Oh Boy Did this Article Ever PISS ME OFF!
Breeding Babies
Can we finally rein in the fertility business?
Can it be that we are finally realizing that humans aren't created to make litters? In the beginning--that is in the early days of reproductive technology--we were wowed with the amazing feats of medical science. One day a woman is infertile, the next day, she's bred five at a time, a full house. These families became proud diaper sponsors and could be guaranteed a photo op in women's magazines. Nowadays, they can get their own reality TV show, which will certainly help defray the costs of baby food and baby wipes.
Ever since British scientist Robert Edwards made little Louise Brown in a straw (yes, he used a straw to suck up the embryos), there seems to be a drive to deliver a woman's dream of babies as quickly as possibly with super-human results.
Funny thing is that we rarely heard the downside. That is, that multiples are more likely to be born early, at risk for all sorts of chronic physical and cognitive ailments-and death. Premies are pricey. They can cost upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for the intensive care, not to mention the medical and schooling bills for the child with life long problems. (One researcher told me that it costs 200,000 dollars door-to-door (door of the intensive care unit to the front door of your house) for each 26-week-old baby.)
Now maybe times will be changing--and that's a good thing. This week, the government released a report blaming the horrific numbers of newborns dying every year on the skyrocketing rates of prematurity. Since 1984, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, pre-mature births have increased by 36 percent. America ranked 30th-nearly rock bottom-among 31 developed nations for infant mortality. Only Slovakia came in behind us, and not by much.
It's true that poor, malnourished women who lack prenatal care are more likely to deliver babies early-and we have to tackle that problem. But premature births are also a likely outcome of multiple births, which is---no surprise---a result of our fertility treatments gone haywire. And that should be a much easier quandary to tackle.
A premature birth is any baby born before 37 weeks of gestation. A 36-weeker-even a 34-weeker--is not such a big deal. In those last few weeks, the baby is piling on fat, but their organs are fairly well developed. A 28-weeker and younger is a colossal deal. Babies born too early cannot breath on their own. Their brain connections may not be fully formed. Simply put, they're not ready for the outside world.
Dr. William McGibbon, the incoming president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, told New York Times reporter Stephanie Saul, that he wants to issue guidelines in the next few weeks to limit multiple births. But unlike other countries, that have strict rules about the number of embryos that can be transplanted into women, American runs a free for all-and we rely on the goodness of doctors and their patients.
Doctors claim they are catering to their customers who are demanding instant families. That of course, makes one wonder if the doctor is working as a salesman, who simply has to please the client, or a medical expert who should help expectant parents weed through the complicated maze of fertility treatment.
The real issue though is cost. When faced with the prospect of a treatment that costs upwards of 10,000 to 15,000 dollars a month, what's a woman to do? Try to hedge her bets about getting pregnant in the fewest months possible. And that means, high doses of drugs and lots of embryos transferred into the uterus. On first glance, it seems as if the best decision---financially speaking---is to have three or more embryos implanted to up the odds of getting pregnant in one month versus paying upwards of four times the price stretching this emotionally wrenching process for at least another year.
What's often not considered is the high cost of treating premature babies in the intensive care unit and the chances that these premies may not become the miracle babies but will become children with expensive lifelong impairments, such as mental retardation, or will become babies who will die in the hospital shortly after birth. And that's just considering the financial burden. What about the emotional impact of the death of a baby or a baby with chronic illness on the parents? Are we breeding babies or trying to create healthy families?
Perhaps this recent report by the CDC, combined with a smattering of articles in national newspapers and of course the media brouhaha sparked by the Octomom will convince doctors to speak more honestly to their patients about the risk of multiples and perhaps convince our government to insist that insurance companies cover the cost of treatment. Taking away the fear of expenses may help some couples may wiser and healthier decisions.
I don't even know where to begin.
First of all INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR INFERTILITY PATIENTS. Why is this so fucking hard to understand? You cover the procedure, and the woman won't feel the need to put so many embryos back in. When there are less embryos transfered, there's less of a chance of multiples. With less of a chance for multiples, there's less of a chance of premature birth. With less premature births, there will be BILLIONS OF DOLLARS LESS of neo-natal health care bills. Cost goes down all around. NOT FUCKING ROCKET SCIENCE.
Secondly, why in the bleeding hell does everyone just assume that the doctor does exactly what his patient wants him to do. Woman CANNOT just walk into a fertility clinic and say, "I wanna transfer six embryos" and have the doctor say, "Well okay then, if that's what you want." NO IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY, and it pisses me off that people think it does. Once again, (How many fucking times do I need to say this?!) it depends on the woman and her age and her diagnosis and her infertility history and her miscarriage history and her health history. I BEGGED my RE to transfer three, and he wasn't about to do it, and I was 39 years old with stage IV endo, blocked tubes, and ovarian cysts, with one miscarriage behind me. STOP TAKING THE ABERRATION AND TRYING TO CONVINCE EVERYONE IT'S THE NORM. I know someone who transfered the normal two. Then three. Then three again. Then five. Finally she transfered SIX (yes just like "Octomom", who I would like to point out had transfered six various times in the past and only had singletons!), and now she's finally pregnant with twins. If she'd only transfered three again, it's quite possible she would have missed those "golden eggs".
Lastly, SO HEY SHUT THE FUCK UP UNLESS YOU ARE A FERTILITY PATIENT, because you don't have a fucking clue what it's really like!
