World's 'Oldest Baby' Born From Embryo Frozen in 1994 (theguardian.com) 33
The world's "oldest baby" has been born in the US from an embryo that was frozen in 1994, it has been reported. The Guardian: Thaddeus Daniel Pierce was born on 26 July in Ohio to Lindsey and Tim Pierce, using an "adopted" embryo from Linda Archerd, 62, from more than 30 years ago.
In the early 1990s, Archerd and her then husband decided to try in vitro fertilisation (IVF) after struggling to become pregnant. In 1994 four embryos resulted: one was transferred to Archerd and resulted in the birth of a daughter, who is now 30 and mother to a 10-year-old. The other embryos were cryopreserved and stored.
"We didn't go into it thinking we would break any records," Lindsey told the MIT Technology Review, which first reported the story. "We just wanted to have a baby."
In the early 1990s, Archerd and her then husband decided to try in vitro fertilisation (IVF) after struggling to become pregnant. In 1994 four embryos resulted: one was transferred to Archerd and resulted in the birth of a daughter, who is now 30 and mother to a 10-year-old. The other embryos were cryopreserved and stored.
"We didn't go into it thinking we would break any records," Lindsey told the MIT Technology Review, which first reported the story. "We just wanted to have a baby."
Benjamin Button? (Score:4, Funny)
In that movie, Benjamin Button was born as a baby-sized old man. Logically, he should have died as an old-man sized baby. But when he died, he was just a regular baby-sized baby. That really ticked me off, as I sat through that tedious bore of a movie, thinking that at least eventually I would get to see a freakishly large dying baby. But no dice.
Oh yeah -- spoiler alert.
spoiler alert (Score:3)
That was a bit like putting a tsunami alert in a bottle and chucking it into the ocean behind the wave.
Re: (Score:3)
In the original short story he began as an old man sized old man, and ended as a baby sized baby. It's a really bizarre story, much more so than the movie.
"biological father" had no say? (Score:1, Flamebait)
"Archerd was awarded custody of the embryos after divorcing her husband"
I hope the husband was OK with that. Otherwise I think the moral thing would be to ask for BOTH persons if they are OK to give their embryo for adoption.
Re:"biological father" had no say? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not the divorced men that want to raise them.
It's the divorced men that do not want a state to decide that while they do not 'own' the embryo, still decide that the men are legally responsible for the embryo, so they can be sued for child support.
States used to routinely do this kind of thing. Usually happened with two different judges. One modern and liberal that said the woman should get full control, and another traditional and conservative that said the men should have to pay.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically here the baby has to parents, a man and a woman, who "adopted" the embryo and raised him from birth. So I don't think there are any risks of child support having to be paid by the "biological father". Otherwise all sperm donors would be at risk.
Not sure I see why would a couple chose an embryo from a divorced couple unless BOTH donors agree to the adoption. And why would the "embryo bank" even allow it.
I'd say one of the main risk here is that baby growing up and at some point would like to meet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do not understand the laws. Sperm donors have specific legal protections preventing them from being financially responsible for the child - but only if they explicitly sign the proper forms when they donate. If you do it at home - say for a lesbian friend - you have no protection unless everyone involved signs appropriate legal paperwork. Sometimes you even need a third party/nurse administer the baby juice.
Merely having parents does not stop the state from suing a biological father. It usually ha
Re: (Score:1)
How about: that man may be divorced but that doesn't mean he wants a child resulting in 50% of his DNA and 50% of his ex-wife's to be born? And not 30 years later?
That's not about raising them. If wanted babies from his DNA that he wouldn't raise, he'd go make a donation to a sperm bank.
I think he deserves a say in it. Maybe he was OK with giving the embyros to his ex-wife so that she could have a second baby on her own (and sibling to his own kid), but that doesn't mean he was OK with strangers "adopting"
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to be assuming that this person gave up the embryos involuntarily. I'm sure it was part of the divorce settlement, to which he agreed (like it or not).
Re: "biological father" had no say? (Score:2)
Of course he could be dead. She's 62, he was probably older.
Legal Paperwork Everywhere (Score:5, Informative)
As someone who has gone through IVF. It is a pretty laborious amount of legal paperwork you have to go through prior to even starting the IVF process. There is paperwork exclusively for the male and female separately. There is paperwork that is specifically joint. Ours was easier as we were already married. Fertilized frozen embryos are effectively considered property that both male and female own, it is not exactly a "joint" ownership like a bank account. It is a due process framework that requires consent from the other party prior to any action.
In the case of divorce, ownership can be retained or given up, at which time parental rights/obligations are effectively rendered.
There are cases where the female in a divorce has no ability to access the fertilized embryos for implant because the other party will not agree to an action.
As it would seem here...they offered up embryos to adoption, in which case the adoptive parents have full parental rights.
Re: "biological father" had no say? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems they are fit enough to reproduce, because they did.
Re: (Score:2)
They are able to reproduce in the environment and resources that are available. The equivalent of happening to be born part of a powerful buffalo herd. The species benefits because though the genes for replication were flawed perhaps they carry the genes for efficient agriculture. They contribute to the tribe, and the tribe helps them.
I heard about this (Score:3)
Victor Fries (Score:2)
Now we know the name of the reboot character.
This has got to be mind bending ... (Score:2)
Can you imagine discovering that you were conceived 30 years before you were born, and have a twin sister 30 years older than yourself ?!
For that matter, what kind of nutjob people want to "adopt" a 30-year old embryo ...
The real miracle will be if this kid turn out normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Woohoo! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
something similar happened in the '80s (Score:2)
IIRC, it was in Canada. There was a lawsuit because the babies produced from the embryos would inherit an estate. anyhow, here it is... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it was in Australia.
Sounds pretty gross to me (Score:1)
Archer had a preference for her embryo to be “adopted” by a white, Christian married couple, leading to the Pierces adopting the embryo. The fertility clinic that transferred the embryo is run by John Gordon, a reproductive endocrinologist and Reformed Presbyterian who is working to reduce the number of embryos in storage. Speaking of the embryo transfer, Gordon said: “We have certain guiding principles, and they’re coming from our faith. Every embryo deserves a chance at life and that the only embryo that cannot result in a healthy baby is the embryo not given the opportunity to be transferred into a patient.”
All sounds pretty gross to me.