Do you believe IVF is ok?

[Ididivfama]

I’ve been reading a lot of the surrogacy threads recently (and I know that is a different topic) but I was curious to mumsnet posters ideas of ethics and ivf. You can see from my name that we ended up doing it, but I won’t be horribly offended by different views. I’m more curious.

Obviously it’s ’unnatural’ as a process and there is the issue of what happens to any extra blastocysts (I use the term blastocyst as they are pre-embryo stage and calling them embryos makes people view it differently - at least I did!) Even so, would you count leaving blastocysts to decay as abortion? I never did but I’ve read that view now so I’m curious as to how many people view it like that.

As is pointed out on the surrogacy threads - no one is ‘entitled’ to have a child. Is that the same for us ivf parents?

I don't think that's true. It's not fair to dismiss the identity issues of donor-conceived children, and act as if they aren't real just because you would prefer it to be so.

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/15/9/2041/2915461

It’s not that straightforward, though. The reality is that you can find a group of adults with any experience in common who struggle in life or have mental health issues and believe that it was X element of their family background that significantly contributed: children of gay parents, children of interracial parents, those raised in very religious backgrounds, those who were homeschooled, children of frequently moving military families and so on and so on. It’s not surprising or unusual that some donor conceived children might feel that that has caused them some issues. There’s no control group of “normality” by which any of us can measure the impact that different family backgrounds might have on people in adulthood, nor is there a way of identifying whether people would have similar issues even if they hasn’t had that experience.

The person that I was responding to said that tens of thousands of donor-conceived children have been asked about their experiences and that "the overarching theme is that they have no concerns from it". So I linked an article where many donor conceived children are asked and they report many issues.

Now you're saying that they might say that it has caused issues with identity but that we shouldn't believe them because they could just randomly have identity issues and are blaming their donor conception? That's a really weird take. Did you read the article?

Here are some quotes - are these people to be dismissed then?

"I needed to know whose face I was looking at in the mirror—I needed to know who I was and how I came to be—it was a very primal and unrelenting force which propelled the search and it was inescapable and undeniable."

"How could doctors (...) think that we wouldn't need or want some honest answers about our heritage? Without all this information, I will never feel complete."

"I have been unable to find info about my donor. I was conceived in 1947. It makes me sad to think I may never figure this puzzle about myself out."

I'd like to know the answer to this too, as there seems to be a whiff of 'only the infertile should adopt'..

It’s also frustrating as you can’t just go and adopt a baby. Otherwise a lot of people would.

@fluffyguineapig you've just quoted 3 reasons which would have been a none issue with the use of contactable donors, which is what I stated in my comment.
if you go into the adults from donor conceived groups where the most people with "issues" around it can voice their concerns, they 99.9% of the time align to someone withholding their donor conception story until later in life, and / or using anonymous or none contactable donors.

No it's not - did you read the article? Several of those participants have contacted their donors - "contactable" doesn't mean that you will actually be able to contact them, or get answers to the questions that you need.

Other children reported being hated by their non-biological parent, being poorly treated or ignored by their donor when they got in touch, feeling not part of their families, struggling with the impersonal nature of their conception and having identity issues. It's unfair to dismiss their voices.

I do have an issue with children being deprived of a relationship with their biological parents while they’re growing up, just so an adult can get what they want. Adoption seems different, as the child is already here.

It’s why I personally didn’t go for IVF - would have needed a donor egg, and I wasn’t prepared to do that, despite really wanting children.

@fluffyguineapig yes I did I think you're willfully trying to ignore what I actually wrote. I've used donor sperm, the donor is more than willing to have open contact should my child wish (turns out she doesn't care or want to know). It's entirely possible to use a sperm donor and for children to have relationships if they want.
also anything regarding being hated by their non bio parent is nothing to do with ivf and everything to do with a single individual who shouldn't have had children.

edited to say that was also a study of sixteen people .. I can guarantee I can find double that amount within seconds of looking at a mumsnet thread about people who have trauma being brought up by their 100% biological family. it's not really relevant to use as a statement that Donor ivf leads to trauma any more than bio procreation

I'm not wilfully ignoring anything, what do you think I have misunderstood? Just because your donor is willing to have open contact doesn't mean all are, and just because your child is fine doesn't mean that all donor conception is fine.

It's cruel to dismiss the voices of these donor conceived children and doubt their experiences just because you don't want your choice to be an ethical issue.

It's beyond doubt that many donor conceived children have identity issues.

@fluffyguineapig you are trying to change facts to fit your narrative rather than use the voices of the people who actually have experience of it. as I said - those who have anonymous or inability to make contact with their donors and those who have had their conception story hidden are the voices you hear with problems. Which is resolvable by people being open and honest about their donor use and ensuring they use contactable donors.
Maybe you meant to say you are against anonymous donation rather than being against donor in general?

What facts have I changed?

I am amplifying the voices of the people with lived experience - I have provided many quotes from these children.

Being open and honest with a child about their conception circumstances does lead to better outcomes than secrecy or later in life reveals, but you can clearly see that many of the difficulties faced by these children are issues of identity because of not growing up with their biological parent, and these issues aren't solved by simply being open.

In answer to your edited question: no, I'm against all egg and sperm donation, not just anonymous egg and sperm donation because I believe that it's not right to deliberately deprive a child of their biological parent by design.

In this modern era where anyone can buy a DNA kit it would be a really daft idea to not be honest about using donor gametes.

Beyond that I wonder if on a societal level such easy access to generic information has changed how we see our identities.

