Publisher Health

I did not know that anything was unusual until I was seven months pregnant. Inside the exam room, the technician dimmed the lights and stood astride her mysterious station. She worked her probe into the hard rind of my belly and offered selections from her trove of professional small talk: Do you know the sex? Have you picked a name? I wanted to slice the technician out of the scene, to watch my baby on the screen with silent focus, but I also wanted to seem normal and good. So when she said, “He’s sticking his tongue out,” I said: “Awwww. … ”The technician fussed with the machine. She twisted its dials and clacked at its keys and then left the room. The gel felt thick on my skin. I missed my phone. I wondered if there were any new work emails in there. When the technician returned, she ordered more poses and captured more shots. I had reported to the doctor’s office for a routine scan, but as in a dream, the routine kept repeating. I watched the technician map my baby’s face for secret reasons. For an hour I lay on her table, cold dread pooling inside my body.The doctor rapped on the door. He told me that he had seen something he did not like. He wondered if it could be a case of — he said a strange word, then another, then the word “syndrome.” The kidneys and torso were measuring large, he explained. The baby was growing very fast. The tongue was protruding from the mouth. It’s not supposed to do that. The information passed uncomprehendingly through me. I would be assigned a genetic counselor, a prenatal psychologist, an obstetrician who specialized in high-risk pregnancies. Amniotic fluid would be extracted from my uterus and sent for a battery of genetic tests. I asked the doctor to write the syndrome’s name on a piece of paper. “Don’t Google it,” he advised me. Of course, as soon as I seized my phone, I did.Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome, or BWS, is an overgrowth disorder that affects one in 10,000 births. Its features manifest most significantly in childhood. Babies born with BWS may exhibit macrosomia, or excessive growth; they may have hemihypertrophy, or asymmetrical growth; most of them have macroglossia, or an enlargement of the tongue. They may have pink capillary abnormalities on the forehead, creases on the ears, an abdominal wall defect that causes organs to develop partly outside the body and an elevated risk of certain childhood cancers. I first read this list on an officious-looking website, on my phone in the car outside the prenatal-imaging center. The site offered the caveat that not every child exhibited every trait, but my tears short-circuited the screen and it kept jumping back to the list: baby cancer, baby cancer, baby cancer.For seven months, pregnancy books, and the apps that vie to replace them, had offered me abundant scenarios on which to focus my anxieties. They drilled me on the importance of intentional movement and calculated nutrition, on the dangers of deli meats and cat litter, the risks and benefits of amniocentesis. But now my prenatal helpmeets had little to say. When I typed “birth defect” and “fetal abnormality” into my pregnancy app, it replied: “Please try searching for something else.” The last section of the fourth edition of “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” is titled “The Complicated Pregnancy,” and when I flipped to its end, I found that it did not discuss this syndrome or any other, though it did acknowledge how important it was not to discuss syndromes. “Most women sail through pregnancy and childbirth without any complications,” it says. A reader with a “problem-free pregnancy” was told to “save yourself some unneeded worry” by closing her book now. My pregnancy was the idea from which other pregnant women needed to be spared.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Estrogen is the Meryl Streep of hormones, its versatility renowned among scientists. Besides playing a key role in sexual and reproductive health, it strengthens bones, keeps skin supple, regulates sugar levels, increases blood flow, lowers inflammation and supports the central nervous system.“You name the organ, and it promotes the health of that organ,” said Roberta Brinton, a neuroscientist who leads the Center for Innovation in Brain Science at the University of Arizona.But appreciation for estrogen’s more expansive role has been slow in coming. The compound was first identified in 1923 and was henceforth known as the “female sex hormone” — a one-dimensional reputation baked into its very name.“Estrogen” comes from the Greek “oestrus,” a literal gadfly known for whipping cattle into a mad frenzy. Scientifically, estrus has come to mean the period in the reproductive cycles of some mammals when females are fertile and sexually active.Women don’t enter estrus; they menstruate. Nevertheless, when researchers named estrogen, these were the roles it was cast in: inducing a frenzy and supporting female sexual health. Now, estrogen is gaining recognition for what may be its most important role yet: influencing the brain.Neuroscientists have learned that estrogen is vital to healthy brain development but that it also contributes to conditions including multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s. Changes in estrogen levels — either from the menstrual cycle or external sources — can exacerbate migraines, seizures and other common neurological symptoms.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

