Why is IVF wrong? Want to know your views

[Pruni]

Message withdrawn

I saw bil and partner go through unsuccessful ivf and it was one reason their relationship eventually broke down. He and new wife also desperately want children and I felt hugely guilty that in the time I was pregnant with surprise baby no 4 (hugely adored but so not planned) - she lost two. If medicine can help them to be the fantastic parents they deserve to be, then that's great. I know that I'm lucky to get pregnant without trying. I have no problem with embryos that are unused. I love having children and know that my life would be much less rich without them - why should I deny that to others?

I read your post and I am totally shocked

I have never ever met anyone who thought that IVF was anything other than a miracle of science

I don't think it is wrong at all. I think if anything is wrong its bloody wrong that some people are blesed with kids that aren't able to care for them.

However, on another site I visited, there are some God botherers who tink IVF is wrong for religious reasons. I am not entirely sure of their arguement but imagine it to be along the lines of medical intervention is not 'Gods way' and I know they are especially against donor eggs/sperm. I would be interested in the religious arguement against IVF if anyone is in the know???

I do know of two couples with fertility issues that wil not have IVF but have had IUI that has failed. They say they will not have IVF but I don't really get why, they just said that they have said 'that is the line for them'.

Two very good friends of mine started on the first stage of IVF and when that wasn't successful, decided not to go ahead with the next one (the bit where the woman takes drugs to stimulate the ovaries).

There were various reasons for their choice:

• at the time, IVF had only a 14% success rate (this was about 10 years ago now), and they felt that they would be putting their lives on hold and they simply couldn't put themselves through any more agony every month. (They'd already been married for about seven years and not using contraception, so it had become an issue about five years before.)

• two was that she's a vicar's daughter and although not regular churchgoer, had a residual distaste for the idea of "utilitarian" approach to human life (these are her words, not mine).

• three was that there was technically nothing wrong with them and at the time (I don't know if this is still true) one of the risks of IVF was that the drugs could actually make you infertile - and as you had an 86% rate of failure, the idea that you could then become infertile when you hadn't been before, was quite alarming).

• four was that they felt that if "nature" hadn't wanted them to reproduce with each other, then maybe their mix of genes was some kind of genetic dead end and perhaps they shouldn't be attempting to override that.

Their GP (who is an absolutely lovely woman) tried to persuade them to carry on with the treatment, as she said that people tend to regret the things they didn't try, not the things they did (in all things in life, not just fertility treatment); but I think the first stage of IVF (the turkey baster stage) was just so emotionally draining for them that they simply couldn't face going through the next bit. I often wonder if they regret not going ahead with it - I sometimes do on their behalf. (Not that I'd mention that to them, obviously!)

Ok i am going to throw a spanner in the works here. I do agree with IVF, but it wouldn't have been for me if I couldn't concieve. Mainly because i feel if god had not wanted me to have kids, who am I to try to change things

Now I think this also because my SIL has had to have IVF - the one where the egg is injected with one sperm. Now she was really lucky and became pg first go and I am really pleased for her. But somewhere - deep down - I wonder if her and her dh's genes were actually faulty and shouldn't have been matched

i know this sounds soooo cruel and I love her, her son and everything. But IVF babies are far more likely to be born premature and also statistically more likely to have physical/mental issues in the future. Now my dn is a lovely kid who was born at 32 weeks has always struggled and now aged nearly 3 is still suffering. I cannot say this is due to the IVf, bt I do wonder. He has incredible food allergies - can't eat wheat, dairy, eggs, sugar, amongst other things. Almost the only things he can eat are meat (loves mcDonalds ) and rice. ANything else makes him so sick

Please please don't flame me for this post, for some people IVF is the only way to go and I am so glad science has made it possible. But on a personal level I just couldn't do it and worry about some IVF's babies long term prognasis. BTw i have no doubt that IVF children are probably more loved and wanted than any other baby.

i hope I haven't upset anyone, i would NEVER say a word to anyone how i feel and certianly would praise anyone who goes through a really difficult procees. I just was never for me IYKWIM

Pruni, I am outraged that someone could say something like that to you.

