To think we don’t know the long term impacts of ivf

[Redteapot67]

I read shocking research (albeit in the daily fail) today that ivf children are x6 more likely to have hypertension, which of course puts them at risk of cardiovascular disease.
It’s a stark reminder the first ivf baby is only 40 years old - we have no idea about the long term impacts on a baby of being born this way which I find frightening.
Please - I just want to discuss this if you are going to be upset by the debate look at another thread.
My personal take is that despite the possible unknown health risks if ivf were my only route to having a baby I would have it.

As ever, people need to realise that correlation does not mean causation. Once a child is born, whether through IVF or other ways, they are exposed to a number of risk factors. As they become adults they make lifestyle choices. It would be incredibly difficult to pin point any particular risk associated with their conception.

Likewise women who undergo fertility treatment may be exposed to certain risk factors that other women aren't. Or maybe those treatments act as a preventative measure. Who knows.

What we do know is that infertility is associated with poor mental health in couples who struggle to conceive.

There are a lot of lifestyle choices associated with an increased risk of hypertension, heart disease, cancer and so on.

Oh dear Lord. As if people needing ivf didn't have enough on their plates as it is.

I couldn't care less if IVF has any effect on me, because I have DD.

If DD gets hypertension, I would say it's the fault of the women in my family (who all except me seem to have hypertension) rather than IVF. And yes I do worry about the possible impact on DD, but so far she's a normal healthy little girl.

I'm hoping she doesn't have fertility issues when she grows up, as I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Id be very interested to see if there are any second generation effects. Positive or negative

I do think we need to be cautious, in terms of human history the use of ivf isn’t even a blink of an eye.

The study looked at fewer than 100 subjects though - that's far too small a sample size from which to draw any meaningful conclusion!

The Daily Fail should be ashamed of itself for whipping up a frenzy over something so sensitive and you should know better too OP.

the theory makes sense to me. in nature the strongest sperm fertilizes the egg. in ivf the sperm the doctor chose fertilizes the egg. logic suggests that this could cause health problems

What about the millions of babies not born through IVF that have severe birth defects? What’s your reasoning there?

I do wonder if these threads are started by religious fanatics

There are big risks conceiving a child naturally, labour etc.
I doubt very much that these risks would stop any woman desperate for a child. There doesn’t seem to be much/any evidence of long term health problems for the IVF child.

IVF is a miracle. Of course long term monitoring will be beneficial and hopefully reassuring.

the theory makes sense to me. in nature the strongest sperm fertilizes the egg. in ivf the sperm the doctor chose fertilizes the egg. logic suggests that this could cause health problems

What you describe is ICSI though, not IVF.

So much ignorance on one thread

I don’t know really. I think women take all sorts of different hormones throughout their life, the pill, morning after pill, mirena coils, pills to stop periods, pills to delay periods, mini pills, implants, patches, injections, plus women drink during pregnancy now too which they wouldn’t have done 40 years ago so it’s hard to know the impact of lots of things really.

I wouldn’t worry about it. We will be well dead by the time anything can be proved and we just dealt with the information we had at this time.

And actually it’s only in ICSI that one sperm is introduced in to the egg. Standard IVF many sperm are placed round the egg for it to ‘chose’

Cross post with manor

Women did drink 40 years ago. Guiness and stout was actually reccomend

And actually it’s only in ICSI that one sperm is introduced in to the egg. Standard IVF many sperm are placed round the egg for it to ‘chose’

Actually, many millions of sperm are placed around the egg and they fight it out for success.

@stand birth defects can be caused by lots of things not all of which are understood by medical science

I totally agree the factors within our control far outweigh the minor influence any ivf might have - that eating well, exercise etc far more importance than just one small factor.
I also agree that the unknowns are massive of lots of our current lifestyle - mobile phones, chemicals etc

i apologise for not knowing the difference between ivf and icsi

Health research is hugely complex because we don't know enough about how life works. There may well be risks to IVF - but there are also risks inherent in long term stress and unhappiness. Mental health absolutely has implications for long term physical health so there could be physical health implications from not choosing IVF and living life always stressed and sad about not having had a child. Life is about weighing up risks and taking risks too.

if you go down the route that ICSI may be 'duff sperm' given a wrong shot at life, you could also argue they are the best and strongest embryos. What embryo could survive in a lab culture dish for 6 days, or freezing and thawing again? Only the very strongest, least fragmented, you could argue.

Of course, as a good Daily Heil reader, I feed my IVF children on Maccy D's and haribo, to punish them for their sinful beginnings. And, I flaunt my curves while I'm doing it.

IVF is a miracle

It truly is. I have two different aged miracles asleep in bed.

Three years age difference but teqnically the same age as were fertilised at the same time

Correlation, not causation. Just like children born by C section are more likely to be autistic, but it’s invariably not the caesarian itself that causes that.

There’s a big difference in the future health prospects of child A: conceived by a young healthy lesbian with the help of some sperm from a 21 year old, and child B: born to 45 year old parents with very low fertility. The former would probably conceive naturally if they were so inclined, whereas the latter have no doubt tried and failed.

Deep sea I agree it’s a miracle

I guess it’s the age old debate of the ethics of science

I saw something about drug that allows the body to reverse ageing the other day too - frightening what we can create but not know the full consequences of.

With ivf I do agree the immediate ‘knowns’ far far outweighs the slight risks of any unknowns

Also by the time today’s ivf kids grown up medicine might have evolved so much hypertension might not even be a thing!

And even with ICSI if it's really poor sperm/egg it won't fertilise. I had only 1 egg successfully fertilise out of 20 and we didn't have any known sperm issues.

I like the phrase correlation not causation - completely agree

A mummy I hope your username meant that one egg stuck!

I also know people that had IVF because the mans spern was poor quality

That was kind of what I meant. A lot of people (not all) have fertility treatment because there are problems without a reason to cause them. Perhaps this man’s sons will be more likely to suffer poor quality sperm too, if there is some genetic factor we don’t know about yet at play. Daughters conceived through IVF required because their mother was having fertility problems, may be more likely to have similar problems themselves. (For example, early menopause runs in families.)

My mother had some treatment to conceive, and my grandmother also took a lot of trying to have her children. She made sure I knew this so that I could make an informed decision about how late I wanted to leave starting to try for a family.