In 2018, Timberline Knolls, an upscale mental health center for women that once attracted pop stars like Demi Lovato, was in trouble. At least four residents said a therapist had sexually assaulted them on the facility’s wooded campus outside Chicago.The therapist was arrested, and the center’s corporate owner, the large national chain Acadia Healthcare, said it had made changes “to assure that it won’t happen again.”But dangerous conditions persisted for years at Timberline Knolls, an investigation by The New York Times found, in part because of pressure to enroll more patients without hiring enough employees.Two former residents sued Timberline Knolls last year, claiming that an aide had raped them. Acadia had hired the aide despite a criminal record that included domestic violence and gun charges.Another resident — a child who was a ward of the state — nearly died after she overdosed on medication that had been left out in a common area, according to former staff members. And two other women died by suicide after being left unsupervised, a rare occurrence at mental health facilities.“We were extremely understaffed,” said Cecilia Del Angel, who worked as a behavioral health aide at Timberline Knolls until last July. Several other former employees echoed that sentiment. The patient deaths, Ms. Del Angel said, were “entirely preventable.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

18 minutes agoShareSaveJosh ParryLGBT & identity reporterShareSaveGetty ImagesThe sister of James Lee Williams, better known as The Vivienne, says her family only learned of the drag performer’s battle with ketamine addiction after watching Drag Race UK.In an interview with BBC Newsnight, Chanel Williams, 35, says James had kept the struggle – including being hospitalised because of the drug – a secret from the family “to protect them”.The 32-year-old died in January, with the family later announcing the cause of death as a cardiac arrest caused by taking ketamine.Chanel says her brother had “a really long period of sobriety” before relapsing, something she says the family only discovered after James’s death.”A big thing for me now is, had I asked the questions or just looked for the signs, would the outcome be different?” she says.The Vivienne was praised for speaking openly about ketamine abuse and the struggle of becoming sober while appearing on Drag Race UK, which aired in 2019.Chanel is now hoping to continue that legacy by campaigning to encourage people to talk openly about substance abuse.She believes the stigma around addiction, and her brother’s successful career on stage and TV, meant James didn’t seek professional help.”He’d spoken openly on Drag Race about the battles he’d had with addiction, and he’d come through the other side of that,” she says.”He was at the height of everything he was doing and I think because he’d said it in such a open platform, it’s really difficult to come back and say you’re struggling again.”Chanel says she’s concerned about the rise in young people taking ketamine, which she believes is in part because the drug is cheap and easily accessible.James’s body was found in Chorlton-by-Backford, near Chester, on 5 January.Police confirmed there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the death, and a post-mortem examination revealed an “unnatural cause of death.”A full inquest is scheduled for June 30. But in March, the family told BBC News that the star died from cardiac arrest caused by the effects of taking ketamine.Since making the announcement, they’ve been working with substance abuse charity Adferiad to raise awareness and tackle stigma around the drug, something Chanel says is an “important step” in those facing addiction.”It’s hard for me because I think if that stigma wasn’t there, would my brother have sought the help he needed?” she says.”To think that if we’d known, or if he’d have felt able to talk and really reach out for the help that was needed, the outcome could’ve been different.”That’s why we’ve shared James’s story.”Chanel and her family are also campaigning for the government to re-classify ketamine from its current status as a Class B drug to Class A, which would put it in the same category as heroin and cocaine.”There’s a portion of younger people that maybe look at that classification and think it’s less harmful than other drugs,” she says.”But it’s not just about reclassification […] it needs to include education, police, health, to really raise awareness. We need a strategy around drug usage and drug deaths in the UK.”Chanel WilliamsThe UK government is currently seeking experts’ advice on the re-classification of ketamine, with Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson writing to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) expressing concern over the rise in young people taking the drug.A spokesperson for the Home Office said: “Our thoughts are with James’s family and friends, and all those affected by this tragic death, which has sadly reinforced once again the serious dangers of taking ketamine.”We will not hesitate to act when the ACMD reports back, and in the meantime, we will continue to work across health, policing and wider public services to drive down drug use and stop those who profit from its supply.”Chanel said it had been difficult to share the information about how James had passed away but that the family “talked about what we can do”.”The Vivienne left a legacy as a trailblazing icon and this, I feel, is James’s legacy. To help other people,” she says.”If I can help one family to not feel what we are feeling, then it’s all worth it.”You can see the full interview with The Vivienne’s sister Chanel on BBC Newsnight at 10:30 on BBC Two and BBC iPlayer.

