national

Maternity clinic in Nagano sparks debate over sperm donation controversy

46 Comments
By Krista Rogers

When a couple is ready to have children but there is an infertility issue with the father-to-be that prevents normal conception, in this day and age they have a number of options to consider. Artificial insemination from an anonymous donor is one route to take, as is as adoption. Or here’s another approach: If you’re the mother, how about getting pregnant through in vitro fertilization with a sperm donation from your husband’s father?

It’s become the topic of intense debate in Japan over the past few days after new details about the practice emerged from a maternity clinic in Nagano Prefecture.

In vitro fertilization is a form of assisted reproductive technology in which eggs are removed from a woman’s ovaries and fertilized in a test tube or dish (or “in vitro”), and then implanted back into the woman’s uterus. Depending on the specific situation, the sperm used to fertilize them is taken from either the woman’s partner or from a donor, whether anonymous or not. In the case we’re about to discuss, it’s taken not just from a friend, but the woman’s actual father-in-law. In other words, the child’s grandfather suddenly becomes his biological father.

The Suwa Maternity Clinic in Nagano Prefecture made waves through the Japanese media last week when they announced that from 1996 through last year, 79 couples at the clinic have collectively had 118 children using the woman’s father-in-law’s sperm via in vitro fertilization procedures. This isn’t the first time the clinic has been at the center of intense public scrutiny, either – in the past, they made headlines after performing selective abortions to fetuses.

As for this newest debate related to sperm donations at the clinic, here’s the breakdown of the numbers:

Between 1996 and 2013

146 couples received sperm from close relatives: 110 couples from the husband’s father 28 couples from the husband’s brother Eight couples from anonymous sources

Out of the 110 couples who received sperm donations from the husband’s father, 79 couples became pregnant and a total of 118 children were born. Out of those same 79 couples, 19 of them went on to have two or more children using the same method.

As far as the causes of male infertility were concerned:

81 of the husbands, the cause was unknown 12 had a chromosomal abnormality Five were undergoing cancer treatments Two were related to spinal cord injuries

Lastly, the men who donated sperm (in other words, the mothers’ fathers-in-law) ranged significantly in age:

20 of them were in their 50s 73 were in their 60s 17 were in their 70s

According to Asahi Shimbun, this practice of using a close relative’s sperm could violate guidelines regarding infertility treatments already set in place in Japan. A report published by a health ministry council in 2003 decreed that in vitro fertilization should only be performed using eggs or sperm from an anonymous third-party donor. Similarly, the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology “limits in vitro fertilization to gametes of couples in legal or common-law marriages.”

Suwa Maternity Clinic Director Yahiro Netsu defended his clinic’s practices at a conference of the Japan Society of Fertilization and Implantation in Tokyo on July 31, stating that pregnancy rates after utilizing in vitro fertilization with the father-in-law’s sperm have been significantly higher (38.2%) than the rates resulting from other kinds of infertility treatments. In addition, many couples he works with actively seek to use the sperm of a close family member to secure a blood connection and inherit genes from the father’s side of the family. He stressed that such couples undergo extensive counseling beforehand, including how to clearly define family roles if a child is born so relations won’t become too complicated.

This topic has provoked some strong reactions from Japanese citizens concerning ethical issues. The majority were critical of the practice, posing questions such as “Will the children really be able to accept the fact that their grandfather is really their dad?”, while others seemed a bit more understanding of those couples who wish to create a stronger biological connection using the grandfather’s sperm. Finally, there were those who didn’t seem to favor one stance strongly either way, but felt that each individual couple should be allowed to make the decision based on their own values.

Here are some thoughts of several Japanese Twitter users.

“Taking into account existing laws and the current state of society, I don’t know which thought is more ‘correct’–when there are children who are born from the sperm of the husband’s father or when couples just have children without much thought. The natural way to reproduce, like animals, and a process which involves human choice…aren’t they both correct?”

“I heard the news about using sperm from your husband’s father or brother to have children. I wish the people on TV would stop saying, “Isn’t it nice that there are many kinds of families?” so carelessly. Is that really OK? I was actually shocked.”

“It means they want to preserve the bloodline, right?”

