[Allie_D]

An editorial in todays Herald Sun (for those who couldn't read it without logging in)

Big Business of IVF has human cost

By Melinda Tankard Reist

I DON'T want to discuss the personal IVF journey of Tony Abbott's staffer Peta Credlin. Others can examine the politics of the Opposition Leader's foray into the issue this past week. But there is a new opportunity to talk about IVF. It is difficult to criticise a procedure seen as "life-giving", and tempting to overlook the human costs.

The Opposition Leader says he supports IVF because he is "pro family". But we need to face the reality that despite IVF industry publicity, with photos of smiling babies set to pastel, most couples undergoing the procedure will never see a live baby.

In 2010, there were 61,774 assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment cycles performed in Australia and NZ. Of these, a mere 18.1 per cent resulted in a live baby.

There is a higher risk of miscarriage, terminations for foetal abnormality, stillbirth, a 2.5 times higher rate of death, a high risk of caesarean and pre-term birth, (33 per cent in IVF babies, 7.9 per cent in non-IVF babies) and low birth weight (26.4 per cent, 6.8 per cent in non-IVF babies).

IVF babies have more health problems. A large Ontario study found a 58 per cent greater risk of defects in IVF infants.

There's an increased risk of heart defects (2.1 times), cleft lip/palate (2.4 times) and anorectal atresia (3.7 times). Gastrointestinal problems are nine times higher in IVF babies. A Switzerland study has found abnormalities in the blood vessels of 12-year-olds born through IVF.

There are ethical concerns about the thousands of stockpiled frozen embryos -- about 40,000 in Victoria. Most are destroyed (20,000 discarded in Victoria in 10 years) and many are used in experiments.

Then there is the cost.

Medicare underwrote $217.4 million in costs from July 2011 to June 2012.

The cost of an IVF baby to women aged 30-33 years is $27,000, and for women 42-45 it is $131,000.

Egg extraction involves weeks of psychological and medical testing, followed by hormone injections. A long needle is used to pierce the wall of the vagina, access the ovaries and remove the eggs. The aim is to get as many eggs as possible. I know women who have had more than 20 eggs extracted.

Side-effects of the hormones include hot flushes, emotional turmoil, bloating, visual changes, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancy. Ninety-two IVF cycles in 2010 resulted in one or more of the foetuses being aborted.

An estimated 10 per cent of women develop hyperstimulation syndrome, which can be fatal. There were 206 cases in 2010.

Researchers from the Netherlands have found that women having ovarian stimulation have a twice as high a risk of ovarian malignancies.

Given the lack of adequate safety data, how can women exercise informed consent?

Marketed as the only option, women are often put on the IVF treadmill before others are explored. I know women referred to IVF in their late 20s who, after abandoning the program, went on to have children naturally.

Of course many couples would adopt if it wasn't so costly (up to $50,000 per child) and time-consuming. Australia has been accused of having an anti-adoption ethos, with the lowest adoption rate in the developing world.

In 2011-12, there were 333 adoptions in Australia (149 from overseas) - the lowest on record.

Yes, there is a strong desire for a baby. But research on women's experiences of ART shows many feel physically, emotionally and financially drained, and suffer anxiety, depression and relationship problems.

Women have a right to realistic expectations about outcomes and risks. Some women say they were given hope but not enough information. We welcome every baby born but this huge global enterprise has not cured infertility.

While it may have brought joy to some women with the birth of a baby, it has come with significant physical and emotional suffering for many more.

To advertise failure rates is hardly a winning business strategy. But we cannot overlook the human cost of IVF.

This post has been edited by Allie_D: 13/01/2013, 06:21 PM

[password123]

As someone who has been through ivf, I find that article highly discouraging and negative.
It just leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Don't know why.

[bettinae]

I just read the article and DH and I had two failed attempts at IVF and it was one of the hardest times of our life and then after a year of again more drugs and trying with the drugs and just us we gave up we just didnt have the money to go again and the very next month we fell naturally........ we are due in june 13

I just wonder is it money driven by the FS...?

Its a big debate and a very emotional one at that......

The desire does over rule a lot of the time that maternal instinct is sooo strong well it was for me .....

x

[Guest_Dinah_Harris_*]

Was the article written by someone who has faced the prospect of being childless? The heartache of lost babies?
There ARE a lot of positives when it comes to IVF, as well. I was informed of all the risk factors, suffered a few of them myself, and have two healthy children I otherwise would not have had.
To the best of my knowledge, my children don't have any defects.
These kinds of articles kind of me feel as if doing IVF was selfish and that my poor children shouldn't have been born.

[meggs1]

I dont get the point of the article.

Infertility is a medical condition. It can be related to a genetic condition, a syndrome like PCOS, a disease process like PID, endometriosis, previous cancer treatment etc. IVF is a medical treatment, and has its risks and side effects.

Most of the averse statistics quoted in the article are not due to IVF per se but due to the underlying reason for the infertility, the risk of multiples and higher maternal age.

I don't see the big hoo ha over the risks, side effects, stresses and strains of medical treatment for cancer etc.

[kiwi-girl]

I disliked this article, it very negative and I think it is pushing an adoption agenda. Ivf does not 'cure'infertility but either does adoption. There are plenty of children who are conceived without the assistance of ivf who have medical problems but nothing is said about that. I would not be pregnant right now if it was not for ivf, and we did not go down this path lightly, nor did our specialist push us in it.

There is so much more that can be said but I suspect the writer is not open to hearing other points of view.

[password123]

Was the article written by someone who has faced the prospect of being childless? The heartache of lost babies?
There ARE a lot of positives when it comes to IVF, as well. I was informed of all the risk factors, suffered a few of them myself, and have two healthy children I otherwise would not have had.
To the best of my knowledge, my children don't have any defects.
These kinds of articles kind of me feel as if doing IVF was selfish and that my poor children shouldn't have been born.

Yep. I knew someone would come along and articulate it for me. Especially the last sentence. That's exactly how I felt reading it plus I now also feel like we shouldn't bother going back for number 2

[sqawk]

I would like to see their sources for their stats partic those re congenital defects, c section rates etc. the overall c section rate is about 31% for all women. Considering ivf babies make up only a few percent of babies born, there is no way the c section rate for non-ivf babies is around 8%.

I'm sure there was an Australian study that showed no evidence of increased congenital or genetic defects except for Y chromosome disorders which are over represented in ivf couples as it causes male infertility. And there is no consensus that there is an increase in ovarian or breast cancer risk

I think the author clearly has there own agenda

Other issues raised come down to individual practitioners eg recommending ivf to a young couple with unexplained infertility.

[Guest_Dinah_Harris_*]

Yep. I knew someone would come along and articulate it for me. Especially the last sentence. That's exactly how I felt reading it plus I now also feel like we shouldn't bother going back for number 2

In my biased opinion, you should if you can. It is totally worth it.

[casime]

I've read it a few times, and I've tried to articulate an appropriate response to the author about how I feel about what they have written. Unfortunately, I find it hard to get beyond "go **** yourself."