“Tell me about yourself” is an issue most of us dread hearing on a primary date or job interview. Yet, I’ve avoided it my entire life. My identity was a confusing topic of conversation until recently. Growing up with a Puerto Rican mother and a Dominican father of Haitian descent, identity was a subject of debate. To my mother, I used to be Puerto Rican and Dominican. To my father, I used to be black—easy. Choosing learn how to discover was like selecting between my parents. A alternative no child should should make.

There was a relentless war happening in my head about who I used to be, and entering the Latino community didn’t make it any easier. By the cultural standards of the time, I wasn’t “Latina enough.” My hair was considered “bad hair”, I actually have no curves and I didn’t speak Spanish until I used to be twenty.

As a young girl growing up in the 90s, there was no representation of ladies who shared my traits in my community. I discovered this by watching soap operas with my mother. These women had the traits I so desired on the time. Curvy bodies, long straight or wavy hair, and Spanish that flowed off the tongue. Not only did I not feel “Latina” enough, I also didn’t feel pretty.

Despite my growing insecurities, I discovered solace in other women outside of my community. Hilary Banks, the character I played in , became my salvation. She was the primary and only woman I knew who embraced her natural hair. Her curl texture was just like mine. Her confidence was seductive. I watched her endlessly as she appeared as herself in her best outfits. Part of me hoped that in the future I could wear my hair down in its natural state and be as confident as she was—even when it was all an act.

My Dominican-Haitian grandmother wasn’t as inspired by Hilary’s hair alternative. “Pero, mira eso pelo! Ella es bonita, pero tiene pelo malo,” she would say. It means, “Look at her hair! She’s pretty, but she’s got bad hair.” Her comments only served to calm my identity crisis: “Hilary and I have similar features; she’s got bad hair, so I must have bad hair,” I believed. In other words, “I shouldn’t wear my natural hair because who I am isn’t accepted, so I can’t be enough.”

This repetitive narrative began to materialize physically. I relaxed my hair to cover my roots, wore push-up bras to feel more “curvy,” and deciphered my mother’s Spanish. Outwardly, this was considered “lightening up.” Inwardly? It was a cry for help.

Deadline Afro-Latino was created by political scientists Anani Dzidzienyo and Pierre Michel Fontaine in 1970. It was a term developed to discover West African slaves who were delivered to Brazil. After continued research, it was discovered that there was African ancestry in the Caribbean.

By 1800s the colonial census confirmed that Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Panama, Venezuela, and Nicaragua were mostly African American. However, I used to be not aware of the term until my late twenties. In 2020, to be precise, at the peak of the Black Lives Matter movement.

In the chaos of anti-racism, I used to be rediscovering who I used to be. Afro-Latina became a term that liberated me in more ways than one. There was finally an area in my community where my roots were accepted. This revelation made me feel protected to acknowledge my Spanish and Haitian roots. I not had to decide on. It was an internal and physical liberation that naturally blossomed into radical acceptance. Plus, seeing other celebrities—like Zoe Saldana, Tatyana Ali, La La Anthony, and Sarunas Jackson—claim their Afro-Latina identities helped me find beauty in who I’m.

Being Afro-Latina is an attractive experience. We come in all shapes, sizes, and colours. Our food and spirits are energetic, as are our textured coils, our contagious energy, and our addiction to celebrating life in all ways, all the time. There is not any mistaking after we are in the room, after we proceed to shine a light-weight on those around us—proudly shouting, “Wepa!” along the best way. And even after we are silent, one thing will all the time remain true—we’re black, Latina, beautiful, and proud. I do know that I’m. Always have been, never have been.

AND new study Research conducted in Canada has shown that women who comply with carry a toddler to term and give birth through surrogacy are at greater risk of complications than other pregnant women.

These women were two to thrice more more likely to develop health problems, such as postpartum hemorrhage and preeclampsia. They were also more likely to offer birth prematurely.

As the number of individuals increases in Australia and elsewhere, having children through surrogacy, how can we learn from these findings?

First, what is surrogacy?

Surrogacy is a situation by which a girl becomes pregnant and gives birth to a toddler (or children) for one other person or couple as a part of a planned arrangement.

They are there two sorts of surrogacy.

The first case is one by which the pregnant woman is the total biological mother and the kid was conceived using her own egg (sometimes calledtraditional“or “genetic” surrogacy”).