“‘Receiving sperm from your father-in-law.’ As a woman I’m not opposed (on the contrary, I feel like having a blood connection would be good), but my husband said ‘I’d probably get confused whether the child is my sibling or my kid.’ Questions of feelings are hard.”

“I wasn’t easily blessed with children and was troubled, but this would be impossible for me, emotionally speaking.”

“It’s talking about conceiving a child with your father-in-law, right? Impossible. Pregnancy rate? 38%? Nope, no way~ It would be your father-in-law’s child and your husband’s sibling from a different mother… And what must it feel like from your mother-in-law’s point of view? Just thinking about it gives me the shivers.”

“Using in vitro fertilization with either the infertile husband’s own father’s or brother’s sperm…hmm, it’s a tough call. Many parents might relax knowing that the child is genetically related. That means from a genetic standpoint, consanguineous marriages may become necessary. Cousins should probably be told before they hit puberty.”

“It’s sick using sperm from your father-in-law (in my personal opinion). That would mean raising your husband’s sibling…what would the children think if they knew? It brings up some ethical questions, and I feel like it would all mostly be for the parents’ self-satisfaction.”

“In the middle of infertility treatments, I also thought about it. Suwa Maternity Clinic…does that means they don’t consider adoption as a viable alternative? I think the process of raising a child is more important than genes (the parents who raise you over your biological parents).”

Sources: Naver Matome, Jiji Press, Nippon News Network, Nikkan Jiji News, Yomiuri Online, Asahi Shimbun

Read more stories from RocketNews24. -- Everything you need to know about the birds and the bees, packed into one quirky video game. -- How to produce good quality sperm: view hardcore pornography. -- "Married Men Don’t Look Happy!” “Wives Unnecessary!”: An Increasing Number of Japanese Men Opting for Bachelorhood.

© RocketNews24

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


46 Comments
Login to comment

Only in Japan is this a "discussion" which forces Japanese couples, including "talento's", overseas to seek treatment.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

In many Countries it is common practice for older siblings to raise their younger siblings, whether due to overworked parents or parental deaths. It's really natural imo, no matter how you look at it.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Nice idea! All in the family.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I don't see the problem. If you want to pass on your genes but are unable to then this seems like as good a solution as any. I just feel bad for the gramdmother who doesn't get to have her genes passed down.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If the sperm is from grandad, then daddy is big brother. I don't think this matters. A lot of father's are treated like brothers in Japan anyway.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

No, there is something very, very wrong in this.

Lots of things wrong, in fact.

'Buying' a baby like this isn't far different from buying a pet from a petshop; it totally ignores all the perfectly healthy babies in homes and orphanages in need of a good home. Better to adopt and give a home to one of those than muck about with test-tubes.

If the 'problem' is with the husband, why the need to go for in vitro fertilisation? If you must 'borrow' sperm, fine; but messing around with eggs outside the body when it isn't necessary is adding to both the expense and the risk of complications.

Again, if the 'problem' is with the husband, why on earth take sperm from the same source that may have produced the problem in the first place? Why make a point of choosing sperm known to cause problems? It's not as if in later years infertile husband will be able to donate his sperm to a hapless dil to make up for his legal son's/biological brother's inability.

If sperm must be provided from outside, deliberately choosing the sperm of a man old enough to be a grandfather is reckless. The sperm is much more likely to be damaged (apart from the inherited problem that made the husband infertile in the first place). It was sperm from an older man (Edward Duke of Kent was in his fifties when he fathered Victoria) that brought haemophilia into the royal families of Europe; why risk introducing double-faulty genes?

And finally, the maybe totally irrational yet at the same time totally normal (as in, you'd have to be abnormal not to feel it) ick factor of carrying your dil's child and raising your husband's sibling.....

Nope, can't find a single thing that puts me in favour of this. And I haven't even started thinking of how as the wife of the donor I would feel about my husband impregnating any future dils.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

I think a far more valid reason for concern is the age of the father's sperm leading to birth defects. A 70-year-old's sperm is far more likely to produce a child with a birth defect than sperm from an anonymous donor.

