I could be wrong but I dont think they are worried about twins, but more like the 5-6 women sometimes have. I sort of agree with it personally, but also I have never been old and wanted children so, its a hard call. I do have a very hard time with the fact that many times here in the US, someone chooses to have in vitro, they have 7 kids all at once, and people give them free stuff. it was their choice and they should have to deal with the consequences. They dont give free stuff to needy children, why to people who pay $15,000 dollars to have a kid? These people are usually white and upper middle class. you dont see stuff being handed out to poor minorities. so, the whole in vitro thing makes a bit mad anyway, but i would have to read more about this.

basically - the problem is that because a round of IVF is so expensive, alot of couples decide to implant 5,6,7, sometimes even 8 embryos in the hopes that one of them will take. Unfortunately, alot of times this equals out to triplets and quadruplets - which are extremely risky to both the babies and the mothers.

Some IVF clinics, at least in America, are EXTREMELY concerned about their success rate, since that is how they can market to clients, and so they push this practice in order to up their success rate.

I could see people finding unethical clinics pushing a very risky practice on vulnerable couples who are also looking at ginormous bills very offensive.

On the other hand, I don't think outlawing it is the way to go. I definitely think though that anyone pursuing IVF should definitely be told the truth about the risks to women and fetuses of multiple births. Alot of people don't realize that while twins are risky, our bodies can generally handle them - but we simply ARE NOT designed to have more than 2 fetuses simultaneously.

Twins do present a higher risk to the mother & babies, and recent studies show that single-embryo transfer is just as effective as multiple embryos. The quote in the article that this "This will halve women's chances of getting pregnant" is not true. Just another example of bad science journalism -- why would you quote a patient on the effectiveness of a medical procedure?

I think you also have to look at this from the perspective of Britain's national health care, where treatments are rationed in order to make sure that nobody is consuming too many resources. In that light, it seems fair to require patients to opt for the more conservative treatment that gives close to the same results with fewer risks.

Mmm. I personally agree with the reasoning behind the legislation, but I am deeply wary of legislative controls on medical practice, even when that medical practice is nationalized. I would prefer to see a professional organization--whatever Britain's equivalent of the AMA is--issue sets of protocols that all fertility doctors would have to read and sign on to in order to be recommended by them, something like that, that's medical-care-driven rather than legislatively driven. On the other hand, it is hard for me to see what, if any, ideological motivation there could be behind this legislation, so maybe it too is medical-care-driven.

Yup, as nausicaa said, SET (single embryo transfer) is about as effective as transferring more embryos, and reduce both fetal and maternal risk. Swedish law forbids the transfer of more than two embryos, and the national medical guidelines state that SET is the default.

Numbers from 2001 and 2002:
Number of IVFs: 609
SET: 25%
Pregnancies: 30%
Twins: 23%

Numbers from 2003:
Number of IVFs: 369
SET: 71%
Pregnancies: 34%
Twins: 6%

Yup, as nausicaa said, SET (single embryo transfer) is about as effective as transferring more embryos, and reduce both fetal and maternal risk. Swedish law forbids the transfer of more than two embryos, and the national medical guidelines state that SET is the default.

Numbers from 2001 and 2002:
Number of IVFs: 609
SET: 25%
Pregnancies: 30%
Twins: 23%

Numbers from 2003:
Number of IVFs: 369
SET: 71%
Pregnancies: 34%
Twins: 6%

Yup, as nausicaa said, SET (single embryo transfer) is about as effective as transferring more embryos, and reduce both fetal and maternal risk. Swedish law forbids the transfer of more than two embryos, and the national medical guidelines state that SET is the default.

Numbers from 2001 and 2002:
Number of IVFs: 609
SET: 25%
Pregnancies: 30%
Twins: 23%

Numbers from 2003:
Number of IVFs: 369
SET: 71%
Pregnancies: 34%
Twins: 6%

So, I've done/am doing IVF.