I am a Christian and I most certainly do not believe that infertility, or any other medical problem, or anything else that causes so much heartache is 'God's will' and to say that it is so is blasphemous IMO. My only concern is that, for me, life begins at conception - for this reason I don't have a coil fitted or use any contraception that prevents a fertilised egg from being implanted. So I am concerned about the embryos not used, and also the fact they can be detroyed if one partner changes their mind, as in the case recently where the couple spilt up and the man asked for this to happen - to me that is tantamount to abortion without the mothers' consent. Having said that, I too agree that IVF is a wonderful thing and has brought so many new precious human beings into the world, and given so many people joy and fulfilment. And having read a diary of a woman going through IVF I am in awe of the determination and love that couples have to do this. I would like to see better controls on what happens to the unused embryos and maybe a system of adoption as mentioned, but I fully support IVF being available on the NHS.

I have two little girls that are the joy of my heart. I can't in all conscience say think it is wrong for others to do all they can to get to the same place.

Message withdrawn

missed this thread, pruni, how can ivf be wrong when its simply used to give a couple a chance at being parents? i cant beleive that people have had the gall to say such unpleasent things to you, glad ivf was asuccess for you

the problems I have with IVF (in all its various forms) is the multiple birth rate. While I do think it should be provided on the NHS I also think it's unfair for the load put on the service by the care the multiple births often need. I read somewhere that if all IVF pregnancies were singletons the NHS could afford to make all IVF treatment free. I find that quite shocking - assuming it's true of course! Apparently transferring only 1 embryo results in only a couple of % points reduction in success rate

Now I'm not trying to be contentious and I do have experience - my DS is a twin conceived after 4 atttempts at ICSI. I completely understand the desperate need for a child but I also think that sometimes that desperation needs to be limited.

Oh, and I think the whole God won't like it thing is nonsense.

Pruni - a good friend has two children conceived thanks to IVF. Two very, very much loved children - and no, it didn't cost the state a penny but it cost her and her dh dearly. How anyone could take issue with that is beyond me.

Thanks for the info, Pruni. That's very helpful, Yes, that was the case I was thinking of. Such a terrible thing to do to a woman you once claimed to love.

Eeek: I don't think it's fair to describe the Catholic position as 'God won't like it.' It just comes down to when you think life begins. I think that if you subscribe to the Roman Catholic position that life begins at conception, then you have to rule out IVF, the minipill, coils, morning-after pill, etc. It's a wholly logical position coming from that one premise.

I do wonder with IVF whether you're storing up trouble for the future. Ie, if you couldn't conceive a baby naturally, will your child be able to?

And why couldn't you - was it a bad match between you and your partner and so shouldn't have resulted in a baby?

It's this sort of question that would put IVF out of bounds for me.

Pruni, i'm sorry to hear about the attitudes to IVF you have encountered. I have twins conceived through ICSI and I have been very interested to read through this thread. Luckily I've only encountered positive comments but you got me thinking thatmaybe peolr are thinking these things but are not saying them to my face.My DH had testicular cancer so IVF was our only chance of having a child. I saw it as a continuation of his treatment. I can understand why people are opposed to it and having gone through it myself it did throw up some moral dilemma's that I didn't expect when we set out down this route.
Our treatment created 9 embryos of which the best 2 were replaced. We were lucky to conceive twins on our first attempt. The other embryos were considered not good enough to freeze and were allowed to perish. I didn't donate them for research and I look at my boys today and wonder about the seven that didn't get a chance and what a waste it was.
My twins were born prematurely and I became seriously ill after their birth so I can relate to people who say that we are a drain on the NHS as we certainly got our money's worth. But the NHS is there for all of us and we all pay for it and we can't go down the route of saying that some people are worthy of treatment for some things and others are not.
I worry about unscrupulous private IVF clinics giving infertile couples false hope about their chances of success and taking vast amounts of money in the process. Treatment on the NHS is still very difficult to get despite the government saying it would allow 3 treatments.
However, having experienced the pain of infertility and gone through gruelling treatment to conceive and a near death experience giving birth I look at my perfect darling boys and defy anyone to say it was wrong.
I've never posted on a contentious thread before on MN but I have had two large glasses of wine tonight! I still can't believe that even if people think that IVF is wrong, they would actually say it to your face. How rude.

not keen on the bad match so shouldn't have a baby idea. That's eugenics!

My eldest son is very disabled, our chances of having another disabled child with the same condition are something like 75x higher than jo publics- but we have gone onto have 2 more children. One is fine, not sure about the baby yet- just watching and waiting. Surely by that argument we are a bad match and shouldn't be reproducing.