Isn't this putting the parents' vanity ahead of their child's health? Should people like that really be reproducing?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

ick factor of carrying your dil's child

That's, carrying your fil's child, of course. Darn auto-correct.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Only in Japan is this a "discussion" which forces Japanese couples, including "talento's", overseas to seek treatment.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but Japanse "talento" do go overseas to clinics that that will make them their own "customized" baby. This sounds pretty sick, but I'm sure these clinics aren't in existence just to support Japanese talento....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well in the end, it's the couple's decision. Society doesn't like it? Go cry. Ethics? Morals? To hell with that, ethics and morals always change. People who use 'ethics and morals' as an excuse to back themselves up in situations like these are trash. Not only are they stubborn, talking to them would be like talking to a wall. It is a serious decision, and I'm sure they have worried and thought it over many times before making the decision. After they've come to a conclusion and have decided to take action, NO-ONE has the right to criticize them. It doesn't even break any laws so anyone saying 'No' has an invalid argument. The only worries I have are how judgmental the Japanese are sometimes. If the couple have the resolve to go through with this, I just hope they have the resolve to hold fast in such a non-open-minded society.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Ethics? Morals? To hell with that, ethics and morals always change.

Sorry, but nihilism isn't a viable defense. Ethics and morality, norms and mores, they have maintained and preserved society since its inception. To throw these things away like their worthless will only lead to disaster. As for

It doesn't event break any laws

Those laws are based off of ethics and morality. To respect the law but reject morality is a nonsensical position and you know it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If the family is ok with it, then why should it matter to anyone else? They are going to raise the child, not the opinions of others. When I meet people, I don't go and ask how they were conceived or any of those deeply personal questions. I judge them on how they act, not who their parents were.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I really cannot understand all these controversies on issues like this. People seem to be so wrapped up in their little personal gorilla emotions.

Would it currently be illegal for a woman to have sex with her 70 year old father-in-law and conceive that way, and raise the child with her husband (and never mind what is written on paper)? No. It wouldn't.

Until its made illegal for old men to father children naturally for fear of birth defects, or indeed, any other concern about a man's sperm carrying defects, making it illegal to do the same thing via invetro is preposterous.

And who feels the ick factor and who doesn't is meaningless. If the woman does not feel the ick factor and all are willing, who is some third party to object just because of the ick factor? Besides, its not like anyone is being forced to do this despite the ick factor.

Of course, I also just don't get it with regards to getting invetro done between two people without actual conception problems in the first place. Just choose the father or mother, have them tested for STDs (much cheaper) and have sex until there is pregnancy. Why the need to get all emotional about all this? Why all the denial of what is happening?

Yeah, the man raising the child might not be his blood father, but he is the custodial father all the same. Any idiot can be a blood father. Being a custodial father is where the work and the love is. Some with blood mothers and custodial mothers.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Not sure I like this idea, what if...... woman has baby and father-in-law is biological father, then (paper) daddy is actually big brother. Suddenly for whatever reason, (paper) daddy regains fertility, woman gets pregnant by him. Then baby number 1 is big half brother to baby number 2, and also biological uncle?? Father-in-law is daddy and grandfather to baby #1, and grandfather to baby #2.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

So i am reading the article, and what is the controversy again?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Are foreigners allowed to be sperm donors in Japan?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sick the reality is your father in law is also your son dad and you are married to the son which means you married his older brother and the young brother is the son SICK Ick!!!!!!!!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Ew. Nasty. And what's with this stupid obsession with bloodline?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Gobshite and kaimycahl, you two are much too reliant on an autisticly orderly family tree and petty little man-made relationship titles. I hope you both one day mature beyond that. What you have presented is just a formula for narrow-minded intolerance of the same sort that will not tolerate two married men raising a child.

It takes a village to raise a child anyway.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I always thought mother's genes are prevalent in the boy! Thus the argument of continuing your husband's heritage using his father's source is kind of weak...

It would be much better to use unknown source (but checked to be healthy without illness in the family, etc.)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Strange why they allow sperm donations in Japan but not egg donations - Every year, many people go to countries like US etc for this type of fertility treatmant.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Crush Them - You seem to have a knack for missing the point. The point is that the clinic broke the current law by unusing donors who were not anonymous. This is illegal.

