E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAn article just published in the highly respected journal Fertility and Sterility ought to give anyone thinking about using “test tube” baby technology pause. A review of 124,000 children born through two very common infertility treatments -- in vitro fertilization, creating embryos in a dish and transferring them to a womb and ICSI, in which a single sperm is injected directly into an egg -- showed large increase in the risk of having a child with a birth defect. The risk was 37 percent higher than that seen in children made the old fashioned way. That is a huge number.
There is some danger that this message will not get heard by those thinking about using infertility treatments or considering putting off having a baby until later in life figuring they can use IVF if they need to.
Celebrities continue to appear on television gab shows proclaiming that they used infertility treatment to have a child and that it was a breeze. Stories about Nadya Suleman and other super-multiple pregnancies rarely mention the grim facts about disability and premature death that accompany these morally dubious pregnancies. Too many clinics providing reproductive services for cash fail to emphasize the risks faced by kids made technologically.
I am not anti-technology when it comes to making babies. The position of the Catholic Church and some social conservatives in opposing the creation of life with a technological assist when infertility prevents a married couple from reproduction strikes me as cruel and anti-life. And those who worry about turning baby-making into manufacturing when it is done in a clinic seem to me to have a very optimistic view about the circumstances that accompany the creation of a huge number of kids when sex is used.
That said, the large risk factor now on the table needs to be a key part of how everyone thinks about making babies in medical settings. The authors of the study say they do not know why the risk is so large. And it has taken far too long for this question to get asked. We need to be sure that long-term monitoring of children born by means of infertility treatment is routine and that more research is done into the causes of health problems for kids who cannot make choices about facing risk.
Infertility treatments have brought a great deal of joy to many. But, the price is high -- so high that we need to be sure it is a key element in thinking about using these treatments.
What do you think? Tell us on Facebook.
Birth defects a third more common in IVF babies
Women with heart trouble more likely to have baby girls
The twin babies of an American woman, born abroad through in-vitro fertilization, are being denied U.S. citizenship because there is no proof that either the egg donor or sperm donor is American. NBC's Martin Fletcher reports.
Leave a Comment:
The study was funded by a government that has a one child policy. . . No ethical issues with the obvious bias problem that is being ignored?
The study that Dr. Caplan refers to uses 'relative risk' for their statistical analysis. His statement that there is a 37% greater risk in babies born through IVF and ICSI is confusing and may be misinterpreted by people. I'm afraid some people may take this to mean there is a 37% chance of a birth defect in IVF and ICSI babies. This is not the case. Because they refer to 'relative risk' it means that, lets say, there is a 1% chance of birth defects in babies conceived naturally then there would be a 1.37% chance in IVF and ICSI babies. Whatever the probability of a birth defect is in naturally conceived babies it would be a little over one-third (37%) higher in IVF and ICSI conceived babies.
The CDC indicates that the risk of a malformation is 3% in the general population. A 37% increase leads to a 4% risk of having a child with IVF with/without ICSI.
So yes, there is about a 1% increase in risk. In addition to the risk to the child, I also think that there are health risks to doing IVF. I strongly agree with him that research should look into these issues to try to make them safer if possible. What I disagree about Art Caplan's article was the idea that people routinely turn to IVF because it is easier or cool. IVF is often associated with multiple rounds of heart break and loss. IVF impacts and invades the couples health, relationship, throughts, and every day life in a way that most people couldn't imagine. Add to that the $15,000 price tag...I can't image a couple moving onto IVF lightly. The 'normal way' is so much easier.
Because this article not recognize this reality, it is sadly flawed.
I agree, and the fact that he called them "morally dubious" pregnancies. My wife and I are expecting a baby boy in about 6 weeks compliments of IVF and he's a healthy normal baby. I can't believe NBC published this sad attempt at an article. Obviously they didn't bother fact checking either.
drewzicle and kirstyloo2... thank you for pointing out the blindingly obvious that the increase is a relative rate... Caplan you should be ashamed of such alarmist and intellectually disingenous reporting... Truly ashamed!!!
Catholics believe that a child is a gift. Technical manipulation of life-making cells treats the child as a product, not a gift and is contrary to the dignity of the child. freezing of embryos, 'selective' terminations and embryos created but not implanted is cruel and anti-life, not the Church's teachings.
for those who seek this gift, there is always adoption, a moral alternative to IVF.
What's immoral about wanting your own child? Adoption can take anywhere from 2-5 years and sometimes well over $25,000. So for those of us seeking that gift, adoption isn't as easy as someone that hasn't looked into may think. As an expecting father of an IVF conceived baby, I think the procedure/process is a gift to all of us who may have some problem having children.