First of all, high order multiples (4+) almost always come from clomid or stimmed IUIs, not IVF. TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

I've done elective single embryo transfers. It didn't really work in the "have a child" sense, so we're moving on to bigger numbers like (gasp!) two.

I'm very much in favor of limiting the number of embryos transferred, but codifying medical treatment into law is capricious and arbitrary, and assuming that single embryo embryo transfers will work for everyone is kind of assinine.

it could be a slippery slope i agree.

So, I've done/am doing IVF.

First of all, high order multiples (4+) almost always come from clomid or stimmed IUIs, not IVF. TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

I've done elective single embryo transfers. It didn't really work in the "have a child" sense, so we're moving on to bigger numbers like (gasp!) two.

I'm very much in favor of limiting the number of embryos transferred, but codifying medical treatment into law is capricious and arbitrary, and assuming that single embryo embryo transfers will work for everyone is kind of assinine.

However I may personally feel about IVF and multiple births or whatever, I just can't believe it's the government's business to legislate against it. I mean, at the most basic level, you are telling women what they can or can't do to their bodies. Isn't that something we should be appalled about?

I have a really hard time with the large multiple births that result from fertility drugs like clomid or multiple embryo implantation following IVF, but if I believe in women's reproductive freedom, then that has to go both ways. It's hard to condemn a woman's choice to have multiple children when I want to have choices for myself.

Why not implement a policy that NHS treatments will begin with SET and then move on to multiples when appropriate? Setting policy rather than absolutes gives medical practitioners a guideline but still allows for flexibility when needed.

"Why not implement a policy that NHS treatments will begin with SET and then move on to multiples when appropriate?"

That actually appears to be the policy -- if the woman doesn't respond to conservative treatment first, she can get multiple transfers.

I definitely have an opinion on this issue, at least as far as it extends to me. I think human beings weren't meant to have litters, and I think the desire to undergo fertility treatments is a bit egotistical when there are children up for adoption in need of loving homes. (This comes from me having 2 close friends and 2 cousins who I wouldn't have the pleasure of knowing, had their parents not opted to adopt.)

However, I have only a vague idea of what either adoption or fertility treatments entail or how they compare in terms of expense, so it may be that my opinion would be different if I had that additional information. Furthermore, as a woman with no intention of having children (and who is comfortable with that) I can't appropriately empathize with someone who desperately wants one. Lacking sufficient information and empathy for this particular issue, I'm in no position to judge whether the decision to undergo IVF would be right or wrong for me, let alone someone else.

Additionally, as has already been pointed out, I flinch a bit at any law that removes an option in what I feel is ultimately a personal reproductive decision. I think that's a slippery slope indeed.

The issue of whether such options (adoption or fertility treatments) should be made more affordable, so as to be available to more people (rather than only the wealthy), or whether the procedure should be more refined so as to limit the likelihood of multiple births (I'm talking 4, 5, 6+ here) is a whole other issue with room to debate, but again, not one I'm well-informed enough to engage in.

I'd like to ask Akeeyu, if it's not too personal or intrusive a request, if s/he would be willing to share more about what led to the decision to undergo IVF, (along with anyone else who has done it or knows more about it) because I would like to learn more--from someone who has experienced it-- why one might choose to go that route.

I agree with Bird, but it has also bothered me pretty massively that the anti-abortion rights crowd didn't oppose multiple IVF implantation way, way before they started opposing abortion.

The fact that they are obsessed about abortion, but will mostly ignore this issue is quite telling to me--it really shows that they are truly intent on punishing women and not on 'saving the lives of the unborn.'

Shifting the debate to fertility issues like this is both more favorable to the pro-choice crowd (who opposes a couple trying to have children?) and more logically consistent for them.

Does anyone know what the average total cost is from the beginning of treatment to successful birth for both single and multiple embryo transfers?

