Final Question: Should there be tighter regulations on In Vitro fertilization treatment?
Side: Yes, there should be tighter regulations
first subtopic: health dangers
Health risks are increased in mothers as well as infant when dealing with multiple births as a result of IVF. Complications are much more likely. Infants in such births are much more likely to face heart and lung failure. They are also much more likely to become victim to cerebral palsy, due to the multiple ambillical chords that could potentially become wrapped around any of the babies' necks. Premature birth is expected with multiples and the severity of prematurity increases with the number of fetuses. Some multiples are born as early as 27 weeks; naturally conceived singletons are due at 40 weeks. Prematurity is a growing problem in the U.S. with IVF babies. One hospital reported that over half of the babies in their NICU were IVF multiples, once again illustrating the increasing risks with the increasing number of fetuses. IVF babies are also slightly more susceptible to birth defects such as a cleft lip or palate and a hole between the two chambers of the heart.
Aside from the babies' health is the mother's health and well being. Mothers who are pregnant with multiples are often bedridden very early in their pregnancy in an attempt to reduce complications. High blood pressure, diabetes, and blood clots become a major threat. Becoming pregnant with as many as eight can cause serious back problems due to the weight of the babies. Health risks for IVF moms are similar to those of mothers who naturally conceive, but premature labor adds on yet another stress to an IVF mother's body.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Post #2
Although the octuplet debate is what initially grabbed my attention, I'm leaning toward focusing on the pro's and con's of in vitro fertilization in a more general light. In vitro fertilization and the decisions that must be made in regard to it affect millions of families every year. The Suleman case is just one such situation. Looking at the in vitro fertilization debate offers more opportunity to look at even more cases and perspectives.
Pro's for In Vitro Fertilization with multiple embryos:
- If a family can only afford one round of treatment, they may want to be REALLY sure that pregnancy occurs. More embryos means a greater chance of pregnancy and it would only require a family to pay for one round of the treatment, rather than three or four.
- The government should not have involvement in reproductive choice. The multiple embryos is a personal decision.
- There are currently no laws in the United States restricting the number of embryos that can be placed in a mother's womb.
- Some women may WANT to have multiples.
- Selective abortion is an option.
Con's for In Vitro Fertilization with multiple embryos:
- Women who are pregnant with multiples usually give birth prematurely. A premature birth increases health risks such as cerebral palsy, heart failure, and lung failure, for the babies significantly.
- In many hospitals, over half of the babies in the NICU are premies. Looking after so many babies that resulted from In Vitro causes huge bills for the intensive care units, bills that some people see as avoidable if fewer eggs were implanted during IVF.
- Fertility doctors are awarded for high pregnancy rates at their clinic. Such a reward system encourages doctors to push the limit in terms of planting as many embryos as possible. If stricter regulations were made, doctors may be more concerned about their patients' health rather than boosting pregnancy rates.
- If IVF runs amok and more babies are born than expected, it can be very difficult for families to provide for the children, especially in the current economy.
- Those who have a rarity of multiples (like Suleman's octuplets) can use the children to get into the media spotlight.
My Opinion: I feel that there should be a law that limits the number of embryos implanted during IVF in accordance with a woman's age, physical health, and economic stability. The risks that doctors take to increase their clinic's pregnancy rates are absurd. When the norm is three embryos and a doctor (in particular, Dr. Kamrava) implants six, there is too much grey area for things to go wrong. People should be entitled to have children through IVF, but doctors need stricter guidelines in order to ensure the safety of their patients, the babies, and to reduce hospital expenses. Parents also need to be economically qualified before undergoing the treatment, just as adoptive parents need to pass certain economic specifications.
Pro's for In Vitro Fertilization with multiple embryos:
- If a family can only afford one round of treatment, they may want to be REALLY sure that pregnancy occurs. More embryos means a greater chance of pregnancy and it would only require a family to pay for one round of the treatment, rather than three or four.
- The government should not have involvement in reproductive choice. The multiple embryos is a personal decision.
- There are currently no laws in the United States restricting the number of embryos that can be placed in a mother's womb.
- Some women may WANT to have multiples.
- Selective abortion is an option.
Con's for In Vitro Fertilization with multiple embryos:
- Women who are pregnant with multiples usually give birth prematurely. A premature birth increases health risks such as cerebral palsy, heart failure, and lung failure, for the babies significantly.
- In many hospitals, over half of the babies in the NICU are premies. Looking after so many babies that resulted from In Vitro causes huge bills for the intensive care units, bills that some people see as avoidable if fewer eggs were implanted during IVF.