The justices heard arguments in a constitutional challenge to a task force that decides what treatments are covered at no cost.The Supreme Court appeared divided during arguments on Monday over the constitutionality of a provision of the Affordable Care act that can require insurance companies to offer some types of preventive care for free.At issue is a part of the 2010 health care law that established a task force that determines certain kinds of preventative health measures that insurance companies are required to cover.Two small Christian businesses that provide health insurance to their employees, along with some Texas residents, had sued the federal government, challenging the constitutionality of the task force.In particular, they had objected on religious grounds to the task force’s approval of no-cost H.I.V. medications, claiming the drugs “encourage and facilitate homosexual behavior.”But the case, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, could have broader implications for tens of millions of Americans who receive a wide array of free health care services, including cancer and diabetes screenings, medications to reduce heart disease and strokes, and eye ointment for newborns to prevent infections causing blindness.A ruling in favor of the challengers could mean that insurers would no longer be required to offer these health services for free.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

The White House has been hearing out a chorus of ideas in recent weeks for persuading Americans to get married and have more children, an early sign that the Trump administration will embrace a new cultural agenda pushed by many of its allies on the right to reverse declining birthrates and push conservative family values.One proposal shared with aides would reserve 30 percent of scholarships for the Fulbright program, the prestigious, government-backed international fellowship, for applicants who are married or have children.Another would give a $5,000 cash “baby bonus” to every American mother after delivery.A third calls on the government to fund programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles — in part so they can better understand when they are ovulating and able to conceive.Those ideas, and others, are emerging from a movement concerned with declining birthrates that has been gaining steam for years and now finally has allies in the U.S. administration, including Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk. Policy experts and advocates of boosting the birthrate have been meeting with White House aides, sometimes handing over written proposals on ways to help or convince women to have more babies, according to four people who have been part of the meetings who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.Administration officials have not indicated what ideas — if any — they might ultimately embrace. But advocates expressed confidence that fertility issues will become a prominent piece of the agenda, noting that President Trump has called for a “baby boom” and pointing to the symbolic power of seeing Mr. Vance and other top officials attend public events with their children.“I just think this administration is inherently pronatalist,” said the activist Simone Collins, referring to the movement to reverse declining birthrates.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

32 minutes agoShareSaveGrace DeanBBC NewsShareSaveGetty ImagesTwo years ago, Dan Somers started to experience a series of strange and unexplained symptoms. He had severe chest pain, was unable to keep food or even water down and kept “chucking up bile”.Though he had a sense that something might be wrong, Dan was reluctant to seek medical help. “I’m really stubborn when it comes down to going to the doctors,” the 43-year-old from Ipswich tells the BBC. “I didn’t want to be a burden.”Dan’s pain continued to get worse, until he was “near enough screaming on the floor in pain” and had to take time off work. It was the worst pain he’s ever experienced, he says upon reflection.But “I honestly thought I could try and fix it,” Dan recalls.It was his wife who finally managed to push Dan to see the doctor.His GP sent him straight to hospital, where he was diagnosed with a gallbladder infection and spent a week recovering. He was told he had been close to getting sepsis.Dan’s story mirrors those of other men who’ve told the BBC they’ve also put off seeking medical treatment – often until their symptoms became unbearable or until a loved one pushed them to get help.Dan SomersIt’s well known that men go to the doctors less than women, and data backs this up.The NHS told the BBC it doesn’t release demographic data about GP appointments. But according to the ONS Health Insight Survey from February, commissioned by NHS England, 45.8% of women compared to just 33.5% of men had attempted to make contact with their GP practice for themselves or someone else in their household in the last 28 days.Men were more likely to say they weren’t registered at a dental practice and “rarely or never” used a pharmacy, too.They also make up considerably fewer hospital outpatient appointments than women, even when pregnancy-related appointments are discounted.Men are “less likely to attend routine appointments and more likely to delay help-seeking until symptoms interfere with daily function,” says Paul Galdas, professor of men’s health at the University of York.This all affects men’s health outcomes.Experts say there’s a long list of reasons why men might put off seeking medical help, and new survey data from the NHS suggests that concerns about how they are perceived come into play.In the survey, 48% of male respondents agreed they felt a degree of pressure to “tough it out” when it came to potential health