I've never undergone IVF, but I know a lot about it. The ethical issues are complex. I agree with UK on this one. The public health issue outweighs the liberty. The government's involvement is justified because it is a public health issue in a country which offers socialized health care. Twins tend to go prematurely, and preemies are at higher risk for health problems and incur higher neonatal care charges.

Again, reproductive technology creates many complex ethical issues. Among them are the right to multiples, but also the right to conceive much later in life.

Has anyone else read Naomi Wolf's Misconceptions? It really discusses IVF in detail, especially when it comes to this issue. I think it is a responsible decision.

Umm...this is an opinion drawn from previous posts about reducing: if one has the option to try however many eggs, one should also be (somewhat) comfortable reducing the pregnancy to mitigate health risks to the however many feti that become "viable" - with the health problems they'll end up with, the difficult pregnancy, et al.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with legal restrictions in this arena - but - I work at a children's hospital, and I see firsthand what the lives of multiple preemies and their parents can be like - difficult, painful, expensive, and often quite short. When based on legitimate research, these kinds of restrictions can be an ultimately positive constraint on fertility treatments. and while that might have a creepy ring of "the government knows better," fertility clinics often take advantage of women desperate to get pregnant, and employ a more-is-better approach, regardless of the health of her or her future children.

Actually, this might also be a round-about abortion issue. My sister recently had IVF, and my cousin did IUI (both had twins) and one of the things they were told was that if they had multiple viable fetuses, they had the option of aborting one or more, to ensure that they could carry the other(s) to term.

Most multiple birth pregnancies are very high risk, especially for women with difficulty carrying to term. That's why after IVF, some women choose to abort the "extra" babies. I personally think the number of kids someone has is their right, not their governments, even with help to increase or decrease.

I can see how this could be considered an invasion of personal freedoms, but Britain has really thrown that whole concept out the window. (Check out the Anti Social Behavior acts)

I do think that older people who want children should seriously consider adopting. I know a lot of couples want their own kids, and I sympathise, but the amount of money spent on concieving could also be spent on taking care of those who are already living in poor conditions. But then I'm one of those people who will only adopt dogs from shelters, so that's just my mindset I suppose.

Shinobi, I think the root of the issue for me is that nobody forces people to only adopt dogs from shelters or to take care of the poor (despite what some conservatives may say about taxation). Enforcing laws that mandate ethical action by fertility clinics (ensuring that the parents are informed of the risks, etc.) is reasonable and just. We have laws governing ethical conduct for all sorts of professionals. But regulating reproductive rights is a risky affair.

We've fought hard to have the right to decide what we want for our bodies, and telling a woman that she must adopt, that she cannot try to have five babies, or that she must abort some fetuses is just as unfair as telling a woman she has to carry an unwanted pregnancy. I want the anti-choice people to keep their laws off my body—that means respecting the bodies and choices of others too, no matter what my personal opinion is of their decisions.

Bird - Would you feel any more comfortable with a law that allowed women to have two embryos implanted if their goal was to have twins, but only allowed single embryos if the goal was pregnancy in general? I agree that there's something problematic about forbidding women to deliberately try to have twins.

Still, I'm not so sure that this problem really falls in line so neatly with basic reproductive rights questions like the fundamental right to abortion. It seems to me more closely related to questions like whether we should allow fetal screening & abortions based on gender of the fetus; or whether we should allow babies to be genetially engineered.

No, I don't think I would be more comfortable with that law. To establish a policy that says the first option should be SET is reasonable, but to refuse to allow women to have two or more embryos implanted when they are fully informed and accepting of the risks is a questionable proposition at best.

So many of these issues are gray areas. Do we consider that there is a basic right to pregnancy in the same way that we're advocating a basic right to abortion? If I have the right to be not pregnant, don't I also have the right to be pregnant? And how far does that right go?