Can we finally rein in the fertility business?
Can it be that we are finally realizing that humans aren't created to make litters? In the beginning--that is in the early days of reproductive technology--we were wowed with the amazing feats of medical science. One day a woman is infertile, the next day, she's bred five at a time, a full house. These families became proud diaper sponsors and could be guaranteed a photo op in women's magazines. Nowadays, they can get their own reality TV show, which will certainly help defray the costs of baby food and baby wipes.
Ever since British scientist Robert Edwards made little Louise Brown in a straw (yes, he used a straw to suck up the embryos), there seems to be a drive to deliver a woman's dream of babies as quickly as possibly with super-human results.
Funny thing is that we rarely heard the downside. That is, that multiples are more likely to be born early, at risk for all sorts of chronic physical and cognitive ailments-and death. Premies are pricey. They can cost upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for the intensive care, not to mention the medical and schooling bills for the child with life long problems. (One researcher told me that it costs 200,000 dollars door-to-door (door of the intensive care unit to the front door of your house) for each 26-week-old baby.)
Now maybe times will be changing--and that's a good thing. This week, the government released a report blaming the horrific numbers of newborns dying every year on the skyrocketing rates of prematurity. Since 1984, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, pre-mature births have increased by 36 percent. America ranked 30th-nearly rock bottom-among 31 developed nations for infant mortality. Only Slovakia came in behind us, and not by much.
It's true that poor, malnourished women who lack prenatal care are more likely to deliver babies early-and we have to tackle that problem. But premature births are also a likely outcome of multiple births, which is---no surprise---a result of our fertility treatments gone haywire. And that should be a much easier quandary to tackle.
A premature birth is any baby born before 37 weeks of gestation. A 36-weeker-even a 34-weeker--is not such a big deal. In those last few weeks, the baby is piling on fat, but their organs are fairly well developed. A 28-weeker and younger is a colossal deal. Babies born too early cannot breath on their own. Their brain connections may not be fully formed. Simply put, they're not ready for the outside world.
Dr. William McGibbon, the incoming president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, told New York Times reporter Stephanie Saul, that he wants to issue guidelines in the next few weeks to limit multiple births. But unlike other countries, that have strict rules about the number of embryos that can be transplanted into women, American runs a free for all-and we rely on the goodness of doctors and their patients.
Doctors claim they are catering to their customers who are demanding instant families. That of course, makes one wonder if the doctor is working as a salesman, who simply has to please the client, or a medical expert who should help expectant parents weed through the complicated maze of fertility treatment.
The real issue though is cost. When faced with the prospect of a treatment that costs upwards of 10,000 to 15,000 dollars a month, what's a woman to do? Try to hedge her bets about getting pregnant in the fewest months possible. And that means, high doses of drugs and lots of embryos transferred into the uterus. On first glance, it seems as if the best decision---financially speaking---is to have three or more embryos implanted to up the odds of getting pregnant in one month versus paying upwards of four times the price stretching this emotionally wrenching process for at least another year.
What's often not considered is the high cost of treating premature babies in the intensive care unit and the chances that these premies may not become the miracle babies but will become children with expensive lifelong impairments, such as mental retardation, or will become babies who will die in the hospital shortly after birth. And that's just considering the financial burden. What about the emotional impact of the death of a baby or a baby with chronic illness on the parents? Are we breeding babies or trying to create healthy families?
Perhaps this recent report by the CDC, combined with a smattering of articles in national newspapers and of course the media brouhaha sparked by the Octomom will convince doctors to speak more honestly to their patients about the risk of multiples and perhaps convince our government to insist that insurance companies cover the cost of treatment. Taking away the fear of expenses may help some couples may wiser and healthier decisions.
I don't even know where to begin.
First of all INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR INFERTILITY PATIENTS. Why is this so fucking hard to understand? You cover the procedure, and the woman won't feel the need to put so many embryos back in. When there are less embryos transfered, there's less of a chance of multiples. With less of a chance for multiples, there's less of a chance of premature birth. With less premature births, there will be BILLIONS OF DOLLARS LESS of neo-natal health care bills. Cost goes down all around. NOT FUCKING ROCKET SCIENCE.
Secondly, why in the bleeding hell does everyone just assume that the doctor does exactly what his patient wants him to do. Woman CANNOT just walk into a fertility clinic and say, "I wanna transfer six embryos" and have the doctor say, "Well okay then, if that's what you want." NO IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY, and it pisses me off that people think it does. Once again, (How many fucking times do I need to say this?!) it depends on the woman and her age and her diagnosis and her infertility history and her miscarriage history and her health history. I BEGGED my RE to transfer three, and he wasn't about to do it, and I was 39 years old with stage IV endo, blocked tubes, and ovarian cysts, with one miscarriage behind me. STOP TAKING THE ABERRATION AND TRYING TO CONVINCE EVERYONE IT'S THE NORM. I know someone who transfered the normal two. Then three. Then three again. Then five. Finally she transfered SIX (yes just like "Octomom", who I would like to point out had transfered six various times in the past and only had singletons!), and now she's finally pregnant with twins. If she'd only transfered three again, it's quite possible she would have missed those "golden eggs".
Lastly, SO HEY SHUT THE FUCK UP UNLESS YOU ARE A FERTILITY PATIENT, because you don't have a fucking clue what it's really like!