- Fertility doctors are awarded for high pregnancy rates at their clinic. Such a reward system encourages doctors to push the limit in terms of planting as many embryos as possible. If stricter regulations were made, doctors may be more concerned about their patients' health rather than boosting pregnancy rates.
- If IVF runs amok and more babies are born than expected, it can be very difficult for families to provide for the children, especially in the current economy.
- Those who have a rarity of multiples (like Suleman's octuplets) can use the children to get into the media spotlight.
My Opinion: I feel that there should be a law that limits the number of embryos implanted during IVF in accordance with a woman's age, physical health, and economic stability. The risks that doctors take to increase their clinic's pregnancy rates are absurd. When the norm is three embryos and a doctor (in particular, Dr. Kamrava) implants six, there is too much grey area for things to go wrong. People should be entitled to have children through IVF, but doctors need stricter guidelines in order to ensure the safety of their patients, the babies, and to reduce hospital expenses. Parents also need to be economically qualified before undergoing the treatment, just as adoptive parents need to pass certain economic specifications.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Post #1
The topic I have chosen for my research paper involves the ethical dilemma surrounding in vitro fertilization. For many women, motherhood is a dream established even as a child. Such a dream is crushed for those women who discover that they are infertile. Adoption has become popular for many women, and even for gay couples. But in vitro fertilization, also known as I.V.F., has opened new opportunities for those having trouble conceiving. Fertility doctors are able to take embryos from the potential mother and fertilize the eggs outside of the uterus. The embryos are then implanted into the uterus for the normal gestation period. Unlike adoption, I.V.F. babies are a direct "product" of their parents.
Prior to a few weeks ago, I barely questioned the ethics behind I.V.F. I saw it as a great way for couples who were dying to be parents to make their dreams come true, and in most cases, still feel this way. The birth of Nadya Sulemen's octuplets and all of the media attention it has drawn, however, has me seeing both sides of the issue. Prior to giving birth to the octuplets, Nadya was already caring for six children. She is also unemployed and lives at her parent's home. With in vitro, there is always a higher chance of multiple births, but Nadya Suleman's case may not have been a "by chance" situation. Suleman said that she was implanted with six embryos, whereas three or four embryos is the norm; fertility doctors usually do this in an effort to reduce the risk of multiple births.
The topic caught my interest at home as I watched the news, but I only began considering it as a potential research paper topic after a class discussion in Legal Studies class. We discussed whether or not it was ethical for Ms. Suleman to have recieved fertility treatment considering she already had six children and the costs that would inevitably come with having fourteen. My gut reaction was that she is entitled to however many children she wants to have, but as I heard other classmates voice their opinions, I began to sway. The question is: Was it ethical for Ms. Suleman to recieve fertility treatment despite her lack of income, life partner, and own home? Should in vitro candidates have the right to conceive just as those who can conceive naturally, or should their be standards that potential candidates must measure up to? For example, Couples who wish to adopt children have to fit many standards. Should in vitro candidates have to pass similar standards? Obviously, this question is way too wordy. I'm having trouble narrowing in on one subject, but have a great interest in the topic and look forward to becoming an expert on the topic.
Prior to a few weeks ago, I barely questioned the ethics behind I.V.F. I saw it as a great way for couples who were dying to be parents to make their dreams come true, and in most cases, still feel this way. The birth of Nadya Sulemen's octuplets and all of the media attention it has drawn, however, has me seeing both sides of the issue. Prior to giving birth to the octuplets, Nadya was already caring for six children. She is also unemployed and lives at her parent's home. With in vitro, there is always a higher chance of multiple births, but Nadya Suleman's case may not have been a "by chance" situation. Suleman said that she was implanted with six embryos, whereas three or four embryos is the norm; fertility doctors usually do this in an effort to reduce the risk of multiple births.
The topic caught my interest at home as I watched the news, but I only began considering it as a potential research paper topic after a class discussion in Legal Studies class. We discussed whether or not it was ethical for Ms. Suleman to have recieved fertility treatment considering she already had six children and the costs that would inevitably come with having fourteen. My gut reaction was that she is entitled to however many children she wants to have, but as I heard other classmates voice their opinions, I began to sway. The question is: Was it ethical for Ms. Suleman to recieve fertility treatment despite her lack of income, life partner, and own home? Should in vitro candidates have the right to conceive just as those who can conceive naturally, or should their be standards that potential candidates must measure up to? For example, Couples who wish to adopt children have to fit many standards. Should in vitro candidates have to pass similar standards? Obviously, this question is way too wordy. I'm having trouble narrowing in on one subject, but have a great interest in the topic and look forward to becoming an expert on the topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)