IVF Babies at Higher Risk of Death
We have been told repeatedly over the years that IVF babies are just as healthy as those conceived naturally. Well, it looks like things are not going as well as we were led to believe. From the story:
Doctors think the increased risk may have to do with the health of the mother that led to infertility problems in the first place.IVF children are also at an increased risk of being born prematurely and of weighing less at birth, scientists found.Researchers looked at more than 2,500 women who had conceived both naturally and through IVF and compared the results to more than one million natural conceptions.
They found that babies who had been conceived through IVF were 31 per cent more likely to die in the period before and after their birth. IVF conceived children also tended to weigh an average of 0.9 ounces (25g) less at birth, the findings, published online in the Lancet medical journal show.The babies also tended to be born earlier, by an average of two days, and were 26 per cent more likely to be small for their age.
This may be the answer:
A maximum of two fertilised eggs are now replaced although many experts would like to see that number cut to one, to reduce the high number of IVF twin births, which are seen as more risky for mother and childAnd let's add to that enacting rules to govern IVF laid down by the Italians: only make a maximum of three embryos--and implant all that are successfully created.
Had we done that from the beginning and there wouldn't be 400,000 embryos in cold storage today.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:01 PM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
When it says "replaced," is that just poor writing? Does it mean, "A maximum of two embryos at a time are now placed in the woman's womb"?
That was how I interpreted it.
Wesley - great commentary in this piece! I, too, like the Italian version of IVF. I've heard somewhere that Germany has a similar approach? Is this true? Any other countries?
Dave: IVF is not my area of expertise, but I do believe Germany has a similar law.
Many countries don't regulate it at all, including the USA.
I've posted this sentiment here before, but it's time to do so again.
With 6.7 billion people already here, which is probably 5 billion too many for the planet to sustain, why on earth do we allow fertility treatments at all, including IVF (let alone the possibility of cloning one day)? There have been rumors of medical issues with IVF children for some time.
We seem to have incredible numbers of children with problems that will render them unlikely to become productive citizens: autism spectrum disorders, some forms of ADD, various mental illnesses, retardation, physical defects, etc. I wonder how many of these conditions can ultimately be traced to couples with fertility problems who pushed the issue in some fashion anyway, even if it was only to keep trying to have the almighty child. Societal pressure to have DNA replicas is partly to blame, as encouraging the infertile to accept their situation would have been far better for everyone concerned--not least the children.
k-man - The notion that only "productive" citizens should be allowed to live on the earth is twisted. Who defines "productive"? If it's based on what they can give to society, then let's look at the larger picture which includes relationship, affection, love (among others) which any of the "unproductive" citizens you mention above can (and do) give. In fact, our role as a society is to support, care for, and help these people - not malign them.
Dave. k-man illustrates the return of eugenics thinking. And once again, perhaps k-man doesn't fulfill this, I don't know, but it comes mostly from the political and cultural Left. When I grew up, being a liberal meant standing for universal human equality. That is why I was a liberal. Why that has been discarded I don't understand.
He's not saying only productive citizens should be allowed to live, he's saying ivf should not be allowed, and people should not be made to feel so much need to have children, because this is seeming to lead to people that tax our caring and support resources and who suffer more, and there is no need to waste resources on enabling infertile couples to have kids.
Wesley, John Howard summarizes my position perfectly. I'm not in favor of eugenics, nor am I maligning anyone who is not "productive". I take care of my own now-disabled mother full-time, so I would have to malign her and myself too, right? :)
My point is simply this: it seems as if we've had an explosion of children who will be unable to care for themselves ever since modern science and medicine began making it possible for previously infertile couples to conceive.
Recently there has been a spate of stories in the US and Britain about IVF children being born prematurely, needing intensive long-term hospitalization, and having bleak prospects for a normal life. How this benefits anyone, the couple or the child included, is beyond me. If you're infertile, maybe nature's trying to tell you something and trying to circumvent it will lead to bad results.
With the sheer number of people on the planet and increasing concerns about energy, resources, and pollution, infertility treatment is a ridiculous concept anyway. Ban all of it and encourage infertile couples to adopt instead.
...
Actually, the explosion of children that can't care for themselves comes from them not dying. There is a higher rate in the folks who get fertility treatments, but meh.
By the way-- the notion that there's an absolute number that a planet can handle is silly to anyone who's ever been in food production. Depends on the technology involved in the farming and ranching, what kind of food and fiber support they need, etc.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home