The world’s first baby conceived using a new technique that combines the DNA from three people has been born. The baby boy was actually born in April, but it is now being reported that he seems to be in good health. The issue of combining three people’s DNA is a controversial one, posing questions about ethics and the possibility of intelligent design of embryos. But in this case, Dr. John Zhang at the New Hope Fertility Center in New York decided it was the more ethical choice.

The parents, who are Jordanian, had already endured four miscarriages and the death of a daughter who lived until the age of six, as well as a baby who only lived for eight months. The problem was that the mother carries genes for the hereditary disease Leigh syndrome, which harms the developing nervous system. It affects the body’s mitochondria, which is the structure that provides our cells with energy.

As a last resort to starting a family, they sought out the help of Dr. Zhang. The mitochondrial transfer procedure has only been legalized in the United Kingdom so far and is not used in the U.S. It basically involves taking the nucleus from one of the woman’s eggs, inserting it in a donor’s egg from which the nucleus has been removed, and then fertilizing it with the husband’s sperm. Zhang created five embryos, out of which only one developed normally. He then implanted the embryo in the woman.

Unanswered questions surround baby born to three parents https://t.co/gJewi2UOYN pic.twitter.com/oDGqRFyXG8

— ScienceInsider (@ScienceInsider) September 28, 2016

Since it is not legal in the U.S., the procedure was carried out in Mexico, where there are no specific regulations. The fact that they had to leave the U.S. to perform the procedure created concern among some experts. But Dr. Zhang defended his decision. “To save lives is the ethical thing to do,” he said.

“This is great news and a huge deal. It’s revolutionary,” said stem cell scientist Dusko Ilic from King’s College in London, where the procedure is legal. He added:

This was an ice-breaker. The baby is reportedly healthy. Hopefully, this will tame the more zealous critics, accelerate the field, and we will witness soon the birth of the first mitochondrial donation baby in the UK.

Creating embryos with three parents has actually been done before with another technique. In the 1990s, scientists tried injecting mitochondrial DNA from a female donor into the future mother’s egg, together with the father’s sperm. But some of the babies born developed genetic disorders so the procedure was banned.

One of the problems with mitochondrial transfer is that it doesn’t guarantee that your child will be healthy. Since the baby will still have some of the primary mother’s DNA, there is a slight risk that the child will inherit the disease that the procedure tried to avoid. Another aspect of the debate is the notion that this type of disease affects very few women, and it would be a better strategy to invest research money into diseases that affect more individuals, or to find a treatment for the disease. Some worry it could also lead to intelligent design of babies, meaning we could maybe in the future pick which traits we want in our children and dismiss others.

But in February a panel of researchers in the U.S. recommended the government allow scientific tests of the technique, deeming it ethical as long as it is used to create male embryos, since they cannot pass on mitochondrial diseases. So maybe a future of more babies with three parents is not that far away.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World’s First Baby Born With New Three-Parent DNA Technique appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Oh My Gosh, They Made A Three Parent Baby!

Five months ago, a scientific miracle was born in Mexico (because the U.S. ain’t about that life), a child born with the DNA of three parents. I know, I know, you must be asking: how does one have a three person baby? Well this family, fearing that their baby would inherit an awful condition from the mother’s side, allowed doctors to create an embryo using the dad’s sperm, the mom’s egg, and donor DNA, by removing the mitochondrial material that carried the disease and replacing it with the donor’s mitochondrial DNA. They essentially deleted the chance of that particular disease from the family’s offspring using this awesome new technique! Crazy, right?

The baby now carries less than one percent of that gene and doctors say it shouldn’t become a problem.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

A Canadian couple decided to go on a nice, warm visit to Hawaii. Jennifer Huculak and her husband Darren Kimmel were three months away from the birth of their daughter when they came to the U.S. on vacation. Unfortunately, a few days after their arrival, Huculak went into labor and gave birth to a baby girl. Because their daughter was born premature, they racked up some expensive hospital bills. Well, actually, expensive is kind of an understatement. To be more precise, they are being charged $950,000 for the medical care they received.

Now, despite being our friendly neighbors to the North, there are many differences between the U.S. and Canada. They have poutine, their milk sometimes comes in bags, and they have free health insurance. As a result of the extreme differences in healthcare provisions, Canadian tourists are required to buy health insurance for their travels here.

That’s exactly what Huculak and Kimmel did. Before going on the trip they not only got permission from her doctor to travel, but also purchased insurance through Blue Cross.

