"If someone came in and wanted to transfer six embryos...we have an obligation to protect the patient and not let [them] do things that are unreasonable." - Dr. Daniel Potter, director of the Huntington Reproductive Center
This quote shows that if the government set actual laws and regulations in I.V.F., doctors would HAVE to do what is best for the patient. Because there are currently only guidelines rather than tight regulations, doctors have more opportunities to avoid their ethical obligation to watch out for the patient's health, despite their requests.
"It is healthier to implant only one embryo, even if it means the process has to be repeated because of the risks of multiple births." - Stephanie Saul, New York Times. This statement reflects the 2008 I.V.F. guidelines from the government
"Doctors are selling a product and their patients are so vulnerable." - Peggy Orenstein, New York Times. Peggy went through the I.V.F. process, and can relate to the desperation that comes along with trying to get pregnant. She relatest to that vulnerability and understands that doctors could easily use it to their advantage.
"I find it a huge ethical failure that she was even accepted as a patient." - Dr. Caplan, bioethicist from UPenn. Dr. Caplan discusses how Suleman already had six children and couldn't handle the costs of 14 children.
"No laws restrict the number of embryos that can be placed in a mother's womb, but fertility doctors generally abide by guidelines." - Randal C. Archibold, New York Times. This quote is evidence of the simple lack of structure in the I.V.F. world. The word "generally" is also used. This means that there are some doctors who do NOT follow the guidelines. Dr. Michael Kamrava, who implanted six embryos in Nadya Suleman, is just one example.
"This newly hatched technology is nto just a branch of medicine; it's a market tand ought to be treated as such." - Peggy Orenstein, NYT. This point comes from a book "The Baby Business" by Debora Spar. It serves as evidence that with the current loose regulations, patients cannot let their guard down to vulnerability. If tighter restrictions were made, the market wouldn't be so business-like; patients would not have to be so worried about being conned.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Blog #4
Subtopic 2: The Financial Woes/Financial Assistance
A single round of in vitro fertilization costs about 10,000 dollars. Such an expense can take a toll on the given family. If multiples develop, then the financial woes are yet again heightened. People who are unemployed, or already have many children before undergoing IVF, have barely any means of supporting their children, except through donations and government assistance. In our current economy, the government should not be spending millions per year on IVF babies. With tighter regulations on the embryos implanted and on who is allowed to undergo the treatment in the first place, people would avoid poverty and the government would not have to provide assistance.
The opposite side may say that BECAUSE the in vitro is so expensive, mothers should implant as many embryos as possible in order to guarantee pregnancy in one round. Doing so would greatly increase the chance of multiples and therefore heighten health risks and financial issues.
Subtopic 3: Corrupt Doctors/Competition Among Doctors
New York and California have an abundance of IVF doctors; so abundant that IVF has basically become a market, or a competition, among doctors. Each doctor strives to get their pregnancy rates up so more people come to THEM for the treatment. The opposite side may argue that it is heartwarming and ethically correct for doctors to strive to help those who cannot get pregnant on their own, but it is not so heartwarming to realize that some doctors are implanting more embryos than necessarily needed in hopes of seeing multiples, a sure way to increase their practice's pregnancy rates. Kamrava, the doctor of the octuplets, is the perfect example. There needs to be regulations in IVF in order to reduce these corrupt doctors. Because there are no laws on how many embryos can be implanted, only guidelines, it becomes difficult to monitor which doctors are doing what.
Subtopic 4: Similar to Adoption
Adoption is another alternative to infertility. But one could definitely argue that the path to adoption is a much more winding road than IVF. Qualifications must be met before a couple (and yes, I do believe it has to be a couple) can adopt a child from any country. IVF should have similar qualifications that need to be met. I honestly believe that even those who naturally conceive should have to pass certain parental qualifications, but that is another subject. If one is so desperate to have a child of their own, one needs to prove that they are qualified to be a parent. An emotionally unstable/financially unstable/unstable in general person should not be permitted to undergo IVF because they will not be able to properly provide for their child, just as potential-adoptive parents may not be qualified to provide for a child.
The opposite side may argue that if a couple or an individual can pay to undergo the treatment, they are entitled to it no matter other circumstances. There aren't any restrictions on naturally conceiving children, so why should there be for IVF parents? If IVF parents are so desperate for a child and would like to be a parent then they will strive to meet the necessary qualifications.
A single round of in vitro fertilization costs about 10,000 dollars. Such an expense can take a toll on the given family. If multiples develop, then the financial woes are yet again heightened. People who are unemployed, or already have many children before undergoing IVF, have barely any means of supporting their children, except through donations and government assistance. In our current economy, the government should not be spending millions per year on IVF babies. With tighter regulations on the embryos implanted and on who is allowed to undergo the treatment in the first place, people would avoid poverty and the government would not have to provide assistance.
The opposite side may say that BECAUSE the in vitro is so expensive, mothers should implant as many embryos as possible in order to guarantee pregnancy in one round. Doing so would greatly increase the chance of multiples and therefore heighten health risks and financial issues.
Subtopic 3: Corrupt Doctors/Competition Among Doctors
New York and California have an abundance of IVF doctors; so abundant that IVF has basically become a market, or a competition, among doctors. Each doctor strives to get their pregnancy rates up so more people come to THEM for the treatment. The opposite side may argue that it is heartwarming and ethically correct for doctors to strive to help those who cannot get pregnant on their own, but it is not so heartwarming to realize that some doctors are implanting more embryos than necessarily needed in hopes of seeing multiples, a sure way to increase their practice's pregnancy rates. Kamrava, the doctor of the octuplets, is the perfect example. There needs to be regulations in IVF in order to reduce these corrupt doctors. Because there are no laws on how many embryos can be implanted, only guidelines, it becomes difficult to monitor which doctors are doing what.
Subtopic 4: Similar to Adoption
Adoption is another alternative to infertility. But one could definitely argue that the path to adoption is a much more winding road than IVF. Qualifications must be met before a couple (and yes, I do believe it has to be a couple) can adopt a child from any country. IVF should have similar qualifications that need to be met. I honestly believe that even those who naturally conceive should have to pass certain parental qualifications, but that is another subject. If one is so desperate to have a child of their own, one needs to prove that they are qualified to be a parent. An emotionally unstable/financially unstable/unstable in general person should not be permitted to undergo IVF because they will not be able to properly provide for their child, just as potential-adoptive parents may not be qualified to provide for a child.
The opposite side may argue that if a couple or an individual can pay to undergo the treatment, they are entitled to it no matter other circumstances. There aren't any restrictions on naturally conceiving children, so why should there be for IVF parents? If IVF parents are so desperate for a child and would like to be a parent then they will strive to meet the necessary qualifications.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Post #3
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.
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.
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)