@fluffyguineapig
OK i think u must be a reading different study to the one you posted as it literally says that them not being able to find out about their biology etc is the cause of concern. which is a none issue with a contactable donor. and doesn't follow through with the reasoning of you being against donation at all .. as no one is deprived and have the choice to find or have a relationship with their donor or not if they so wished.
anyway wasn't intending to hijack a thread so I'll leave it there.

... it says that not being able to find out about their biology is one of the issues. What about the other quotes that I posted?

@fluffyguineapig
Here are the 3 you posted.
added in capitals not because I'm shouting but just so you can see response..

1. needed to know whose face I was looking at in the mirror—I needed to know who I was and how I came to be—it was a very primal and unrelenting force which propelled the search and it was inescapable and undeniable."

KNOWN OPEN DONOR MEANS SHE WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHOSE FACE SHE IS LOOKING AT...AND CAN SEE HIM IF SHE WANTED TO.

"How could doctors (...) think that we wouldn't need or want some honest answers about our heritage? Without all this information, I will never feel complete."

KNOWN OPEN DONOR WOULD MEAN THEY HAVE ALL THIS INFO ON HERITAGE AND CAN ASK THEIR DONOR ANY DIRECT QUESTIONS THEY WISH

"I have been unable to find info about my donor. I was conceived in 1947. It makes me sad to think I may never figure this puzzle about myself out."

KNOWN OPEN DONOR OBVIOUSLY MEANS SHE WOULD KNOW ALL SHE WANTED TO KNOW.

That was my first message, and then you said that these would all be solved with a contactable donor. I then said that just because a donor is legally contactable doesn't mean that you can actually contact them, and raised other concerns from the article including:

Poor relationships with their non-biological parent
Being poorly treated or ignored by their donor when they were contacted
Not feeling as if they were a part of their family
Struggling with the impersonal nature of their conception
Identity issues

There was also at least one person talking about not feeling able to share their identity because they felt like they had to shield their non-biological parent from the shame of infertility.

@fluffyguineapig
I think the fact you haven't experienced being a donor/Donor conceived person or recipient parent is vital here as you don't seem to have a full understanding of the different ways of donor/ivf etc working. which is fine, but does mean you probably can't argue the best case as you simply don't have that lived experience.

Poor relationships with their non-biological parent - plenty of people have poor relationships with their parents. this isn't donor specific.

Being poorly treated or ignored by their donor when they were contacted - again as above can be one person with poor behaviour because if they have previously agreed to open donation then up front they are willing to be contacted in future and its up to the recipient parents to ensure they are choosing a donor who is open, willing and of decent character in the first place.

Not feeling as if they were a part of their family - never heard from thousands of conversations with DCP that they have this feeling when they have been made fully aware of it from the beginning and have been celebrated as being valued members of their family. Obviously if recipient parents are hiding IVF in shame or however it might have been 40 years ago this might be an issue but not really in 2024 in the UK especially for those being responsible recipients and following all latest guidance.

Struggling with the impersonal nature of their conception - this is a one off individual response and do you genuinely consider your parents having sex often to feel comfortable with your life?
who has a more impersonal nature of conception, a child whose mother got pregnant after a drunken fumble down an alleyway or the DCP whose parents went through months of throughout desperately wanted and planned IVF.

Identity issues - pretty generic for a lot of people again very unlikely when they have a known donor they can speak to if they want

Yes, I agree with IVF and no, not being able to have children doesn't mean that nature is sending some kind of hidden messages. Good luck telling this to women who suffer from endometriosis, adenomyosis, blocked fallopian tubes etc or men with low or no sperm count etc and implying they are less deserving because whatever stupid reason some come up with.
Some couples can get pregnant naturally, some need medical intervention. I didn't know you were supposed to be "perfect" in order to procreate and it has to be natural conception lest you might be judged.

It's not just ivf. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that pregnancies in older women can increase your risks of certain types of cancer. I had my kids at 39 and 43 and it's definitely worth it.

I don’t see any ethical issue with IVF. I would not personally explore it as an option, but I have no negative thoughts on people who do go on to have children IVF.

I think egg and sperm donation run it to very similar issues as surrogacy, and think all three methods are ethically dubious, surrogacy being the most so.

I think the opinions on MN are definitely not representative of the wider feeling on IVF, thankfully. Seem to be a lot a smug, “got preggers without even trying” privileged and judgmental people on here. I’ve only ever experienced acceptance at doing IVF. I find it so sad that an infertile couple, gay couple, or single person who want a child, will love that child more than anything and is in a position to provide for that child should be judged for having a medical intervention to help them do that because it’s “not natural”. If someone loses their leg in an accident and they’re (very luckily because of the advanced scientific society we live in) able to get a bionic leg fitted would people judge them and think they shouldn’t get it and instead spend the rest of their life limping about on one leg cos it’s “not natural” 🙄 or because it would just be one too many legs in the world….?

And for the whole “they won’t know their biological parent” argument, what about all the shit dads out there who disappear when they get a woman pregnant?

I think IVF is fine unless it's very selective and not ethnical. I would only agree with egg and sperm donation if it was actually a donation. People shouldn't be paid to do it. Young women struggling for money are targeted. Egg 'donation' is such a gruelling process and can lead to long term issues for young women just so older women can get pregnant. I'm in my 20s and I've had targeted ads online for egg 'donation.'

I've been on mn 15 years. I know loads of IVF-conceived children and have never heard anyone discussing IRL if it was OK. I can't imagine seeing a thread like this back in the early days. I'm sure the site has changed but maybe there's a kind of moral shift too along with the increasingly hardline views against reproductive rights? Feels pretty hostile to even be asking it, but I'm obviously unusual here.