I personally find sex-based abortion repugnant, but if I want to be able to have an abortion with no questions asked in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, I may have to face the fact that another woman might make that choice because of the sex of the fetus. The same goes for women who abort because the results of prenatal testing show Down's Syndrome or another disorder. I believe in the rights of the disabled, but I can't make that woman carry her pregnancy to term because of that if I want to have free choice myself. when you start restricting for one reason, it's easy to keep adding to the list: first because of fetal sex, then because of maternal sexual activity. And you may say that fetal sex or disability are morally wrong reasons for abortion, but in some people's eyes, all abortions are morally wrong, so whose morals get to decide women's rights?

Genetic engineering is a bit of a different area with a separate set of ethical thorns, along with genetic testing and the like. That's a whole 'nother thread, I think.

This is completely OT and doesn't really add anything to the discussion, but Bird, when you mentioned the right to pregnancy, I couldn't help but think about one of my favorite scenes from The Life of Brian.

"Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?"
"I want to have babies. It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them."
"But... you can't have babies!"
"Don't you oppress me!"

Ahhhh, Monty Python.

Oh, see, now my mind has gone to the peasant in the Holy Grail: "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

Giggling at one's desk draws funny looks from co-workers.

Bird, the instant moral dilemna is distinguishable from the prochoice debate because the prochoice debate weighs the moral status of the fetus against the woman's liberty, whereas, here, the rights of an actual born child are weighed against the liberty. Every one has a different opinion about the moral status of a fetus, and most posters here, myself included, would favor the liberty over the unborn fetus' rights. However, the moral status of a born baby is not uncertain. The baby is a living, breathing, viable, born person. And the risk of health problems to that person increases exponentially when a person has multiples. That can't be ignored.

I also am coming at this with a bias against fertility clinics. I think they're way too aggressive, and I agree with the poster who observed that they take advantage of women.

"However I may personally feel about IVF and multiple births or whatever, I just can't believe it's the government's business to legislate against it. I mean, at the most basic level, you are telling women what they can or can't do to their bodies."

Is the policy about actually making multiple-embryo transfers illegal, or about just not offering them through the NHS and leaving them available through private practice?

Vervain, I'm doing IVF because I have Endometriosis and PCOS, both of which have made unassisted conception problematic. Obviously, I want to have children.

Endometriosis causes severe pelvic pain without treatment, and the most common treatments are birth control pills (or shots) and hysterectomies, either of which make childbearing somewhat problematic.

One of the reasons my husband and I chose IVF over adoption is that the costs are similar.

One cycle costs about $12,000 to $15,000. A friend of mine spent the same amount adopting.

I would tend to disagree with your statement that fertility treatments are egotistical. I have a disease that prevents me from having children without medical assistance. Is it a character flaw on my part to want children anyway? What about perfectly fertile couples? Isn't it egotistical for them to want to bear children, rather than adopt?

“I think human beings weren't meant to have litters…�

This seems insulting to anyone who has had or was part of a multiple birth. Who’s to say what human beings were “meant� to have? Especially when multiple births happen naturally every single day of the year, year after year, century after century.

I also disagree that it’s egotistical to want to have children. Not everybody is keyed up to adopt; it doesn’t make them a bad person, or egotistical, or uncaring. It just means they want to give birth to a kid if they can make it happen, and that's not a character flaw.

“I think human beings weren't meant to have litters…�

This seems insulting to anyone who has had or was part of a multiple birth. Who’s to say what human beings were “meant� to have? Especially when multiple births happen naturally every single day of the year, year after year, century after century.

I also disagree that it’s egotistical to want to have children. Not everybody is keyed up to adopt; it doesn’t make them a bad person, or egotistical, or uncaring. It just means they want to give birth to a kid if they can make it happen, and that's not a character flaw.

Akeeyu -
Thanks for sharing the additional info. I have a good friend with PCOS, so I know a little about that slice of hell.
Allow me to offer you a virtual hug. ;)
Re: IVF as egotistical (and this is not a judgement on you or anyone else, just my personal opinion) what I'm referring to is the notion that adoption is somehow less desirable because it's not your child. I don't know how many people that's really an issue for (it doesn't seem to be in your case), but that's what I'm thinking of, the attitude of "I don't just want a child, I want my child, with my genes" thing. That's how IVF usually comes across to me, probably because of my bias toward adoption. I don't think it's egotistical for you to want children despite having an illness that would otherwise prevent you. Other people can, why not you? Seems entirely reasonable to me.