issues, while a third agreed they felt talking about potential health concerns might make others see them as weak. The poll heard from almost 1,000 men in England in November and December 2024.Society associates masculinity with traits like self-reliance, independence and not showing vulnerability, says social psychologist Prof Brendan Gough of Leeds Beckett University. “Men are traditionally supposed to sort things out themselves”.”It’s worrying to see just how many men still feel unable to talk about their health concerns,” says Dr Claire Fuller, NHS medical director for primary care. She notes that men can be reluctant to seek medical support for mental health and for changes in their bodies that could be signs of cancer.”GPs are often the best way to access the help they need,” she adds.’Men are inherent problem-solvers’Kevin McMullan says he’s learned from working for men’s mental health charity ManHealth that men want to solve their own problems. He says he struggled with his mental health for years before he finally got help.”You want to fix it yourself. Men are inherent problem-solvers and how you are feeling is a problem in the same way that having a flat tyre is a problem,” says Kevin, 44, from Sedgefield in County Durham.This is something that the Health Insights Survey indicates, too. The data suggests that when people were unable to contact their GP practice, men were significantly more likely than women to report “self-managing” their condition, while women were more likely than men to go to a pharmacy or call 111.”Many men feel that help-seeking threatens their sense of independence or competence,” Prof Galdas says.Kevin McMullanProf Galdas points to other factors deterring men from going to the doctors, like appointment systems that don’t fit around their working patterns.Services also rely on talking openly about problems, he suggests, which doesn’t reflect how men speak about health concerns – and there are no fixed check-ups targeting younger men.Women, in contrast, are “sort of forced to engage in the health system” because they might seek appointments related to menstruation, contraception, cervical screenings or pregnancy, says Seb Pillon, a GP in Bolton.And they’re largely in control of organising their family’s healthcare, too. For example, roughly 90% of the people who contacted the children’s sleep charity Sleep Action for help in the last six months were mums, grandmothers and other women in the children’s lives, its head of service Alyson O’Brien says.Because women are more integrated in the healthcare system – through seeking support for both themselves and their children – they’re more health-literate and are often the driving force behind their partners seeking medical help, according to Prof Galdas.And men just have a different attitude towards healthcare, Dr Pillon says. He believes many see it solely as treatment – solving their problems – rather than preventative. Men are, for example, less likely to take part in the NHS’s bowel cancer screening programme. As Prof Galdas says: “men often seek help when symptoms disrupt their ability to function.”‘Massive waste of time’For Jonathan Anstee, 54, from Surrey, it took his symptoms getting drastically worse for him to book a doctors appointment, after months of stomach aches and blood in his stool.”The pain got a lot worse and the blood got a lot worse,” Jonathan says. “But even when I went to the doctors, I was sat in the waiting room thinking ‘this is a massive waste of time’.”Jonathan AnsteeHe was diagnosed with bowel cancer in September 2022.Throughout his life he’d generally avoided doctors appointments, Jonathan says. And as a father, “you’re used to worrying about your kids and not yourself,” he says. Going to the doctors for himself, not his children, seemed “a bit sort of indulgent”, he says.Last year, Jonathan was told his bowel cancer was stage four.Having blood in his stool had felt too embarrassing to talk to his friends and family about at the time. Jonathan’s advice to other men is: “There is absolutely no need to be embarrassed. The alternative could kill you – literally.”‘Connection can make a big difference’In recent years, support groups for men with cancer and mental health conditions have sprung up.Matthew Wiltshire started the men’s charity the Cancer Club after being diagnosed with bowel cancer in 2015. He died in 2023.Matthew felt there wasn’t a space “where men were openly talking about what it’s like to go through cancer,” his son, Oliver Wiltshire, says. “He also noticed how much of the emotional load was being carried by the women around him.”Through the Cancer Club, men can message online and attend sports events together.”Whether it’s practical advice, honest chat or just knowing someone else gets it, that connection can make a big difference,” Oliver adds.Paul GaldasExperts say that while men’s attitudes towards healthcare are gradually changing for the better, more work still needs to be done.Prof Galdas believes men will engage more if services are redesigned to meet their needs – proactively offering support, having flexible access and focusing on practical action to improve mental health issues.”There’s good evidence from gender-responsive programmes in mental health, cancer care, and health checks showing this consistently,” he says.For Dr Pillon, it’s adding general health checks for men in their 20s to get them more used to accessing medical care. They’re already available through the NHS for people aged 40 to 74, but introducing them for younger men who might not otherwise go to the doctors would “embed the idea that you can come and use health services”, he says.If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this story, information and support can be found at the BBC’s Action Line.

