Should having sextuplets through fertility treatments be allowed?

I think more doctors are talking about this issue as well. In just October the non-profit group American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) released new fertility treatment guidelines calling for a limited number of embryos - in some cases only one - to be transferred during in-vitro fertilization procedures.

http://www.asrm.org/Media/Press/06embryostransferred.html

Even the March of Dimes, whose mission is to improve the health of babies by preventing birth defects, premature birth, and infant mortality, is getting on board. "Limiting the number of transferred embryos will mean fewer higher-order multiple gestations, defined as three or more fetuses, and reduce the risk of complications for both the mother and the fetus, including preterm birth," said Dr. Nancy Green, March of Dimes medical director.

Reply

I can't even begin to put mysef in that place. Having six babies at once. I did IVF, I transferred 4 embryo's and two embryo's turned into my twins. The reason we transferred so many was because they were poor quality, not viable enough to freeze and save for later. My doctor said he rarely lets his patients transfer more than two embryos. For us, it seemed like an all or nothing basket.

I'm assuming if these six babies are fraternal and they really came from six or more embryo transfers it must have been that type of desperate situation. It's more likely though, the woman was on fertility meds and she produced several eggs, and was inseminated just before ovulation. And it just so happens six embies implanted.

I live in the US and wouldn't dream of not having health insurance. My husband has a good job and our whole family is covered. We pay some out of pocket expenses like co-pays and deductibles. But the government doesn't pay one dime. Not that I am aware. It must be different in Canada.

Reply

Having micro-preemies isn't the only ethical issue raised by fertility treatment. There is also the issue of embryos frozen and never used as well as other ethical issues. I think fertility doctors have got it in their heads that anyone with the means to pay should get a baby no matter what means are necessary to achieve that goal. Prospective parents aren't free of blame either. So many people have convinced themselves that they must have a biological child regardless of the physical, mental, societal and financial costs.

I think the ethics and methods of the whole specialty of fertility medicine need to be scrutinized. If they won't do it themselves, governments should do it for them.

Reply

I don't think you're suggesting women undergo abortions against their will, are you? But that's what mandatory "selective reduction" would entail.

As a mother of extremely premature triplets, two of which survive, I think there should be strict limits on the number of embryos introduced in IVF.

However, some fairly simple drug regimens can produce multiple ovulations and multiple pregnancies without any more intervention than a few injections. What do you propose to mandate about that? That question is a lot more difficult.

Reply

If you are implying that multiples should be selectively reduced for "the good of the state", that is one of the most disturbing things I have heard all week. In IVF situations, the amount of embryos transferred should be carefully considered, but as far as I know most fertility clinics already have policies about that. But in multiples situations where the woman is on ferility drugs and releases more eggs than was expected, the idea that the goverment should "do something" about it is disgusting. Where does it end? Should the goverment "do something" about mentally and physically disabled children who are a drain on the system? When we lose our respect for human life, the eventual outcomes are a nightmare. As Mother Theresa said, " When a mother can kill her own child, what is left?"

Reply

And, on the other hand, all of those babies could grow up and be healthy. They could all end up contributing to society. Who are we to judge?
Let me put it another way - which would cost more? 6 babies who require intensive care for their first 6 months but who go home to a loving supportive home where they grow into responsible adults...
Or the thousands of babies born each day who are neglected and abused, who often grow into criminals or drug addicts, and are requiring supervision (in the form of the hundreds of programs out there for kids and adults in that situation) their entire lives?

Somehow, I seriously doubt those 6 will come out on the higher end of the scale. But yet, no one would ever imply that a baby should be aborted simply because it`s mother is, say, a drug addict or living in that sort of situation. Why on earth should parents who will likely take care of their children be looked at in that way? Even the most neglected and abused child living in a drug den has the capability of contributing to the world - no child should ever be eliminated based on how much it will cost the government.

My son was, in fact, born weighing less than a pound - and he spent 5 months in the hospital and cost the government more than a million. (He required pretty intensive care there for a while.) Would I have had him if the government wasn`t around to help? Of course... And we would have come up with the money.

23, 24, and 25 weeks are all drastically different. You can`t group them together into one pretty category - look at the survival figures. Those babies were 25 weeks old - they have a fairly good chance. 23 weekers would not, and 24 weekers are still very iffy. Every single one of those babies *could* be completely fine. Prematurity doesn`t automatically equal disability.

Either way, you don`t even know if they used in-vitro. I too think it`s more likely that she was on meds and that many eggs were released - and that the father had some very enthusiastic sperm! Get rid of one or two babies and you risk losing them all. If this was their only chance for children, regardless of religious views etc, I can easily see their choice to try to have them all.

Reply

I think it's important not to overstate the medical care they will receive. Yes, $1m sounds like a lot; but in a country of 35 million people, it works out to about three cents for each of us. I'm willing to spend three cents to avoid living in a state where the government decides which pregnancies should be terminated.

Reply

I don't know much about the religion, but wouldn't practicing Jehovah's Witnesses be very unlikely to participate in IVF?

Reply

Sandyone, my son was born 15 weeks early, weighing 1 1/2 lbs. Yes, he was at higher risk of having CP, epilepsy, and about a bazillion other things. However, he was viable out of the womb, with medical intervention. No, it was not an easy road, he spent 88 days in NICU, was on various ventilators until he was strong enough to breath room air, he had heart surgery, collapsed lungs, twice, and too many to count blood and plasma transfusions. (among many other things, but I won't bore you with our 17 page, million dollar discharge papers)

Yes, he was technically still a fetus, and barely on the cusp of what is considered viable. But, if I had refused medical treatment, the hospital would have gone to court and gotten medical custody of my son, so they could provide necessary medical treatment. And, rightfully so. The Mom and Dad may be of a religion that doesn't believe in medical intervention, however, the baby hasn't had a chance to choose what s/he believes. It is one thing to refuse life-saving measures for yourself, quite another to refuse them on behalf of someone who has no voice.

Today, my son is 2 years old, and just like any full-term 2 year old, except he sees a PT and an OT and has very mild CP, that is hardly noticeable. Did I have the right to refuse treatment and steal this precious boy from the world? Who made me God?

Reply