Do you have concerns about passing on your disease to your child? I can't remember if endometriosis or PCOS are hereditary or not at the moment. To be clear, I'm not asking that in an accusatory way--I'm just curious. Part of my reason for deciding not to have children has to do with a couple fairly serious medical issues I have that I'd rather not pass on. Adoption has its own pitfalls in that respect--my adopted friends and relatives have no contact with their birth parents, and thus no knowledge of their medical history, which could be extremely problematic in terms of unforseen illnesses and lack of preventative care they might otherwise have had. At least with your own kids, you're aware of the potential problems that might arise, and can plan or prepare for the possibility.

Given that the costs are similar, and that both adoption and IVF have potential drawbacks, I guess I have to conclude that neither option is inherently superior to the other (bias toward adoption or no) either logically or ethically. Ultimately, the choice of which route to take is a personal decision, and should therefore be left to those who are actually facing it.

I wish you the best of luck with your efforts. *crosses fingers*

"the instant moral dilemna is distinguishable from the prochoice debate because the prochoice debate weighs the moral status of the fetus against the woman's liberty, whereas, here, the rights of an actual born child are weighed against the liberty."

This seems like the right way to look at it -- that the fetus only has rights if it is going to be born. But it also implies that punitive or regulatory measures against pregnant women who are endangering their fetuses (but who do not want abortions) are justified. I happen to agree with that, but I know that others take a more hard line against it.

I also think it's a mistake to take an absolutist view reproductive rights that would deny that the state has any right to regulate aspects of reproductive health. Sometimes there really is no slippery slope -- I think we can preserve the fundamental rights (abortion & birth control) without having to extend the principle to every single aspect of legal regulations on reproduction. After all, surely nobody can object to measures like requiring FDA approval of new birth control methods; proper licensing of OB-GYNs; or safety regulations on medical devices used to perform abortions?

Sure, if I were a lawyer representing a women who wanted to conceive twins through IVF but was banned from doing so, I would argue that her right to have twins stems from her right to reproductive freedom. But all the same, I don't think that a ban on IVF twins is the same thing as a ban on abortion.

“I think human beings weren't meant to have litters…�

This seems insulting to anyone who has had or was part of a multiple birth. Who’s to say what human beings were “meant� to have? Especially when multiple births happen naturally every single day of the year, year after year, century after century.

Women are naturally having 5-8 children at a time every day? Wow. I had no idea. In that case, I retract the statement. My apologies to anyone I might have offended.

I also disagree that it’s egotistical to want to have children.

As I clarified above, I don't think it's egotisical just to want children. I think it is rather egotistical to reject adoption as an alternative because you only want you own, blood-related children. As in, someone else's genes aren't good enough for you. Someone else's child isn't good enough, because you don't just want a child--any child--to love and raise, you want yours. That's specifically the attitude I'm referring to, not just the general desire to hold a baby in your arms, to have a family, etc. I'm not suggesting everyone who pursues IVF does so for that reason, or has that attitude, but those who do, I consider arrogant, and I don't like it. As I've mentioned in previous comments, I come from a family with adopted cousins. I love my cousins dearly, am closer to them than a lot of the other people in my family, and the fact that they're not related to me by blood is so inconsequential that I have to make a conscious effort to even remember that they aren't. I value nurture over nature, and I personally think love is more important than blood.
However, as both IVF and adoption have drawbacks, and as I've recently learned that the expense for each is comparable, it really becomes an either/or decision, and while I know which side I'd come down on if it were me, I wouldn't presume to dictate to anyone else faced with that choice.

I do apologize to anyone I might have offended, in any case.
I tend to get a little passionate about adoption.