People with dementia often forget even close family members as the disease advances. “It can throw people into an existential crisis,” one expert said.It happened more than a decade ago, but the moment remains with her.Sara Stewart was talking at the dining room table with her mother, Barbara Cole, 86, in Bar Harbor, Maine. Ms. Stewart, then 59, a lawyer, was making one of her extended visits from out of state.Two or three years earlier, Ms. Cole had begun showing troubling signs of dementia, probably from a series of small strokes. “I didn’t want to yank her out of her home,” Ms. Stewart said.So with a squadron of helpers — a housekeeper, regular family visitors, a watchful neighbor and a meal-delivery service — Ms. Cole remained in the house she and her late husband had built 30-odd years earlier.She was managing, and she usually seemed cheerful and chatty. But this conversation in 2014 took a different turn.“She said to me: ‘Now, where is it we know each other from? Was it from school?’” her daughter and firstborn recalled. “I felt like I’d been kicked.”Ms. Stewart remembers thinking that “in the natural course of things, you were supposed to die before me. But you were never supposed to forget who I am.” Later, alone, she wept.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

46 minutes agoShareSaveBeth RoseBBC Access AllShareSaveRNIBBlind content creator and TikTok star Lucy Edwards says she’s “so excited” to be on a health kick to undergo IVF for gene editing purposes, but reveals the dilemma she faced in deciding to screen out the very gene that made her blind.”I’m so broody,” the 29-year-old tells the BBC Access All podcast.Lucy and her husband Ollie married at Kew Gardens two years ago and are now ready to start a family – but there are complications to consider.Lucy has the rare genetic condition Incontinentia Pigmenti (IP) and lost her sight due to this aged 17, just months after meeting Ollie.The condition runs through the female line – Lucy’s mum has IP although isn’t blind, her Grandma did too and her great-aunt was blind in one eye.Lucy is totally blind, but, if she had been a boy, she may not have survived.The abnormal IP gene is located on the X chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes, while males have X and Y, meaning the appearance of the gene can be more catastrophic in male pregnancies.”My grandma actually had nine miscarriages,” Lucy says.This is one of the facts that played into the complicated decision Lucy and Ollie made to opt for pre-implantation genetic testing, a special type of IVF where embryos are created outside of the body and screened for the genetic condition. Only those embryos which are not affected by the condition are placed back into the womb.Without medical intervention, Lucy says there would be four potential outcomes to any pregnancy she carried: A healthy and unaffected boy or girl, an affected boy she would likely miscarry or who would be born with severe brain damage or an affected girl.She pauses, then laughs: “That sounds horrible, doesn’t it? That’s me.”And that’s the quandary. IVF will edit out the very thing that has made Lucy who she is today – a journalist, advocate, author and broadcaster.It is an emotive topic of debate. The most well-known conversation is around Down’s syndrome and the number of women who choose to abort a pregnancy once their baby is tested and diagnosed as having the condition. The question is around the value people place on other peoples’ lives which may not look like our own.In 2021 campaigner Heidi Crowter, who herself has Down’s syndrome, challenged legislation allowing foetuses with the condition to be aborted up until birth. She took her case to the High Court arguing the rules were discriminatory to disabled people who could live a good life. She lost the case and the subsequent argument she made at the Court of Appeal. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) later rejected it as well, but Heidi continues to campaign to have the law overturned.It is something Lucy is very aware of and she and her husband have spent a long time considering.”It’s understanding that it is removing that part of me that makes me, me,” Lucy says. “It’s such a personal decision and I know that I’m opening myself up for possible designer baby discussions, but I know I’m doing it for the right reasons.” Lucy says first being diagnosed with IP and then losing her sight as a teenager were both traumatic events and she wants to minimise the likelihood of miscarriage to limit any future traumatic load.She says she found it impossible to “knowingly” consider having a baby naturally once she knew the science was available to give a baby the healthiest start possible.”If I had a baby and, unknowingly, I had a gorgeous, gorgeous baby with disabilities, I would be so thankful, so happy and amazed but knowingly having this gene? That’s why we’re having IVF.”IP doesn’t just cause blindness, it can also cause severe epilepsy and more difficult outcomes. Lucy says having the option to ensure complications were not passed on felt like both a responsibility and a privilege previous generations did not have.”Whether we like it or not, we have to be responsible here. Maybe a responsible issue for you, if