The second case is when the pregnant woman is not the genetic mother and the kid is conceived from one other woman’s egg (so-called “surrogate pregnancy”).

Surrogacy involves transferring an embryo or embryos into the uterus of a girl who has agreed to hold the kid to term and give birth to it using in vitro fertilization (IVF). Surrogacy is currently essentially the most common form surrogacy agreement australia.

The new study focused specifically on surrogacy.

What did scientists do?

The study was published within the journal Annals of Internal Medicinewas retrospective. This implies that it used existing data which are routinely collected from people using health services.

The study included 863,017 women who gave birth to a single child between April 2012 and March 2021 (multiple births weren’t included).

The researchers compared outcomes in women and children who became pregnant naturally, those that became pregnant through in vitro fertilization, and those that became pregnant through surrogacy, where the lady had no genetic link to the kid.

Most of the youngsters were conceived naturally, 16,087 pregnancies were achieved through in vitro fertilization, and 806 women became pregnant through surrogacy.

The researchers found that pregnant women using surrogacy services had a 7.8% rate of great perinatal complications, greater than thrice the speed for women who got pregnant naturally (2.3%) and almost twice the speed for women who got pregnant through in vitro fertilization (4.3%).

These risks included postpartum hemorrhage (lack of excessive blood after delivery), severe preeclampsia (hypertension related to pregnancy), and serious postpartum infection (sepsis). There was also a better risk of getting a baby born prematurely (before 37 weeks) in surrogacy situations.

The researchers tried to take note of differences between the three groups, such as age, weight, health problems, and socioeconomic status, which might affect the chance of complications for pregnant women and their babies, but they still saw these troubling results.

Why might the chance be higher?

Previous studies specializing in the outcomes surrogacy has yielded mixed results. However, it is thought that the rationale the risks to the lady and baby may be greater in surrogacy may be because the infant is not genetically related to the lady.

Pregnancy has a robust impact on immune systemDuring pregnancy, a girl’s immune system are modified in order to not reject the developing child.

An unbalanced or overactive immune response can contribute to pregnancy complications including premature birth and preeclampsia. Having a baby with different genetic material can affect a girl’s immune response while pregnant and increase the chance of complications.

Some restrictions

The study only included women who had a single child, so we have no idea the outcomes when multiple pregnancies occurred. However, multiple pregnancies It is common within the case of surrogacy, and multiple pregnancies are related to increased risks for women and children.

Transferring multiple embryos increases the chance of getting twins and triplets It is forbidden within the context of surrogacy in Australia (and discouraged in IVF treatment more broadly). But Australians using overseas surrogacy services they often ask for it.

Furthermore, the study included a comparatively small variety of pregnant women using surrogacy services (806), meaning there was a better risk of statistical bias and limited ability to detect rare cases.

Ethical questions

Some increasing number Australians are selecting to have children through surrogacy. This is because combination of things including a decline in adoptions, women postponing the choice to have children and a rise in social acceptance of same-sex parenthood.

Australia only allows altruistic surrogacywhere a girl who agrees to bear a toddler for others receives no remuneration.

However, in some countries women are paid to get pregnant for others (commercial surrogacy). Concerns concerning the exploitation of women through industrial surrogacy are so high that Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory have made it illegal in order that residents can travel abroad to utilize industrial surrogacy.

Despite this, most Babies born in Australia consequently of a surrogacy arrangement, children are born from foreign, industrial surrogacy.

Despite some limitations, these studies suggest an increased risk of surrogacy pregnancies and childbearing. It seems essential that the potential increased risk is made clear to women considering having a toddler for another person and to prospective parents.

Given the rise in surrogacy worldwide, it is essential that more research is conducted on the potential health and other effects of this practice on women and children. Health, Ethics, and consequences for human rights should inform legal framework, policy and practice.

Vaccination is one of essentially the most effective ways to guard individuals and the general public from disease. Vaccines are typically given to healthy people to stop disease, so the bar for safety is ready high.

People profit from vaccinations at a person level because they’re protected against disease. However, for some vaccines, strong community uptake results in “herd immunityThis means that people who cannot be vaccinated can be protected by the “herd.”

As with any prescribed medication, vaccines may cause unwanted effects. In the rare case where COVID-19 vaccines actually caused certain serious injuries (this system listed certain conditions for which an individual could claim), Australians could seek compensation. But that It’s ending at the top of this month.