I think IVF is an amazing procedure, althugh must be very traumatic- I know one person who went through it, and one who is going through it now. Can't believe that people would be so rude to your face (well I can, not sure it even surprises me anymore).

I dont think it IVF is wrong and dont have any problem with it being available on the NHS.
My son was concieved naturally and quickly and I count my blessings. I can only imagine the pain and heartache of an infertile couple who so desperately want a child go through. This longing could in time become a sort of emotional illness, so why should it not be treated like any other illness?

Baka, a lot of people would say that a lot of IVF treatment is eugenics as well. For example, when couples have IVF in order to screen out hereditary diseases. Isn't that eugenics too?

you could always take this further and say that c sections are also forced eugenics.
in the olden days, a c section was only performed after the mother had died, but the baby was still alive. the first mother to survive a c section was less than two hundred years ago.
so basically, if a woman, for what ever reason, was unable to go through labour naturally, her genes had a high risk of dieing out. and women capable of having easy births had more kids, so propagated their dna more.
im sure no one would argue that performing c sections is wrong, so why use the same arguments with ivf?

I once asked a consultant about the 'bad match' theory,ie that some couples may be incompatible.He said that it was a myth-there is no such thing.

Considering the emotional fallout of not being able to concieve,with attendant problems of depression,relationship breakdowns ect,I would imagine that it is cheaper to provide IVF than deal with the distress/health problems that infertility causes.

I think the bad-match theory is implausible, because there is such a strong association between the age of the woman involved and the probability of successful treatment. The other reason why it's unlikely to be an explanation is because (1) the largest group of IVF patients have 'unexplained' infertility (no detectable problems with eggs or sperm) and (2) such 'unexplained' infertility can easily be caused by a combination of small problems on both sides which, in themselves, would not lead to infertility. You need only some very small problems, in combination, to start having difficulties in conceiving. As an atheist, I find the whole 'God's will' argument difficult (not least when coming from my brother!). But most Christians, presumably, would not take this attitude to other medical interventions (eg 'It's God's will that I should die of cancer').

Message withdrawn

I conceived my daughter through IVF, privately funded IVF as there is no funding at all for IVF in my area. I actually do disagree with the NHS funding IVF, as bad as it seems for infertile people (and remember I was one of those) it is not actually life threatning. The NHS is desparetly short of money and I think the money should be spent on life threatning conditions etc. However, I think the NHS has a lot to answer for. If they dont fund IVF for a healthy young couple, why should they fund treatment for somebody who has abused their body for most of their life - drugs, alcohol, smoking etc. But thats another argument altogether. Nobody has actually told me to my face that they belive IVF is wrong, but I know that some people belive this.

If you're looking for Anti arguments:

The religious perspective as put forward by morningpaper - if life begins at conception then, in many cases, you are deliberately causing embryos to be created which will not be emplanted. True, many will not be of good enough quality to divide sufficiently successfully for freezing and later implantation, but there is still an element of playing God in that at various stages you have to make choices. You can only put back 2 (exceptionally 3) embryos at a time. The remaining embryos have a much lower chance of fulfilling their potential. There is also the issue of selecting "the best" embryos at this stage - is this one where we should have this ability? Some christians (and muslims as noted above) don't necessarily believe that the spiritual life begins at the moment of conception, though this is the RC (and often evangelical) standpoint.

Another anti argument is "why, given the surplus of children looking for a home, don't you adopt? Aren't you being selfish". Usually this is cited by people who know little about the realities of adoption at present, and of course the argument holds for all parents, not just the infertile.

Funding is clearly still an issue for many. Given how much children cost once they are born, shouldn't those couples, presumably both earning, fund their own family. And as misdee pointed out there are many more urgent areas where funding would be needed.

There is also the "nature" issue - perhaps infertility is nature's method of natural selection, and some people just shouldn't be parents.

Another argument is that by opening the door to this advance, where does it stop? Can we simply start to select characteristics of our children? Can we artificially delay parenthood into our 50s and 60s. How can we control what people do with this?

I think that the religious argument is in some ways the hardest - here it is just a different belief system. I know there has been some work in this area to come up with methods where only sufficent embryos are created which can then be implanted (is no surplus embryos are created). Haven't read the last RC document on this though, so there may still be other issues unaddresses.