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.

Birth weight and gestational age were similar in the ART and control groups.

Also low birth weight and prematurity were specifically excluded.

One of my friends took the IVF way and ten years later had ovarian cancer (she is in palliative care now). When I went to visit her shortly after her diagnosis, she told me that she was warned of being high risk for ovarian cancer by her IVF doctor but she went ahead anyway because she wanted a baby so much. Her kid is being raised by her grandparents now. While I admire her guts, that discussion frankly put me off IVF and I'd rather look for other avenues like fostering or adoption now that I am in my late 30s and TTC with little success.

No offence to IVF parents, I agree it is a miracle procedure and is a blessing for those who want to get pregnant, I was just stating my personal opinion in my earlier post.

Why am I still surprised at the general stupidity of the general public? IVF is not particularly complicated or mysterious. Just try to educate yourself a little bit before scaremongering. People actually believe IVF causes brain cancer? What? Why? 🤦🏻‍♀️

The higher risk of ovarian cancer is believed to be linked to infertility and not ivf itself - there is no evidence of increased risk in those who have ivf for male factor.

I only personally know of one couple who had IVF. They had triplets. One of the triplets was badly brain damaged and unfortunately died in hospital where they had spent most of their short life and the other two have severe physical issues and learning difficulties. The family are completely broken. I know I will get loads of flack but in this instance I really believe that we should not interfere with nature.

Yes pregnancies with multiples are more risky which is why there are guidelines now to reduce the chances of a multiple pregnancy.

The greatest health risk of IVF is multiple births

The risk of multiples can be mitigated hugely by single embryo transfer

It's possible that one embryo can split to become identical twins, but it's largely transferring more than one embryo that's the problem

In the UK the limit for women under 40 (or any age with donor eggs) is two embryos

Over 40 the limit is 3 embryos as the likelihood of even one implanting is much lower

It's possible that 2 embryos can become triplets if one splits and all 3 take

But usually triplets are due to going abroad and having an irresponsible number of embryos transferred

Which is specific IVF practice, not IVF treatment overall

The triplet family were treated in the UK on the NHS.

Then they were unlucky that one embryo became two

Higher order multiples are significantly less likely with a single embryo transfer

But that is my point. As some risks have become known, practices have been changed, sometimes legally. But unless research is done, we don't understand if there are other risks that can be avoided or at least reduced.

Here is a study Re links between ovarian cancer and fertility drug use. Seems it’s the women who remain childless after treatment that are at greater risk. Talk about a double whammy.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217689/

1/80 children are twins naturally. It increases with age.

There is evidence that smoking in pg increases asd risk. Including in grandchildren. It increases allergies and asthma. So some changes carry on down the generations.

Also there was found to be higher asd risk with older mums and independently older dads. But also if one parent was much younger. All of these more likely with ivf/icsi parents.
One condition increased in ivf dc is Beckwith. I only heard of this recently. And worried myself as ivf dc2 is tall/lisps so may have a large tongue/had a birth mark and umbilical hernia. And this syndrome increases childhood cancer risks.
If it appears (like in the op) ivf babies are at increased risk of things. It is so important that parents/gps etc know.
Are ivf dc logged as such on the nhs? What if parents never tell dc but it turns out a preventable cancer could have been screened for?

I think people forget that to need fertility treatment something is wrong in the first place.

I needed it. Because I have two conditions that impact my fertility. Both put me at a higher risk of several types of cancer

And if I have a condition the chance of me passing on something to my offspring other than perfect genetics is higher

My conditions also cause me depression and when depressed I eat more unhealthily and sometimes smoke, and I have become overweight

I need medication to prevent me getting diabetes (I don't actually have diabetes but high risk) and if that hadn't been found then I would have crappy levels of whatever it is in my blood (yeah I probably should have listened more at that dr appointment)

So what is it? Cart or horse? The IVF or the reasons IVF is necessary? Or a combination

FWIW my IVF relatives are incredibly healthy intelligent twins with successful careers and to date their mom is also very healthy whereas I've lost several relatives to cancer who didn't have fertility problems or treatment and one naturally conceived child cancer death

There may be a link, but surely it also depends on the reason for needing the IVF in the first place.

We need IVF for male factor. That is not because DH has a low count himself, but he is on a medication that causes sperm issues as a known side effect, so it would seem odd for the ICSI to mean any child would have lower fertility.

Some conditions that cause infertility or that make conceiving less likely are hereditary.

High blood pressure may occur more with IVF children. There are lots of women with PCOS that go down the IVF route as they have difficulties conceiving. PCOS is thought to pass through families and can cause insulin resistance, diabetes and they think higher blood pressure. High blood pressure also seems to pass in some families (mine is riddled with it)

The higher risk in the children may just be from a condition the parents have rather than having any relation to the IVF - it is just the people with those conditions passing on are using IVF.

Thanks OP for starting this thread. It is kinda timely for me. I have been offered one round of IVF on the NHS, but in order to have it, I have to agree within a week of this news, and I've used up most of those days; and no waiting list means starting the whole process very soon. I've done some reading... but as this post is making very clear... the answer to your original question is yes (no one seems to have enough evidence yet, mainly due to the fact it's too new). My take (in this hour anyway, and trying to be logical rather than emotional about it!) is that there is no clear, known, risk to the baby (yet). There are some risks to the woman (though these seem fairly small against usual everyday risks of setting foot outside the front door!). The longer term societal effects could be good (eg maybe maintaining genetic diversity) or bad (eg maybe generational health issues).

So, for me, it seems to come down to the fact that I will have a different child (incl. option of no child, of course) if I choose to go for IVF rather than wait for 'nature' to take it's course. But, seeing as I have absolutely no idea what characteristics or experiences that child will (potentially) grow up with... what basis can I use to make this decision??

Spring - I think the key is correlation not causation as people say and also weighing up the alternative of NOT having ivf and the damage it may do to you too (including mental health either way).
For what it’s worth my ‘naturally’ conceived child was very ill (yes bf too) - all the boxes we ticked should have made her healthy but she wasn’t. She may have health problems in later years (unknown - not just an uncertain or unknown as is here). Would I have her again knowing this impact on her and me - every time.

Known sorry not unknown

quantum thanks for your post. That’s reassured me!

lrd thanks for your response. Will look into that a bit more.

banana best of luck with your book.

stand yes thanks.

We won't really know about any effects until IVF conceived children have their own children.

Louise’s 2 children are healthy

As I said previously there may be risks. There may not

But the joy my dd has brought to me will always overcome any health issues she may or may not have in the future

@Cottongusset you probably know more children who are are IVF babies but it's not something their parents will tell you. A lot of people keep such things quiet.

It’s like lots of stuff. Is vaping worse than smoking? Probably not but we don’t know yet.
Do mobile phones give you brain cancer? Who knows.

When electricity was first around people didn’t sit under light bulbs in case the electricity leaked out. And then there was the millennium bug... And one day maybe the daily fail will tell us definitively that red wine is either good or bad for us instead of contradicting itself every few days.

YANBU to ask the question. But based on what we know so far I’m personally happy to take that risk.