From now on, Australians is not going to be in a position to claim compensation regardless of fault for any injury brought on by a vaccine – COVID-19 or some other type of vaccine.

Why pay compensation for vaccine damage?

Fortunately, serious vaccine injuries are rare. Most will not be the result of a flaw in the vaccine’s design, production, or delivery, but are the product of small but inherent risks.

As a result, people who are suffering serious vaccine injuries cannot obtain compensation through legal mechanisms. This is because they can not show that their injuries were brought on by negligence.

Vaccine injury compensation programs provide compensation to individuals who’re seriously injured after receiving properly manufactured vaccines.

COVID Vaccine Application Program

In 2021, in recognition of the rare risk of serious injury following vaccination and to support the rollout of the COVID vaccination program, the Australian Government introduced COVID Vaccine Application Program.

The aim was to supply a straightforward, streamlined process for compensation for individuals who have suffered moderate or severe vaccine injuries, without the necessity for complex legal proceedings. It was limited to TGA-approved COVID vaccines and specific reactions.

The Australian government has he said this system will be closed this month and claims must be submitted before September 30, 2024

Following the closure of this system, there’ll not be a vaccine injury compensation program in Australia.

Australia is lagging behind on the international stage

Australia lags behind 25 other countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, which have comprehensive vaccine injury compensation programs regardless of fault. cover each COVID and non-COVID vaccines.

These schemes are based on the moral principle of “reciprocal justice”. It holds that individuals who act not just for themselves but additionally for the community (for the nice of the “herd”) should be compensated by that very same community if their actions have led to harm.

So what’s happening in Australia now?

In Australia, individuals with non-COVID or COVID vaccine injuries who will not be covered by the present claims system must pay their very own costs for his or her injury or access publicly funded healthcare. They is not going to receive any compensation for his or her injury and suffering.

The Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provides financial support to access treatment for individuals with everlasting and significant disabilities. However doesn’t include temporary vaccination-related injuries.

Participants with post-vaccination injuries because of this of participating in a vaccine clinical trial are compensatedThis typically includes income compensation, personal assistance expenses and reimbursement of expenses incurred in reference to the incident, including medical expenses.

In Australia we even have a robust requirement for people to receive routine vaccinations through statutory requirements resembling No Jab No Pay (which requires children to be fully vaccinated in order to receive government advantages) and, in some states, No Jab No Play (which requires children to be fully vaccinated in order to attend day care).

Countries like ours, where vaccinations are mandatory but there aren’t any compensation programs for rare vaccine injuries May be breaking the social contract through lack of protection for the person and the community.

Time to create an Australian system

Australia’s vaccination system is one of essentially the most comprehensive in the world. Our government-funded national vaccination program provides free vaccinations for infants, children and adults against at the very least 15 diseases.

We even have a lifelong vaccination registry and a comprehensive vaccination safety surveillance system.

The recent Senate session committee recommended:

The Australian Government is considering the design and principles for compensation under a no-fault compensation scheme for Commonwealth-funded vaccines in response to a future pandemic event.

Vaccines are designed to be very secure and effective. However, the ‘insurance policy’ of an injury compensation scheme, if designed and communicated properly, should construct trust and confidence in healthcare employees and most of the people to support our national vaccination programme. This is especially essential given reductions regarding the use of routine vaccines.

How is that this imagined to work?

A compensation program for vaccine injuries regardless of fault could be financed through a vaccine levy system, just like made in the USAwhere excise duty is imposed on each dose of vaccine.

An effective compensation program for vaccine injuries must be:

• availablewith low legal and financial barriers
• transparentwith clear decision-making processes, compensation frameworks and financial responsibilities
• currentwith short, clear time frames for decision-making
• fairand other people receive appropriate compensation for the harm they suffer.

Legislation to introduce and allocate funding to support Australia’s Injury Compensation Program for all vaccines is long overdue. Draft National Vaccination Strategy 2025–2030 suggested the likelihood of exploring the feasibility of introducing a no-fault compensation scheme for all Australian Government-funded vaccines, without committing to such a scheme.

Australia’s vaccine protection program, covering all vaccines in the national immunisation programme, not only pandemic vaccines, should be seen as a key part of our public health system and a social responsibility commitment to all Australians.