Fertility Treatment To Be Rationed
Britgirl | April 6, 2007 | 3:29 pmThe Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has announced new restrictions on what form of treatment infertile couples can receive and the types of procedures that doctors are allowed to perform to help women have babies. The Observer article of April 1 states:
“The HFEA will unveil a series of measures based on an approach called ’single embryo transfer’ under which women normally receive only one embryo, except for a minority – including older women – whose medical condition means they need two embryos to stand a realistic chance of conceiving.”
The regulator wants to cut down on the unacceptably high number of IVF-assisted multiple births that are a result of women or their doctors choosing how many embryos to implant.
While there has been cheering in some quarters, there have been howls of dismay from others, who see these restrictions as giving would-be mothers “less choice” in getting pregnant. A backlash is threatened, with some suggesting that the only way to prevent it is to provide more IVF on the NHS (the National Health Service, Britain’s tax-funded health system).
Currently, most women wanting IVF have to go private, which means they can pay approx $10,000 a cycle. And, according to the same article, about 30,000 women in the UK undergo IVF each year.
I find it hard to understand the fixation by some on IVF, particularly when the option of adopting a child exists. This self-serving drive to re-populate the gene pool, no matter what state it’s in is something I’ll never understand. It’s not just about having a child, the key is having a child that you give birth to.
I must have missed the episode when having a child became a right or when it became a disease on the same level as cancer that necessitated freely available, tax-funded treatment.
Such is society’s conviction that a woman should be enabled to become a mother by reproducing herself by any means possible, that women and couples are encouraged to keep trying for a baby via IVF. No other options seem to be on the table. In addition to adoption, being childfree is an option, but that’s never considered. While people are gushing sympathetic to you pouring your life savings into producing a baby, they have no such sympathy should you say you’ve decided to be childfree if you can’t conceive.
Here are some sobering facts:
- Half of all the mothers of IVF twins give birth prematurely
- The babies born are below the minimum ideal birth weight of 5lbs
- The babies have a much higher risk of dying, heart and lung problems, cerebral palsy, and developmental difficulties
- Many of the babies spend time in special neo-natal care units in hospitals
- Currently, in the UK women under 40 can have two embryos transferred. Those over 40 can have three
- Up to half of the 10,000 multiple births in Britain every year are the result of assisted conception
Yet many women and doctors are prepared to take these risks, in pursuit of having a baby.
The HFEA is, at last, putting medical safety above the rights of childless women to choose how many embryos are transferred. And clinics will be told to reduce the number of multiple births from 25% to 10% over time.
It’s about time too.
As Dr Allan Pacey, a fertility expert at Sheffield University said:
“A multiple pregnancy can no longer be regarded as the ideal outcome.”
No, and it never should have been.
Lest we forget, the most recent story of multiple births happened in Canada – see below.
The risks to the babies, and the actual problems they had seemed to be lost in the gasps of wonder at someone having six kids all at once, regardless of how they were created or how many ended up dying. But who is looking out for them? Not the would-be parents, that’s for sure.
All they want is a baby.
Related posts
Woman Gives Birth To Sextuplets in British Columbia
The Fertility Industry – Good For Business
Technorati Tags: multiple births, IVF, childfree
Thanks for another excellent post. And like you: “I must have missed the episode when having a child became a right or when it became a disease on the same level as cancer that necessitated freely available, tax-funded treatment.”
I believe that a certain percentage of all premature babies continue to have medical problems that last a lifetime. And, although I do not resent in any way being taxed to fund the ongoing health problems of naturally conceived premature babies as they age from cradle to grave, I do not feel the same way about those conceived through IVF. I’m most certainly not advocating that publicly funded health care be withheld from them as obviously they had no choice in the matter but I’m wondering if others feel the same way too.
P.S. WOW! An editing function for comments I’m grinning from ear to ear.
[...] Fertility Treatment To Be Rationed [...]
My question is whether these desperate women even know why they want a child so badly. I get the feeling that they don’t.
We didn’t even know all the medical complications for the baby when we decided against IVF. I just knew that it would be terribly expensive, very invasive for my body, and that the actual pregnancy was potentially painful and risky. We decided not to go that route, that maybe there was a valid reason why trying to do something we couldn’t achieve naturally was not a good option, and I’ve found that we’re quite happy with our lives as is. The fact that wanting to adopt was not tugging at us as a possibility also cemented my feeling that letting things unfold as they were was a good choice. I have a friend who chose IVF and another who adopted, and both of them went through some difficult times as a result of their decisions. I don’t regret giving both options a pass, and though I seem to get more sympathy from people for “not being able”, they do often press me for reasons as to why I didn’t follow through with adoption or IVF. Some things aren’t meant to be doesn’t always satisfy their curiosity, but it does satisfy me. I wish a lot of the infertile couples could realise that- it would possibly give them peace and allow them to pursue another direction in life, whether that’s adoption or fostering or just enjoying each other.
One in 50 babies born through IVF in Australia is stillborn or dies within a … and is slightly higher than the 18.7 deaths per 1000 IVF births in 2003
http://www.truthtv.org/newstext.asp?newsid=3177
some of the chemicals used to make multiple eggs, they can kill you, its rare, but.. it can happen
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article605202.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4440573.stm
Temilola Akinbolagbe, 33, from Plumstead, south London, collapsed at a bus stop after developing Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS).
The potentially fatal form of the condition affects about one per cent of women undergoing IVF, although a less severe form is more common.
Experts believe this was the first such death from OHSS in the UK.
Mild and moderate forms of OHSS have been reported to affect up to 20% of women undergoing ovarian induction, which mimics the production of normal hormones.
TT – Thanks – I would agree that all premi babies need extra care. As far as IVF babies are concerned, because they had no choice in the matter they have to have care – probably more so – and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the parents who know (or should know) the risks and go ahead regardless of what the babies will go through. I have no sympathy for them at all. My next post talks to that point.
Strawberry Muffin – welcome and thanks for dropping in and commenting. You’ll be interested in reading my follow up article then…. where I make some suggestions as to their motivations. See if you can guess just what they might be
.
Mercurior – thanks for posting these very interesting links! Very informative. The more I read things like this the more I find it hard to understand why women are encouraged to run risks of this kind.
Ann-Marie – “Some things aren’t meant to be doesn’t always satisfy their curiosity, but it does satisfy me”.
I feel that is what’s the most important – it has to be. I also feel that those who question why a woman doesn’t pursue IVF is often very ignorant of what it actually entails. Which begs the question of why they would expect people to go through with it.
I too feel that society is doing a disservice to infertile couples by pushing them down the path of IVF, particularly given the risks. It seems any other options are not even considered until fortunes have been spent on IVF, emotions are exhausted, relationships have been strained, dreams have died and everything else seems to have failed. Of course, there are huge fortunes being built on the IVF industry, which is probably why women are not discouraged.
I mention this in my follow up article which will publish tomorrow.
My husband and I are perfectly satisfied with no children, although we would love to have been able to have children. I had Scarlet Fever when I was young which made me sterile. I feel sorry for babies born premature by women who use IVF. Women who can’t have children should be satisfied because it’s Gods Will. He has His reasons. There’s hundreds of children to adopt, that need love and care. I have neices, nephews and a great niece that keep me full of joy. I agree with you Ann-Marie. Some things aren’t meant to be and that satisfies me!