Women going through IVF because of male fertility problems

[iismum]

I thought this was an interesting article: www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45419545

It's mostly from the male perspective, but had this quotation from a fertility doctor: This has led to an "absurd" case, says Prof Lewis, where women routinely have to undergo IVF - even if there is nothing wrong with their own fertility.
"The woman actually acts as the therapy for the man's problem [of poor sperm]," she says.
"We are giving an invasive procedure to a person who doesn't need it, in order to treat another person. That doesn't happen in any other branch of medicine."

I'm surprised - having had friends go through this - that the inequality of this never struck me. The focus in treatment ought to be on dealing with the person with the problem, rather than always expecting women to carry the burden of treatment.

I had never considered this view either...really interesting.

But what if there is no cure for the male in question? Men with poor sperm quality are advised to take supplements and make lifestyle changes, but this doesn't always work. Unfortunately, men only play a tiny part in human reproduction, I don't see a way round that.

If the problem is due to lifestyle and reversible then it's definitely unfair to place the onus on the would be mother but if it's down to genetics or cannot be treated in the male then it seems like an unfortunate reality of biology if the ultimate desire is to conceive a child with a particular father.

If there's no solution to the males problem and treating the female will improve their chances of conception, surely it simply makes sense? People are being a little too precious imo

That is interesting.

I have been through it. What struck me at the time was that there was very little investigation into the cause, next to none on the NHS in fact.

The ‘solution’ was IVF, without even knowing what the problem was. I thought that was odd (whilst at the same time just really wanting to get to the end goal.)

Blood donation? Bone marrow donation? Organ donation?

A person donating a kidney has a massive operation to treat another person.

I agree that if there is no solution for men and the women want to undergo the treatment to be able to have their partner's child, that of course should be allowed.

But the article points out that there are treatments for men which, even though they are cheaper and less invasive, are not available on the NHS. Most people are not offered these or are even aware they exist. Yes, look at all options if necessary, but prioritise treating the person who needs it rather than not bothering because the woman can always go through IVF.

I think that’s just because we don’t have solutions to he male infertility. Maybe that’s sexism in research but treatment wise it may be the only option. Having been through IVF for my own problems I do think it’s underestimated for how invasive it is. In some cases women might be better off with a sperm doner but that’s for couples to decide.

I didn’t know that. If there are male options hey absolutely should be available on the NHS

Yes, I think monotonous has more clearly made the point I was trying to make - we should consider all treatment options and look broadly at the problem rather than always falling back on giving women IVF.

In the vast majority of male factor subfertility there are no treatments that will improve sperm enough to allow natural conception - so women can either go for IVF/IVSI , use donor sperm ( which may still require IVF type medications and procedures , find a new man with a normal sperm count ( not a guarantee of conception ) or remain childless

If couples funded their fertility treatments privately most would try cheaper make targeted options first. Obviously, the NHS, as a public ally funded body, should be even more careful with money but it isn't is it? The NHS should either be held to account properly on its spending or be forced to cut nonessential services.

The invasive procedure is really just a by product of the treatment though, the treatment is the physical insertion of the sperm into the egg, which is done in a lab so outside of the man and woman. In order to have a successful pregnancy with any externally fertilised egg the rest of the IVF procedure needs to be followed.

That is interesting.

I have been through it. What struck me at the time was that there was very little investigation into the cause, next to none on the NHS in fact.

The ‘solution’ was IVF, without even knowing what the problem was. I thought that was odd (whilst at the same time just really wanting to get to the end goal.)

This is similar to my experience. Unfortunately, the growing of a baby needs to happen inside the woman. This biological fact is one of the bases of women's oppression throughout history (and why biological sex really matters btw!) so this is 'just' yet another aspect of that unbalance.

But if there are ways to treat male fertility, which the article claims that there are in many cases, there is no need to fertilise the egg outside the body. The couple highlighted in the article conceived naturally because the father had had his infertility treated, and therefore IVF wasn't necessary.

Of course this isn't possible in all cases, or maybe even most cases. But the article suggests it is possible in many cases and is just being ignored because the default is that women can just have IVF. That strikes me as an artificial inequality on top of the natural inequality that women have to carry the child.

Very interesting. I hadn’t considered it from this perspective at all and we spent 18 months having fertility treatment and ICSI. The operative word here being “we”. In this situation if it doesn’t work for one of you it doesn’t work for both of you. Totally agree that it’s an uncommon situation in medical care but perhaps a living donor transplant might be similar as a healthy individual is subjected to intervention for an outcome in another.

I do wonder as well if children born from people with fertility problems will have problems themselves.

DH and I have been through all the fertility tests and the results were male factor infertility. It did strike me at the time that I was put through all the invasive tests before he had a simple semen analysis done.

The NHS also told us that it was unexplained infertility, IVF the only treatment (not available on the NHS in our area). We had the results reviewed privately - they said it was MFI and we could make lifestyle changes to improve this. There very much did seem to be a default in the NHS that investigate the woman first, the man very much an afterthought.

'people with fertility problems' is a bit simplistic tbh. I conceived my first dc naturally on first month of trying. Presumably no fertility problems for either of us. Dc 2 was not conceived naturally despite a year of trying. Male fertility can change, in both directions it appears.

iis yes I do agree completely! Far more should be done to investigate and treat MFI

A year of trying is nothing surely?

What do you mean?

Ttc unsuccessfully for a year is not 'nothing' thanks

Interesting. We had unexplained unfertility - both of us checked out fine, then I got pregnant after a couple of months of clomid, so no need for IVF.
I think if women were treated like men in this article, we would be saying medical science was failing or ignoring women.