This raises ethical questions that need to be discussed about the ethics of doctors advocating a treatment regime that carries a higher risk of birth defects.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A man looks at a picture & says "Brothers and sisters have I none, but that man's father is my father's son." Who is the picture of? (Note - answer may be complicated depending on origin of sperm donation)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It is a good idea. Then the children will at least have some family resemblance to the father's side of the family. As long as age has not affected the quality of the sperm.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Crush Them - You seem to have a knack for missing the point. The point is that the clinic broke the current law by unusing donors who were not anonymous. This is illegal.

@Frungy Well, to clarify my point, the laws suck and are based on primative gorilla emotions. They belong in the garbage can of history and the clinic should be let off the hook.

This raises ethical questions that need to be discussed about the ethics of doctors advocating a treatment regime that carries a higher risk of birth defects.

Maybe you could assign a number to that higher risk in percentage form since any pregnancy comes with a risk. Just how much of a risk are we talking?

And even if you do that, I wager that the government never had any such numbers when they made the law.

And that risk is about the only ethical concern I can see that would be remotely valid. The rest is just wallowing in assumptions, paranoia, animal emotions and an inability to put oneself in the shoes of another.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

While I see nothing wrong with sperm donation or IVF, I think using FIL's donation is just....not right. Sure, you're keeping it in the family but still! If I did this, the baby I give birth to will be my son but he will be my husband's brother. Can you imagine the trauma this will cause once the child finds out who the real father is? Oh my...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Maybe you could assign a number to that higher risk in percentage form since any pregnancy comes with a risk.

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2006/NR-06-06-01.html

They found a strong correlation between age and sperm DNA fragmentation, with genetic mutations associated with dwarfism gradually increasing by about two per cent for every year of age.

So, 2% for every year of age would mean a 60 year old has a 60% greater chance of fathering a child with dwarfism than his 30 year old son?

http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/23/older-fathers-linked-to-kids-autism-and-schizophrenia-risk/

children born to older dads are more likely to have developmental and psychiatric disorders

it is the father's age that accounts for virtually all of the genetic risk of autism and schizophrenia attributable to de novo mutations.

The study found that a 20-year-old dad passes on an average of 25 new genetic mutations to his child, while a 40-year-old passes 65. For each additional year in the father's age, children gained two new mutations in their DNA, resulting in a doubling of the de novo mutation rate for every 16.5 years of paternal age. A mother transmits about 15 new mutations, regardless of age.

Again, roughly double the risk with a 66 year old compared to a 33 year old. And remember, we're talking about an older man who even when he was younger already displayed the propensity to produce male children with fertility problems.

Grandads as dads is not a good thing, regardless of whether of not it's 'legal'..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In addition, many couples he works with actively seek to use the sperm of a close family member to secure a blood connection and inherit genes from the father’s side of the family. *

they are missing the point that daddy's infertility genes might had actually been passed down from the father-in-law himself.. so why use that same faulty genes to create a baby?

this is just gross in all ways...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Crush ThemAug. 05, 2014 - 03:15PM JST @Frungy Well, to clarify my point, the laws suck and are based on primative gorilla emotions. They belong in the garbage can of history and the clinic should be let off the hook.

These laws are based on the recommendations of professionals who have decades of experience in their fields and have studied the area in tremendous details... but you know better, right?

Maybe you could assign a number to that higher risk in percentage form since any pregnancy comes with a risk. Just how much of a risk are we talking?

Thank you Cleo for fielding this one.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Thank you for the data Cleo. Now we just need to decide the age at which men are no longer allowed to father children.

These laws are based on the recommendations of professionals who have decades of experience in their fields and have studied the area in tremendous details...

@Frungy You can believe that if you want to...as if you have the minutes of Diet meetings right in your hand and somehow know which members were paying attention and which ones had fallen asleep.

But at this point I am going to have to ask you what laws we are talking about exactly. I only read about guidelines and industry rules. And among those I read nothing about age limits.

I mean seriously, if that was such an issue, why the general recommendation for anonymous donors, but nothing about donors that are known so long as they are below a certain age? A father in law could be as young as 40 or even younger.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

A father in law could be as young as 40 or even younger.