It has been several years since I went through infertility treatments, so some of my information is outdated. I had unexplained infertility-it didn't work for me. IIRC, there is no guarantee that an IVF will catch, or won't end up in an early miscarriage. That means you have to try again. When I was looking into it, it was about $15,000 for the drugs, harvesting the eggs, fertalizing them and then storing them until they were implanted. If it failed, you could try again with some of the other stored eggs. That was another couple thousand dollars and your chances of success went down because the quality of the eggs weren't as good as the first round.

For adoption, I was always very leery of it after watching friends go through the adoption process. They paid for a young woman's expenses for close to 5 months with the expectation they would get her newborn. The day before the child was born, the father's mother decided to get involved and the girl changed her mind and kept the baby. Her choice, but she also caused a lot of pain for my friends, plus got money out of them. The whole ordeal of inspections and interviews was very taxing to them emotionally as well. They did eventually adopt two children, but it was just as difficult as getting pregnant.

Most people want to get infants or toddlers because they won't have all the emotional baggage of a child who is 4-5 yrs or older. Older children tend to have more developmental and behavioral problems. To deal with them costs money-therapists and insurance companies aren't always that good about covering mental health. They would rather medicate then work to find the root of the problem and resolve it. (Not that medication is bad, but it isn't always the answer.)

There's another moral dimension this sensative issue that I haven't seen mentioned: population pressure. I know it's abstract compared to the immediate personal desire to have a baby of your own. Still, I hope everyone at least pauses to think about it before choosing to have baby. We are at 6.5 billion people on the planet now and growing by more than 70 million a year. That sort of growth puts enormous pressure on us and the environment. Even at the current population level we are likely stealing from future generations the sort of Earth we have come to expect.

this policy permits implantation of two embryos where there's a specific medical reason. I don't think number of embryos comes under the heading of 'a woman's right to control her body." This is about good solid evidence-based medical practice. If it's established that multiple implantation has resulted in lots of damaged babies and mothers, it's perfectly right to restrict the practice, in fact it's irreponsible not to.

“Women are naturally having 5-8 children at a time every day? Wow. I had no idea. In that case, I retract the statement. My apologies to anyone I might have offended.�

Vervain, I referred to “multiple births�, not “Guiness Book of World Records�. Vanessa’s original post states that women will only be allowed to have one embryo implanted as opposed to two or three. It’s in bold in case you missed it. Nothing about 5-8; those aren’t my figures, nor are they in the post. 8 is absurd, I don't think any babies have ever survived such a birth.

Two or three constitutes a multiple birth and also constitutes a litter, if you choose to refer to it that way. And this is what I was referring to. WithOUT using IVF or drugs, 1 in 89 natural births produces twins. 1 in 8,000 produces triplets. So that would mean lots of multiple births, every day, big enough even to be called litters.

But Vervain, you don't KNOW why we're not adopting.

You don't know whether or not I am raising a child that is not biologically mine already (I am) or whether or not this child calls me Mom (she does) or whether or not I love her (I do) and would throw myself under a bus for her (I would).

You're assuming that we're not adopting because we think our genes are better than everybody else's, and we don't. You're assuming that we have a thing against adopting. We don't.

Put it this way. If you live in New York, it does not go without saying that you hate Florida. You might think quite highly of Florida and want to live there someday, but...you happen to live in New York.

People who do IVF do not, as a group, think poorly of adoption. People who do IVF do not think any one thing about anything, because we're a very diverse group.

Adoption is not as simple and clear cut as people think it is. It is not always the default ethical high road. It is not easy.

Do I worry about passing on Endometriosis? Yes and no. People with much worse genetic problems than mine have children the old fashioned way and never think twice about it. So, yeah, I think about it, but not because I'm doing IVF.

Akeeyu,

A virtual hug. I can only imagine the emotional and physical hell that you must endure to get what many couples take for granted. A hug.

