"The IVF revolution is money badly spent"

[tk1999]

I am planning to respond to that article but I still don't think I've calmed down enough to be able to post anything and I read it at 9am this morning... I'll see how I feel in a few more hours.

[Indadhanu]

Ah, I'm gonna get shot down BUT scientifically it is defying Darwins Survival of the Fittest by enabling couples who may not have been able to have children to have children.

NOT that thats a bad thing BTW, because we are defying survival of the fittest ourselves PMSL.

But I think thats the theory.

I don't agree its creating 'flawed' children, or anything like that, and I think anyone who does is grossly misinformed but the theory behind their argument is somewhat valid.

[bon]

Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection is just that - a theory. It is not a code to live by, nor is it universally accepted as being necessarily correct either.

Sounds like she certainly has an axe to grind with the IVF "lobby"...she makes them sound like some kind of evil organisation. The trouble with limiting access to medicare funded IVF or not allowing women over a certain age to access it is that where do you draw the line? It is not fair, or equitable, to allow some people to use it and not others. And the trouble with her 'faulty gene pool' argument is that it is not just babies conceived through IVF or other fertility treatments that can have problems - there are many naturally conceived babies born every year that are premature, or have some sort of birth defect or disability, or simply require extra medical attention in their first few days/weeks/months of life. Is she suggesting we favour babies naturally conceived over those conceived with IVF? That's ridiculous of course, but it shows the flawed logic of her argument. How much further should we take it? Aborting all foetuses, naturally conceived or IVF, that show a disability or medical defect, simply because it is going to cost the government money to look after them when they are born? Completely disregarding the wishes of the parents? Of course not. How nice for her that she can "sympathise" with parents who have difficulties conceiving. Obviously she has not been in that situation herself, or even knows anyone who has, otherwise she wouldn't have written such an insenstive and poorly though out article.

ETA: like I said before I edited my post, I would not bother writing to her. She will be expecting it and it will not change her vile opinion. She doesn't deserve the attention that she no doubt is expecting due to her very calculated and "controversial" article.

[Jas]

What a load of bs! This idea of survival of the fittest and talking about stats of ivf babies I would be interested to see how these compare with stats for babies who are conceived without the help of ivf? Who says ivf babies are not as fit!!

Why don't we stop public health care for the elderly because they aren't as fit and for ppl that write stupid articles like this or why don't we just get rid of public health care and why not all goverment assistance? That way only "the fittest" will survive!

[sushee]

My IVF son survived because he was the fittest. He survived and grew despite being in a completely unnatural environment.

He survived being poked and prodded, kept in a petri dish for 5 days, and transferred via a catheter. He survived when he only had a 25% (or so) chance of surviving. He made it when 13 other embryos didn't make it.

So nothing this woman says impacts me and how I feel about my IVF child.

[bella55]

What a judgemental misinformed idiot! I am an emergency nurse who just yesterday was looking after a 19 year old IV drug user who is pregnant with her "third child". Her other two children have been placed in care but not before long stays in hospital (and probably ongoing) for complications arrising from the mothers drug and alcohol abuse while pregnant - and she wants to talk about costs to the public health system.
I just tried to write an email but like bon said she doesn't deserve my time plus i'm way to angry!.

xxBella

I was thinking exactly the same thing sushee!

[helle]

Ugh, what a silly woman.
This quite really got to me..

That means more than a quarter required expensive, taxpayer- subsidised neonatal care. And what of the untold heartbreak and failures?

Because it's not heartbreaking to TTC for months on end and still have AF show up? Surely that would be just as heartbreaking as IVF.

and this

As recently as 2005, the AIHW was made aware that the perinatal death rate was 7.3 deaths per 1000 births in even the most responsible forms of IVF - where a single embryo was implanted (rather than several in order to increase the chances of a live birth).

Single ones are implanted because they have a hirer success rate of not getting lost later. It's much harder to carry twins, triplets or quads to fill term than a single baby. Wouldn't that add to the death rate, losing 4 babies at 18 weeks, for example??

Blah. What a cow.

[Ella'sMum]

Can someone PLEASE tell me that this twit has not ProCreated herself! Someone this ignorant, uninformed and selfish shouldn't be left with the responsibility of another human life!