you have IP or another genetic disorder, is to have a child naturally and we are not judging you in any shape or form, this is just our decision.”In response to their openness around this decision comments were overwhelmingly positive from Lucy’s fans which she thinks might be because she is so “disability positive” in her everyday life – “I love being blind,” she frequently states.But Lucy says responses have been different around the world. When she was working in Japan and her content was reaching audiences unfamiliar with her story, she faced a lot more trolling.”I got a lot of abusive comments that go into my spam filter questioning why I would be a mother,” she says. “I know that I’m going to get a lot of abuse, but I’m just going to block them.”I’m going to be OK. All I think about is the other mothers that have come before me who are competent, capable and resilient.”Getty ImagesLucy, who is known for her How Does A Blind Girl… series of videos, is overjoyed by the prospect of IVF but she has also been frank about the fact she currently does not qualify, owing to her current weight, a sensitive element of IVF treatment that many keep to themselves.NHS guidelines specify your Body Mass Index (BMI) must be 30 or under to qualify – a healthy BMI is considered to be between 18.5 and 24.9.”I need to be a BMI of 30 and I’m very open that I need to lose 9kg,” Lucy says. “I’ve already lost 15kg.”Her health journey has involved swimming, lifting weights and many runs with Ollie tethered to her as her sighted guide. She has also found a love for batch cooking nutritious meals which she posts about on all of her channels on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube and the workarounds she has developed as a blind cook.”I wanted a positive representation of losing weight online because it’s all about this blinking jab,” she says, referring to weight loss injections. “I just wanted to lose it healthily, have lots of nice food, talk about meal prep and just smile and run.”Once she hits the required BMI, Lucy will qualify for three rounds of IVF on the NHS.She will contact her consultant, after which she has to “spit in a cup” and offer up her DNA for genetic testing and analysis.Over a period of about three months, a genetics team will “make a bespoke test to find the gene within my eggs,” Lucy explains.Meanwhile Lucy will inject herself with trigger shots to stimulate the follicles within her ovaries to increase the number of eggs produced which will be retrieved, and then made into embryos with Ollie’s sperm.The embryos will then be tested so only ones without the IP gene will be possible candidates. Those embryos will be “shuffled about” so Lucy and Ollie don’t know which will be selected in terms of gender or other genetic qualities, and implanted into Lucy, who will carry the baby to term.Lucy can’t wait for the moment she holds her baby in her arms.”It will never stop being a thing within my mind that this gene is being eradicated,” she admits. “But I am very happy in my decision.”A few days ago Lucy posted on Instagram, her cardigan tightened at the back with a hairband to make it smaller and fit.”I’ve lost so much [weight] that my clothes are too loose now so we had to tie it up with a bobble,” she tells her followers.”Fingers crossed [we’re] only a few weeks away from ringing the clinic.”You can listen to Lucy Edwards on BBC Access All on BBC Sounds. Subscribe and email your thoughts to accessall@bbc.co.uk

5 days agoShareSaveAlison HoltSocial affairs editorJames MelleySenior social affairs producerShareSaveBBC”A victory for common sense” or “devastating” –  the contrasting reactions to the statement by five Supreme Court judges that legally the term “woman” means a biological woman.Behind the different responses lie many of the often bitter and vitriolic arguments that set the country on a long, tricky road towards Wednesday’s unambiguous judgement.When the highest court in the land ruled that sex is binary – meaning legally it should be interpreted as referring to either a biological man or a biological woman – it was providing clarity that had been missing from such conversations for years.Words like “woman” and “sex” had become loaded with different meanings depending on your viewpoint. Language that for centuries had been uncomplicated and accepted, became a battleground.The judgement is intended to draw a line under that.It argues that for the Equality Act to be consistent, the term woman has to mean a biological woman. That does not include biological males, even if they have certificates to say they have changed gender.This means that where there are, for instance, women-only spaces, then a biological man who identifies as a woman cannot use them. That includes changing rooms, toilets, women’s refuges, single-sex hospital wards and anywhere designated as for one sex only.How much change that will mean in practice will be set out in detailed guidance. Until then, there remain lots of questions and some confusion – and that is challenging in an area where views are so polarised.From jubilance to devastationIt was Baroness Falkner, the woman who heads the watchdog that regulates equality laws, who described the judgement as a victory for common sense.She