anything else which could be made by you personally but is available on the shelves of supermarkets for those who don’t have the ability or simply can’t be bothered, then don’t buy them.  But keep your judgements of those who do to yourself.  It says far more about you than it does about them.  

“Please like my post......” Should it really be down to schools to manage the use of social media by eight year olds?

Today the children’s commissioner has called for schools to take more of an active part in helping children to manage expectations on social media as they make the transition from primary to secondary school.  Anne Longfield said that she was concerned about the impact of social media on eight to twelve year olds and that they were too dependent on comments and likes, and that schools should assist in managing their expectations as they transition from primary to secondary school when social media starts to play a more important role in their lives.  

I don’t disagree that schools need to be more aware of children’s social media use, and indeed, many schools do have their own social media policies although many of them focus on the need to not bring the school into disrepute etc.  However, I also think that other adults in children’s lives have a part to play here in both managing the expectations of children as well as their own.  

It could be argued that for those of us with secondary-aged children many of us have entered the social media era at the same time as our children have, and as such many parents’ levels of both use and interaction on social media is not dissimilar to that of their children.  And for many adults, likes, comments and interactions can be seen as equally important albeit on a potentially different level.  

Also, a lack of either understanding or awareness of the potential impact of our own social media use is bound to have an impact on our children as, if we as adults are not managing social media effectively how can we possibly think that we can manage the use of our children’s social media accounts, especially on platforms which we as adults may not even have use or an understanding of.  

It is human nature to react positively to the approval of others.  As such numbers of followers, likes and comments is most definitely something that likely impacts on us all at some point.  When I publish this blog I will of course hope that people will read it, digest it and view it positively.  But for a twelve year old or worse, an eight year old, the ability to process lack of likes and comments or even negative comments is something which they don’t yet have the maturity to do, and if they don’t have an authority figure to tel them that it’s ok if they don’t get likes on their latest post or their snap or instagram picture hasn’t been liked or shared then that can make them feel less valued as individuals even though that picture is just one in millions out there.  

Additionally, social media affords us the opportunity to be seen by and to interact with people we otherwise wouldn’t, people who are strangers out there in the real world, and for whom distance would mean we would otherwise never have encountered them, but who are right there as names and pictures in our social media world, and although it can be said that many parents do keep a tight reign on their children’s social media accounts and only allow them to have friends who they know in the real world, it is certainly also true that for some children they are given unlimited access to a world they do not yet have the maturity to understand or to deal with on many levels.  And if the interaction they get from those strangers is negative they may find it difficult not to take it personally. 

When I blogged about Laura Plummer, the British woman who had been jailed in Egypt for bringing banned drugs into the country, I received a tweet from a complete stranger telling me what a horrible person I was and how they wished something awful would happen to me one day.  I laughed it off because firstly, I have no idea who the individual even was, and secondly, if you put yourself out there in the public world then the reality is that not everyone is going to agree with what you have to say.  But if the comments from strangers were numerous or indeed if negative comments from people who I know in person started mounting up then I may start to wonder about how I was being perceived out there in the social media world.  But for me I could potentially step away from the blog, from twitter etc, but for a preteen for whom social media is also becoming a huge part of their actual social life it’s not so easy to step away because it can feel like stepping away from your actual social life.  

And there is another side to all this.  Rightly or wrongly, there are people, adults even, who view the interaction of their friends on social media as far more of a part of real life than it should be.  I was reminded of this fact around a year ago when a friend of some 25 years or so posted what I would only describe as a modern-day chain letter on his social media account with the adage that only his real friends would respond.  The post begins with the words “today I’m gonna say bye bye to some of you,” and then goes on to state that if you’ve ever had anyone in your life who had cancer or mental health issues (the post can be adapted accordingly,) you will copy and past this to your status in recognission of what people go through.  It then goes on to state that only 5% of their friends will copy and past it because only they are true friends.  Truth is that the reason only 5% copy and paste is because it’s a chain letter designed to clutter one’s timeline.  However in this particular instance the friend in question took the post literally and removed anyone who hadn’t copied and pasted the status from his friend list.  So that’s a a 25 year friendship obliterated over a piece of spam.  

I’m afraid I laughed because in my view it said far more about him than about me. Had he been a much closer friend I might have had words about it in person, but in this instance I thought that he clearly wasn’t worth even being told how stupid he had made himself look.  However imagine being a primary aged child being subjected to rejection because you didn’t follow a protocol you never actually signed up to in the first place.  If adults take it this seriously, how can we expect children to cope with the rejection when it happens?  

In conclusion, children’s expectations on social media need to be managed far more closely, and in my personal opinion that should start with not allowing primary aged children on social media to start with, and then managing their use once they reach the age where they can have facebook, twitter etc without having to lie about their age to get there.  

Social media can be an immensely positive thing.  But that needs to be weighed against the need for acceptance, validation and the recognission of the fact that lack of either does not have any bearing on people as individuals and the people they are.