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?

Exactly, TheTiger well said.

To be honest, with something as sensitive as IVF I’m inclined to disregard anyone’s opinion who hasn’t faced it. Easy to say you don’t agree with it or don’t want it funded with your 2.5 naturally conceived children.

@KnowsWhatAGiraffeIs that’s a weird argument. Why should I as a sub-fertile person be punished for those parents at the school gates who smugly tell me they only have to look at their husbands to get pregnant while popping out baby no 5? Why can’t they show a bit more self control rather than I be denied a child at all?

That's an interesting view - do you think it's ok to conceive naturally but not using IVF etc?
Eg if i wanted a 2nd child it might happen in one year with IVF or in 5 years naturally. I'd then be older and the child could need more resources with a natural conception (not saying definitely, but there may be an increased risk).

The population number doesn't know if a child is born by IVF or naturally!

And it's very easy to want to bend the rules of nature and move heaven and earth and destroy the planet and use up our scant resources when you want a baby. That yearning is deeply rooted in biology. 🤷‍♀️ Those of us who didn't have a happy ending are not impartial here either.

I totally agree with you, I am extremely lucky to have my DC and sorry if I didnt make that clear.

So by that arguement, my partner and I shouldn’t have just one child between us via IVF, but the perfectly fertile can turf out 4+ kids simply because they can?

I think that's what I thought when I was TTC many years ago. These days, I suppose I think it's more inevitable that lots of women will conceive naturally. On a global scale, enough women are having more children than the world can support. So those of us who can't shouldn't mess with that because we're well overdue a population correction to save the planet, and if we can do it naturally that's probably for the best.

Ok so what about people who naturally have 5 disabled children? Is that better?
(really don’t want to be offensive here I’m just curious). And yet one healthy self funded ivf baby not ok?

As we all know a lot of pregnancies are down to luck anyway.

I think there is a difference between keeping someone alive and out of pain to creating a new life though

I mean with that attitude, you could even say , well you broke your leg, tough.... guess you're going to starve now

I think we don't know enough about the long term health impacts of being an ivf baby. This will only come out over the next 50 plus years. And possibly only in the next generation. I presume this is being researched but I don't know.

You don't die from acne, or sweating excessively, or knee pain, or cataracts.
But we still treat those - because they're medical conditions. Infertility is also a medical condition and - just like the conditions mentioned above - can have a catastrophic effect on a person's mental health and general wellbeing.

If you don't like the idea of destroying the extra embryos (if you are lucky enough to have some). I think you can donate them to childless couples who can't use their own eggs and sperm. Of course that has it's own ethical dimension, but it doesn't feel like condemning the unused embryos.

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. You're intentionally twisting my words by adding in things you've invented that I never said so you can choose to get offended about a decision you made. I never said people who can conceive naturally ought to have as many children as they like. That is a preposterous conclusion that undermines my fundamental point that too many children are being born and the planet cannot support them.

For the very reason you describe, IVF wasn't for us and we adopted instead.

Most people don’t have 10 children via ivf and they are more likely to be less of a ‘strain‘ on society if you think the parents have paid for it and therefore have the income/education to support themselves.

I don’t personally think a couple should have 0 children instead of 1-2 because of the entire world’s population, especially when the UK actually has a declining population. It will make incredibly little difference to the world and can be your life worth living vs not (obviously I would hate someone to feel that way but people do, including me).

@Flopsythebunny

I don't have a problem with ivf.
I do have a problem with taxpayers paying for it

What about tax payers paying for hospital treatment from injuries that come from sports such as rugby or skiing, where the patient has chosen to play a dangerous sport?
What about tax payers funding the education of children?
I don't really see how IVF is any different to those?

We had trouble conceiving but we decided we wouldn't try ivf if we exhausted other options. We would have accepted our child-free status and not had any further interventions. I don't agree with it being provided on the NHS.

I am not bothered about the blastocysts. I have no issues with abortion.

I don't agree with surrogacy under any circumstances.

@Flatulence I absolutely agree 100 percent. It took us 4 years to have our son; recurrent miscarriages. He was a medical trial success story in the end.

No one can understand the pain of infertility if they haven't been through it they can't. I was on my knees; was refused NHS mental health support though as I was assessed and told I didn't have a mental health condition and hadn't attempted suicide so didn't qualify.

This is a wild statement. By that logic, we shouldn't have any medical intervention.

Childbirth not progressing well? No c section, just let them die. Developed cancer? No chemo, just let them die. Your child is suffering from asthma? Natural selection mate, good luck with your breathing.

My personal view is that straight IVF with your own sperm & eggs is perfectly ethical. Many attempts will fail, as natural attempts to get pregnant do. Day 5 blastocysts which are not used have no consciousness and are not yet a human.

IVF with donor sperm/eggs raises some ethical concerns for me. People may donate altruistically (as people do altruistic surrogacy) but many will receive payment for their eggs/sperm or discounted fertility treatment themselves. Ultimately it's a choice, but one people may feel forced into for financial reasons.

So because it's not a route you wanted to take you would support taking that away from couples who do?!

You won’t die from a broken arm, but it will be painful. Shall we just leave them all broken?

I have no issue with the ethics of IVF. I don’t believe it should be paid for on the NHS. There are plenty of things which impact on mental health which the NHS doesn’t offer treatment for, hence why cosmetic surgery isn’t freely available.

I also don’t have a problem with paid surrogacy, or paid egg, organ and blood donation. Our bodies are our own and people, even poor people, should be able to decide if they want to carry a baby or sell parts of themselves for money.

And conversely women do die from having a baby. Is medical treatment only to stop people dying?

This is an interesting one. Some could argue that having a child is not a ‘medical need’, but then you could argue women who cannot enjoy sex or are incontinent or are suffering from some menopause symptoms do not have a ‘medical need’ because it’s not killing them. But the point is you’re looking at their mental health needs too and quality of life.

For a lot of people not being able to procreate makes their whole life pointless. To others, that would be having their genitals removed and never being able to have sex OR being in a wheelchair and not able to walk, despite their being treatment options available.

The thing I worry about is the future effect on IVF babies. We had our DDs through IVF due to PCOS; I had plenty of healthy eggs, but they weren’t released due to an absent menstrual cycle. Will that mean that our DDs have ‘normal’ reproductive systems, or will they be plagued with infertility like I was? Have I gone against nature by reproducing when biologically I was not supposed to? I’d do it all again a million times over, because our DDs are the best thing we ever did together, but still.

Time will tell.