added it was only such a victory if you recognised trans people, “that they exist, they have rights, and their rights must be respected”.She also told the BBC about the abuse she had faced since taking over as chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in 2020.She had previously told the Times that women had the right to question gender identity, and that had led to some very personal abuse from those who disagreed with her.”I had not realised how difficult the job would be,” she said. “It has taken a toll, but if you are in public life you have to take that.”Getty ImagesThe second response to the judgement was from the trans rights campaign group TransActual, which described the Supreme Court judgement as devastating.One of its activists, Jane Fae, told the BBC the judgement felt like a physical body blow, and that it was as if trans people were being excluded from society.”Today we’re feeling very alone” she said. “What does this mean – can I use this loo, can I do that, can I do the other?”In contrast, the women’s groups who fought the case feel vindicated and jubilant.Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at the campaign group Sex Matters, says the ruling is “incredibly important for the half of humanity who need single-sex spaces”.Women’s groups argue that the ruling is important for reasons of privacy, safety, dignity and discrimination.The Supreme Court case was brought by a group called For Women Scotland. It wanted to overturn Scottish legislation which said 50% of members on public boards should be women – and trans women were included in their definition.Getty ImagesThe group lost its case in Scotland’s highest court but appealed to the UK Supreme Court. The case was heard towards the end of last year.”What we wanted was clarity in the law – when something is described as a single-sex service, a single-sex space, that this relates to biology,” Susan Smith from For Women Scotland told the BBC.Beginnings of the culture warsOver time the arguments over how a woman is defined had become increasingly angry, bitter and divided, because the stakes were high for all involved.For transgender people, who say they often face victimisation and harassment, the battles were rooted in attempts to win better legal protection.”Legal gender recognition is essential for trans people to enjoy the full spectrum of rights each of us is entitled to, including safety, health and family life,” according to Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of Amnesty International UK.  The charity opposed For Women Scotland’s case in the Supreme Court.The question of how to achieve legal recognition rose to prominence in 2002 when two judgements at the European Court of Human Rights found the UK was breaching human rights by failing to legally recognise transgender people in their acquired gender.This eventually led to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, which allowed a trans person to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This recognised their preferred gender rather than their biological sex, allowing official documents like birth certificates to be changed to reflect that.Getty ImagesBut it was a long-winded process requiring two doctors to sign it off and for the person to “live in their acquired gender” for at least two years. Only about 8,000 people have applied for a GRC since they came into being, according to government figures.Campaigners began calling for the process to be simplified. In a response to a 2020 government consultation on amending the GRA, Stonewall, the LGBTQ+ rights organisation, called for a “move to a de-medicalised and straightforward legal gender recognition process”.Gradually these calls gained momentum.In 2022, the Scottish government introduced a law that would allow people to “self-identify” in their desired gender. This was later blocked by the UK government and eventually dropped as a Scottish policy.As the rights of trans people were being debated, women’s groups started pushing back about what that meant for biological women.The meaning of words like “woman” and “sex” took on new significance, if someone who was biologically male had a certificate that identified them as a woman for legal purposes.Under the 2010 Equality Act, sex was a protected characteristic, and so was gender reassignment. With the very meaning of those categories in dispute, legal experts said it set the protections of one group against the protections of another.The complexities mean courts and tribunals have frequently been called on to arbitrate.And social media has often provided a starting point for angry disputes, connecting and amplifying voices, and in many cases, leading to more entrenched viewpoints. It had become a culture war.How the debate began to changeIn 2019, tax expert Maya Forstater lost her job because she tweeted that she did not believe people could change their sex. She said biological sex was immutable and not the same as gender identity.  