The article states that over 80% of the fil donors were in their 60s or older. Not a one was under 50.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Crush ThemAug. 05, 2014 - 11:36PM JST Thank you for the data Cleo. Now we just need to decide the age at which men are no longer allowed to father children.

With medical assistance? In the U.K. if you go for IVF the doctors caution patients carefully about the increased risk of birth defects from older eggs and sperm, and in my experience many would politely refuse to carry out the procedure if they perceived the risk to hit double-digits (i.e. 10%+) for ethical and malpractice reasons, regarding it as an elective procedure with an unnecessarily high risk of a negative outcome. In practical terms that means that most couples over 50 are politely discouraged from getting the procedure, and are in many cases turned away outright.

They're free to try naturally, but doctors are generally not comfortable with high-risk elective procedures.

@Frungy You can believe that if you want to...as if you have the minutes of Diet meetings right in your hand and somehow know which members were paying attention and which ones had fallen asleep.

Oh, a puzzle! I like those! If they were asleep then they didn't vote, so the very phrasing of the question gives you the answer, i.e. that only those who were awake could vote and so therefore the law must be at least informed.

... give me a more difficult puzzle next time, I enjoy them.

But at this point I am going to have to ask you what laws we are talking about exactly. I only read about guidelines and industry rules. And among those I read nothing about age limits.

This is where a little thing called "professional ethics" comes in. For doctors, who are only allowed to practice with a license issued by a board of fellow professional doctors, ethics are more important than laws. You see if that board of medical professionals decides that you did something unethical then your license is yanked and you're out of job.

Medical technology is advancing faster than the legal system, so ethics and peer-monitoring are a practical and reasonable way to handle that dilemma. It does tend to make doctors very cautious as a profession, because while they're being evaluated by a committee of their peers the boards do tend to be rather strict about maintaining public trust and managing public perceptions.

I wouldn't be surprised if the eventual upshot of this is that some doctors have their license to practice suspended or even revoked.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The article states that over 80% of the fil donors were in their 60s or older. Not a one was under 50.

And if the father-in-law was 70, then the chances are that the daughter-in-law was around 40. Double whammy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Frungy Okay, so there is no law then?

BTW, you can sit through hours of discussion, speeches and filibuster and then wake up for one minute and vote. Also, you can be awake and not paying attention. But hey, if there is no such law why are we even talking about it?

With medical assistance?

No. Surely there are many times more natural pregnancies with the same risks than with IVF. Where is the concern?

The article states that over 80% of the fil donors were in their 60s or older. Not a one was under 50.

@cleo I can only commend your attention to detail.

But I note there is a missing detail. The article does not say how many were born with defects. Out of 118 babies born in 17 years of doing this, its a wonder we don't that information. One might think the number is zero.

If so, it might have something to do with careful selection of the individual sperms used? Or was it selective abortion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can only commend your attention to detail.

Reading what's sitting there on the page is hardly attention to detail.

The article does not say how many were born with defects. Out of 118 babies born in 17 years of doing this, its a wonder we don't that information.

I would imagine it's possible none were born with defects because defective babies would be aborted as soon as the defect was identified? After all, the clinic in question made headlines after performing selective abortions...

One might think the number is zero.

Or one might not. In the general run of things children conceived via IVF run a higher relative risk of congenital abnormalities, preterm birth, low birthweight, C-section, induced labour and perinatal mortality, none of which are mentioned here. The C-Section rate in Japan, for example, is between 10% and 20%, so in a batch of 79 babies you would normally expect there to be around a dozen C-sections, a few more in the case of IVF pregnancies (relative risk factor of around 1.56=around 18) and quite a few more in the case of multiple and/or preterm births. But C-Sections are not mentioned at all in the article. Not, I imagine, because the number was zero (that in itself would be well worthy of mention) but because the focus of the article is on where the sperm come from, not what they turn into. The lack of any mention of how many of the fertilised eggs developed problems does not mean that no problems developed.

One thing I still don't understand is why, if the fertility problem was with the father, the choice was made to take the more expensive, risky and invasive IVF route; if the potential mother was healthy, why not go for the cheaper, easier, less risky and less invasive AID route?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reading what's sitting there on the page is hardly attention to detail.