I'm not sure that banning the implantation of two embryos is rational, but I do think that implanting 8 to 10 embryos is just sick. There's no way that it's good for the woman's body to bear that many children at once and it seems to benefit the doctors more than the women. High success rates make the clinic and the physician look better.

I'm a crazy libertarian, so I'm not wild about the idea of regulations. OTOH, I really have no qualms about ensuring that women's needs are met and that they are not sacrificed for a doctor's statistics.

As for the women not meant to have litters thing: I'll posit that a "litter" is more than four children at once. I'll set myself up as an effigy and say that yes, women are NOT meant to have litters. Biologically, pregnancy strips a woman's body of minerals. The expansion of the uterus is problematic (extreme childbearing often results in hysterectomies). Part of fetal development is the production of a hormone that, when certain levels are reached in the mother's body, produces contractions and labour. Multiple fetuses cause that process to happen a lot earlier (as all of the babies are producing the hormone), which causes premature births. Finally, to state the obvious: women usually ovulate once a month and very, very few zygotes divide into triplets. Do you not think that millions of years of evolution have designed women's bodies to bear one or two, or, in extreme situations, three babies at once?

There are some women who are the happy mothers of ten zillion kids. Kudos to them, because with only people like me, the human race would die out. :) Nevertheless, their bodies are not designed to have thoes babies all at once. In fact, the human body represses ovulation during breast-feeding in an attempt to not have more than one baby every two or three years. Four or five babies at once is just peverted and completely contrary to a woman's interests.

As for adoption v. IVF: well, in Britain, the population is not replacing itself, so it will halve in about 35 years. The only reason that it keeps growing is immigration. Yes, the world is overpopulated, so if you live in China or India, please do your part. Otherwise, there's a lot of Britons who would simply adore it if you would have kids who would keep the country going in their old age.

I also don't think we should run about, micromanaging couple's decisions to adopt v. IVF. IMO, it's like people who tell me that I'm selfish for having long hair instead of hacking it off and giving it to Locks of Love. Mind you, everyone who says this is capable of growing out her tresses, cutting it, and donating it, but it's so much easier for me and really, they can't be bothered and my hair is already long. Same thing here. Unless a person has gotten herself or himself sterilised in an attempt to do their part in reducing the world's population, why bitch someone else out? Do they not deserve biological kids because they can't have them anyway, and things are already set up for them to adopt?

...etc etc "good for the goose being good for the gander" thing and all.

Akeeyu,

A virtual hug. I can only imagine the emotional and physical hell that you must endure to get what many couples take for granted. A hug.

I'm not sure that banning the implantation of two embryos is rational, but I do think that implanting 8 to 10 embryos is just sick. There's no way that it's good for the woman's body to bear that many children at once and it seems to benefit the doctors more than the women. High success rates make the clinic and the physician look better.

I'm a crazy libertarian, so I'm not wild about the idea of regulations. OTOH, I really have no qualms about ensuring that women's needs are met and that they are not sacrificed for a doctor's statistics.

As for the women not meant to have litters thing: I'll posit that a "litter" is more than four children at once. I'll set myself up as an effigy and say that yes, women are NOT meant to have litters. Biologically, pregnancy strips a woman's body of minerals. The expansion of the uterus is problematic (extreme childbearing often results in hysterectomies). Part of fetal development is the production of a hormone that, when certain levels are reached in the mother's body, produces contractions and labour. Multiple fetuses cause that process to happen a lot earlier (as all of the babies are producing the hormone), which causes premature births. Finally, to state the obvious: women usually ovulate once a month and very, very few zygotes divide into triplets. Do you not think that millions of years of evolution have designed women's bodies to bear one or two, or, in extreme situations, three babies at once?

There are some women who are the happy mothers of ten zillion kids. Kudos to them, because with only people like me, the human race would die out. :) Nevertheless, their bodies are not designed to have thoes babies all at once. In fact, the human body represses ovulation during breast-feeding in an attempt to not have more than one baby every two or three years. Four or five babies at once is just peverted and completely contrary to a woman's interests.