As a result, her work contract was not renewed. Her employer said it wanted to build an inclusive workplace.She lost her case at an employment tribunal case, but an Appeal Court judge later ruled that gender critical beliefs were protected by the Equalities Act. In 2023, she was awarded £100,000 compensation for unfair dismissal.It was a high-profile battle through tribunals and courts which put employers’ policies on inclusion under the spotlight and raised questions about whether by protecting the rights of one group, another was being discriminated against.PAMs Forstater went on to set up the campaign group Sex Matters, and was among those celebrating outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday.There have been other similar cases brought against employers since then. Sex Matters lists 11 settled or ongoing cases on its website.But other high-profile cases have also shaped the broader debate.In March 2020, 23-year-old Keira Bell took legal action against the only children’s NHS gender clinic, saying she should have been challenged more by medical staff over her decision to transition to a male whilst a teenager.Although she eventually lost her case, it started a chain reaction, which led to a shake-up of gender services for children and young people.And in 2021 the Sussex University professor, Kathleen Stock, quit her job after being accused of having transphobic views. She had published a book that questioned whether gender identity was more significant than biological sex.Getty ImagesShe denied being transphobic but was subjected to a student campaign to remove her from her post. The university was later fined for failing to uphold freedom of speech.These and other cases put an uncomfortable spotlight on a debate that many preferred to ignore or dismiss as mainly happening on social media, because it was too tricky and using the wrong language could lead to abuse.Yet fundamental questions were being raised about freedom of speech, how we treat each other and how you define a woman. The need for clarity had become overwhelming.In terms of equality law, the Supreme Court ruling provided that.For women’s groups there is sheer relief that biological facts will now drive decisions.But for many trans people there is distress. Even though they still have protections under the Equality Act, for many it does not feel like that. They worry that harassment will increase.Activist Charlie Craggs, who is a trans woman, told the BBC it was really sad that this tiny community of less than 1% of the population was being “thrown under the bus”.Supreme Court ruling in practiceCrucially, the ruling provides a clear framework for what equality laws mean. The EHRC says it is “working at pace” to update its guidance, and expects that to be ready by the summer.It has already made it clear that if a single-sex space, like a toilet or changing room, is women-only, that means biological males who identify as women should not use it.It says instead that trans people should use their “powers of advocacy” to campaign for third spaces, such as unisex toilets.And it has said it will pursue the NHS if it does not follow the latest ruling.Health service guidance on single-sex wards currently says that “trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation, the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use”.Currently this allows trans women to be offered beds on women-only wards.The NHS says its policy is under review.Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption says that while the ruling means organisations can exclude trans women from women only facilities, they are not necessarily obliged to do so.He told Radio 4’s PM programme that in sport, for example, it would be down to individual governing bodies to decide who is allowed to compete in women’s sport.”They could decide to allow trans women to compete on the same basis as biological women, some sporting authorities do, although I think that in light of the latest judgement, they would be wise to say so expressly in their rules,” he said.British Transport Police has been the first body to actually change its policies. It says strip searches of people in custody will be carried out by officers of the same biological sexIt means a trans woman would be searched by a male officer, and a police officer who is a trans woman would not be able to search a biological woman.Getty ImagesThe domestic violence charity Refuge says the ruling will not change the way it operates.Its chief executive, Gemma Sherrington, says, “we remain firmly committed to supporting all survivors of domestic abuse, including trans women”.But for many businesses, sports clubs and other organisations it is too soon to know what this will mean in practice.They will need to see the detailed guidance from the Equality Commission first. Until then it is difficult to know how much change, if any, they will need to make or what new issues might arise.Some organisations will also have to decide whether they have the space and money to provide so-called third spaces or unisex facilitiesFor trans people there is also a lot of uncertainty. They will have been used to using spaces which correspond to their gender identity – changing that may be difficult and, for some, frightening.The Equality Commission expects to publish its new statutory code of conduct by the summer. Only then will these questions begin to be answered.More from InDepthTop picture credit: Reuters BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.