Unfortunately, just a few days into the trip her labor was induced by a bladder infection, which was not only unforeseeable, but even her doctor in Hawaii explained that this kind of thing “just happens.” Huculak’s daughter, Reece, is now healthy, but had a lot of complications due to her premature birth. She spent two months in an intensive care unit, and Huculak spent time in the hospital as well.

Blue Cross is flat out refusing to pay the $950,000 bill, arguing that Huculak had a “pre-existing condition,” which their policy does not cover. She did not have a pre-existing condition or a high-risk pregnancy, both of which her doctor has confirmed and tried to convey to Blue Cross. Kimmel and Huculak even claim that they specifically talked to a Blue Cross Representative who told them that they were covered. Of course, Blue Cross’ response to the media has been pretty unhelpful; a representative said in response to CTV News:

We review each claim carefully and are confident that our decision to decline this claim was done in a considered manner based on the contract terms, the situation which resulted in this emergency medical claim, and a review of recent medical history.

It seems like Kimmel and Huculak are now seriously considering bankruptcy, because they really have no other choice. They simply can’t pay the $950,000 medical bill. Their other option is to continue fighting Blue Cross, but that also is tough given that they’ve been on that path for what would seem to be about a year now and clearly not much progress has been made.

A case like this comes down to the fact that insurance is a fundamentally difficult process to negotiate, particularly health insurance. Even when you think you take all the necessary steps–purchase what you’re supposed to, speak to a representative, and travel after getting advice from a doctor–it’s still possible to basically get screwed by the insurance company. Kimmel and Huculak learned that lesson a very, very hard way.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet the World’s Most Expensive Baby appeared first on Law Street.

A lawyer in Atlanta recently got first-hand experience with a pretty intense double standard. Stacy Ehrisman-Mickle, an immigration attorney in Atlanta, was publicly humiliated by a judge for having to bring her child to court.

Ehrisman-Mickle recently gave birth to an infant. She was entitled to six weeks of maternity leave, despite the fact that she did have a busy schedule of hearings and court proceedings. After her child was born, she tried to move some of the hearings scheduled during her maternity leave, using a doctor’s note to show why. All the judges and opposing attorneys complied with her motions to continue, with the exception of one — Judge J. Dan Pelletier Sr. He denied her request to move the hearing, saying she had no good cause.

So, Ehrisman-Mickle was put in an incredibly tough situation. She had a one-month-old baby, her husband was out of town for work, she had no family in the area, the child was too young for daycare, and she had just moved to town so she hadn’t found a babysitter yet. Essentially, she was left with a horrible choice — do her job or take care of her kid.

Luckily Ehrisman-Mickle was able to talk to her pediatrician who said that as long as she took appropriate precautions, she could show up that day with her baby strapped to her chest. All went relatively well, until the child started to cry, and Ehrisman-Mickle had to calm her down. At this point, Pelletier started scolding her for bringing her child to court. According to Ehrisman-Mickle,

When the [immigration judge] saw me with my daughter, he was outraged. He then questioned my mothering skills, as he commented how my pediatrician must be appalled that I am exposing my daughter to so many germs in court.

Ehrisman-Mickle was humiliated, and understandably so. There are a lot of serious problems with what happened to her — let’s start at the beginning.

The fact that she was not allowed the motion to continue. Motions to continue are very routine, as long as you can show that you have a good reason to file it. Most judges view having a child as a good reason, along with family emergencies and the like. Another requirement is that it’s rescheduled so that only a reasonable amount of time passes. Given that Ehrisman-Mickle only had six weeks of maternity leave to begin with, it’s clear that she could probably could have easily rescheduled the hearing to a different date that fell within the reasonable amount of time requirement.

Pelletier was unreasonable to deny the request, to be sure. But his public shaming of Ehrisman-Mickle is even worse — it’s ridiculous and unprofessional. There were other lawyers in the room with her when she was embarrassed who backed up her story. One of them talked to the Guardian confirming her story, but asked to not be named in hopes that Pelletier wouldn’t find out that it was him.

What happened to Ehrisman-Mickle was disgusting, but it shouldn’t be considered particularly surprising or even unusual. Maternity leave polices in the United States are pretty much accepted as being awful and outdated. We’re one of only a few countries that don’t have paid maternity leave, and the amount of time we give is almost laughably unproductive. That means that women are often put in situations like Ehrisman-Mickle’s, and sometimes they don’t even have the ability to consider taking their child to their job, or the access to a pediatrician to make sure that it would be ok to do so.

Ehrisman-Mickle has filed a complaint against Pelletier, and as of the time this story broke onto the national news scene, had not heard anything further.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawyer Admonished by Judge After Bringing Baby to Court appeared first on Law Street.