As for adoption v. IVF: well, in Britain, the population is not replacing itself, so it will halve in about 35 years. The only reason that it keeps growing is immigration. Yes, the world is overpopulated, so if you live in China or India, please do your part. Otherwise, there's a lot of Britons who would simply adore it if you would have kids who would keep the country going in their old age.

I also don't think we should run about, micromanaging couple's decisions to adopt v. IVF. IMO, it's like people who tell me that I'm selfish for having long hair instead of hacking it off and giving it to Locks of Love. Mind you, everyone who says this is capable of growing out her tresses, cutting it, and donating it, but it's so much easier for me and really, they can't be bothered and my hair is already long. Same thing here. Unless a person has gotten herself or himself sterilised in an attempt to do their part in reducing the world's population, why bitch someone else out? Do they not deserve biological kids because they can't have them anyway, and things are already set up for them to adopt?

...etc etc "good for the goose being good for the gander" thing and all.

ccall -
Yes, you did refer to "multiple births," but you did so in objection to my comment about women having "litters." I don't consider 2-3 a "litter." Twins and triplets, as you said, are born naturally all the time. My statement was a specific reference to the sort of "Guinness Book" (as you put it) multiple births that sometimes occur as a result of overenthusiastic fertility treatments, not naturally-occurring twins and triplets. However, as even multiples of 5-8 can happen naturally in rare instances, your observation that the statement was glib and offensive is not incorrect, and therefore I stand by my retraction and by my apology.

Akeeyu -
"You're assuming that we're not adopting because we think our genes are better than everybody else's, and we don't. You're assuming that we have a thing against adopting. We don't."

Actually, I'm not. I had hoped that I made that abundantly clear. Please refer to the multiple parentheticals in my prior comment in which I specifically state that I am not attributing that particular attitude to you. Short of spelling that out (which I have now done twice) I don't see how I can make it any clearer that I am not attacking you personally, but stating my own opinion (which I freely admit is biased and perhaps unreasonable) and offering my reasons for holding it. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here--just speaking my own.

"Do I worry about passing on Endometriosis? Yes and no. People with much worse genetic problems than mine have children the old fashioned way and never think twice about it. So, yeah, I think about it, but not because I'm doing IVF."

I wasn't asking specifically in reference to IVF. I primarily asked out of simple curiosity. As I mentioned, I also have a couple herediary conditions, and I have from time to time wondered if it would be morally responsible of me to ignore the risks they might pose to my potential offspring. I also have what I think are some pretty good traits that would be worth passing on, so I wonder if it is selfish of me not to have children. Do the benefits outweigh the risks? I consider it a ethical conundrum. I asked your opinion because you mentioned having a fairly serious medical condition, and I was curious if you, like me, had wrestled with the dilemma. Perhaps this was the wrong context and the wrong thread in which to ask.

I do appreciate you answering my questions in any case. Thank you.

Vervain,

I don't feel like you're attacking me personally, but when you went on to make broad generalizations about people who do IVF (rather than adopt), it kind of chafed my elbow.

I'll just un-chafe it now.

If you're still curious, the way I worked it out about potentially heritable diseases was very complicated (Oh, the months of angst) and very simple. In the end, I would consider a problem like Asthma (because I have it) and ask myself a few questions: "Would I terminate a pregnancy with this problem?" Asthma? No. "Would I rather be dead than have this problem?" Again, no. "Am I angry at my parents for passing on this problem?" Nah.

I went down the list of problems in my medical chart, asking myself these questions, and decided that since none of my conditions was fatal, just really freaking annoying, that my position was equal to the general population, and...what the hell.

Thank you for a good conversation.

Akeeyu -

Your way at looking at the hereditary condition issue is brilliantly simple, yet logical. It really appeals to me. It's also precisely the sort of thing I come to this blog for--to share ideas and gain perspectives I might not have otherwise come up with on my own.

Thanks for sharing it.