Like It Is

The birth of sextuplets today in Vancouver Canada, is being hailed as a miracle. I scratch my head as I read the article in the Toronto Star. Am I missing something here?

For whom is it a miracle? For science? For the march forward of IVF?

When I think of these six premature children I feel very very sad for them.Those tiny children are struggling for their lives, yet they didn’t ask to be here. When I think of the mother, my blood just boils. As soon as I heard of these multiple births I just knew it had to be IVF. I hadn’t yet read the story. But, actually no, not just IVF. Apparently, if you can’t afford IVF, you can go the cheaper route of superovulation
But first this is what struck me the most:

• Obstetrician Dr. Timothy Rowe, who heads the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of British Columbia, said today that he is deeply concerned about the chances of survival for the six babies.
• Rowe said the six premature infants will face several health challenges, including underdeveloped lungs and blindness.
• The four boys and two girls were born at B.C. Women’s Hospital on Sunday, almost 6 1/2 months into their mother’s pregnancy.
• The six tiny babies were likely conceived through the use of fertility drugs, he said.

Instead of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment for infertility, it’s likely the mother underwent superovulation, Rowe said. That’s when a woman who is unable to naturally have children injects a group of drugs over an eight to 10-day period so her ovaries can produce several mature eggs during a menstrual cycle. Unlike during in vitro fertilization, however, doctors cannot control the number of resulting embryos the woman may end up carrying.

“It’s impossible to know how many multiple embryos result from superovulation because most wouldn’t survive, meaning a woman who may start with six could have twins or just one child, Rowe said. “The incidence is actually probably higher than we think but the pregnancies never actually continue as viable pregnancies,”.

In other words, it’s a crap shoot.

During in vitro fertilization treatment, drugs stimulate the production of several follicles in a woman’s ovaries, with the egg cells being fertilized with sperm in a lab. Of the resulting embryos a limit of two or three are typically then transferred to a woman’s womb. Couples who end up with several embryos are advised to terminate some of them to increase their likelihood of having healthy babies.

But some women, because of religious or other reasons, choose to carry all the embryos, Rowe said.

“This is the kind of thing that we’re studiously trying to avoid . . . because so much of it is out of our hands,” he said of the sextuplet births. “If we can control the number of babies that start off then so much the better. “It’s one of the key arguments that’s being made against superovulation programs in Canada and for substituting IVF exclusively because then you can control the multiples much better.”

However, IVF treatment, including the cost of drugs, can run to $8,000 and up, something that many couples desperate for a baby can’t afford.

“We haven’t gone so far as Britain, where it’s been mandated that you can only put back two embryos with IVF or in the Scandinavian countries, where they’re angling to put back one,” Rowe said.

“If Canada had a system that insured IVF, or fertility treatment, then they could control what goes on and they could reduce the need for us to do multiple embryo transfers and we would take away the need for superovulation.”

The Canadian government should follow Australia’s example and require all provinces to cover the cost of IVF for infertile couples, Rowe said. Ontario pays for three IVF treatments for women whose ovaries are blocked.

So there you have it, readers.

I don’t see much of a miracle here – unless you count the fact that the babies were actually born, being so premature.

Is it a miracle for the tiny babies who are premature, under weight and whom may never be healthy? For the mother - who will no doubt be looking for and needing financial support for her new brood, since I would bet that six babies was not was she was expecting to have to cater for. Or for the tax payer, whom, in one fell swoop will have six more mouths to support? Just like that. (And that’s without the call for the Provinces to cover IVF – which means that tax dollars -my tax dollars I should say– would be paying for IVF. A fucked up idea if there ever was one, but one, I am sure many are considering).

Let’s call this what it is. An accident of superovulation I suspect.

But, wait, here’s something even more classic from the good doctor:

“In my considered opinion the best thing to do is for everybody to maximise reproductive research because if we don’t somewhere between 2020 and 2040 Canada’s natural population will start to shrink and we’ll be relying on immigration to support all the old folk and why would people want to come to a country where they have to support the old folk? So there’s a political firestorm coming up.”

Was it only a few weeks ago when one of my readers (Carisa) mentioned the risk of multiple births when undertaking IVF? It was, in fact in response to my article on the IVF business which I’ve linked to below. You can read her response, and the response of other commentors, which is scarily spot on given the news today. I suppose maximizing reproductive research will continue to include the hit and miss of multiple births. Have six embryos. Why not. Sure, it’s a crap shoot, the whole thing, but you, in your desperate search for your own child, just might end up with one. Or two.

Or even six.

The Fertility Industry - Good for business?