In fact, it is if among all that is mentioned, you remember it later. But I will point out that my statement was that a fil COULD be 40, sometime, some where, not that there was one in this case. It would not be fair to bar him on the basis of your age criteria I think.

After all, the clinic in question made headlines after performing selective abortions...

Again, attention to detail. I have to admit that possibility but of course, I would be happier to know for sure if that was the actual case or not.

In the general run of things children conceived via IVF run a higher relative risk of congenital abnormalities, preterm birth, low birthweight, C-section, induced labour and perinatal mortality, none of which are mentioned here.

I ran across similar information myself, but was focused on other issues. But now you have made me realize that IVF pregnancies are more risky than natural ones, and that is a very good reason to be more concerned and strict about IVF pregnancies.

However, I still cannot support a total ban on the practices done at this clinic without solid proof that the actual pregnancies in question were a problem far greater than with non-father-in-law IVF pregnancies.

You have certainly opened my eyes to some grim possibilities but its the information about actual events that will win the day. I wish we had that information.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the general run of things children conceived via IVF run a higher relative risk of congenital abnormalities, preterm birth, low birthweight, C-section, induced labour and perinatal mortality, none of which are mentioned here.

I'm thinking further ahead, and wondering about the consequences of one IVF baby marrying another and having kids. I suspect that we'll be learning a few hard truths then.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm thinking further ahead, and wondering about the consequences of one IVF baby marrying another and having kids

Or not having kids, because grandad No 1 has once again passed on his infertile-son genes. More customers for the IVF clinics, but by this time grandad No 1 has shuffled off this mortal coil and grandad No 2 is still firing blanks and can't help out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Frungy/Cleo "Women who are 35 and under have a built-in mechanism in their eggs that repairs damaged DNA introduced by the sperm. But that safety net starts to break down after the age of 35. That's why some of the risks of genetic disorders only matter when both the mum and dad are older.

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/a564598/dads-how-your-age-can-affect-your-fertility-and-your-babys-health#ixzz39b7PI2Mr "

In otherwords, the age of the father is nearly irrelevant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's why some of the risks of genetic disorders only matter when both the mum and dad are older.

That is not the same as saying the age of the father is 'nearly irrelevant'. Also bear in mind the fact that once a couple have married, most commonly these days in their late twenties/early thirties, spent a few years trying and failing to make a baby, gone through all the tests and finally decided to try IVF, it's more than likely the woman is well past 35.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The reason they said "some" is because even two healthy 20 year olds can sometimes give birth to someone with defects, not because his age matters with a healthy young woman. You can never eliminated the possibility of defects. That being said yeah if the wife has gotten older too I'd agree it's really not a good idea to go seek supplies from grandpa.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

eliminate*

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the reason for making a baby is economic? Yeah there is nothing wrong! However if the couple wants to build a "family" and considering human morality, this is definetely wrong. If the couple truly love each other they can go on and live happily with or without a child, or they can always adapt. Can the parents consider what will the baby think when he/she grows up and finds out that grand dad is his Father and "daddy" is his Brother!? Come on lets not add another risk of having more angry children because of this method. Majority of parents fufill their own desires more than what's good for their babies and what they will think someday... .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is it my imagination....or has nobody here or in the clinic or anywhere else...recognised the risks inherent in inbreeding? If this is in any way a common practice in Japan, it could account for the decline of the population. Homozygosity....The clinic lacks fundamental essential knowledge and should be closed down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ensnaturae

No. Inbreeding implies a genetic relationship between mother and father. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the cases outlined here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

has nobody here or in the clinic or anywhere else...recognised the risks inherent in inbreeding?

Where do you see inbreeding? The daughter-in-law is not biologically related to her father-in-law, or to her husband's brothers or cousins. There is no more greater risk of inbreeding than there would be in normal reproduction between the husband and wife.

There are plenty of other reasons this process needs to be handled very, very carefully.

The reason they said "some" is because even two healthy 20 year olds can sometimes give birth to someone with defects, not because his age matters with a healthy young woman.

Or some of the risks of genetic disorders matter when either one of the parents is past their prime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites