Re: [asa] The unexpected burden of IVF

I am surprised at this article that it fails to mention the obvious solution for couples who want to avoid this problem.? It's a procedure called a "mini-stimulation," or "mini-stim."

I know about this only because?I?have some friends who wanted to do IVF, and they wanted the avoid having unimplanted embryos afterwards.? So they chose to have a mini-stim performed.? This procedure?only produces about 6 embryos instead of the usual 20 from the woman's ovaries.? Then, all 6 can be fertilized and implanted together.? Typically all 6 will not develop, but instead several will wash out of the woman's body in the natural way just like many of the fertilized eggs that come down the fallopian tubes but fail to implant.? This way, nature is allowed to do what it normally does without asking humans to make mortal decisions about the embryos.? So following a mini-stim you might end up having only one child, or you might have twins.? I guess you could have up to sextuplets in an extreme case!? But there is also a very large chance that you will get no children following a mini-stim because there are so few chances to get a successful egg when you have a sample of only
  6.? So you must then repeat the procedure -- perhaps several times -- in order to get the same odds of having a live birth that you would have gotten from a full stimulation with some 20 fertilized embryos.? It is for this reason that?most people choose to have the full stimulation and get it over with in one shot.?? It is more expensive and more time consuming to perform several mini-stims just to get one child. So it turns out to be purely a matter of convenience and cost that produces this moral dilemma -- it is completely?unnecessary!? (Most couples?probably get the full stimulation simply because the doctors never told them about the alternative, and so the unneccessary moral dilemma arises because of the doctor's assumptions about the convenience and cost, rather than the couple's assumptions.)

So in my friends' case the mini-stim allowed them to successfully avoid the dilemma of "left over" embryos.? All their embryos were implanted.? But in their case, none of these embryos resulted in a live birth, and so they would have needed to repeat the procedure.? (Instead, they were surprised with two live births that followed, resulting from natural fertilization.)

Again, I am very surprised that the article fails to mention this alternative?at all!? It seems that this would have been a natural thing to discuss in such an article.? Maybe it gets back to the assumptions of the authors regarding convenience and cost.? Maybe they don't believe it is reasonable to spend the extra time and money avoiding the problem.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 10:33 pm
Subject: Re: [asa] The unexpected burden of IVF

I dont know about infertility being a "sign". But I also think that your question, which is a good one, does not need to even bring the issue of animal adoption.?
?
I think it is enough to say, there are many "unwanted" children that are in need in the world. So why would a Christian just not be happy in saving some of these unwanted children, instead of fertilizing one of their own??
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christine Smith" <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>?
To: <asa@calvin.edu>?
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 8:43 PM?
Subject: Re: [asa] The unexpected burden of IVF?
?
> Although I didn't have the time to read all of it,?
> what I read was very interesting! Thanks for posting?
> it!?
>?
> I want to present a question which is indirectly?
> related to this topic--the question of whether or not?
> IVF in and of itself is ethical from a Christian point?
> of view (apart from the final destination of the?
> unused embryos)? Here's my line of thought on this...?
>?
> I have volunteered with many animal rescue groups over?
> the course of my life in order to save homeless pets?
> from being killed at the pounds (FYI--in case you're?
> not aware, that number is in the millions/year).?
> Generally speaking, I consider the practice of?
> breeders bringing yet more animals into the world to?
> be wrong, because they only exasperate the problem of?
> homeless pets, resulting in greater animal suffering?
> and higher kill rates. I'm of the opinion that those?
> who wish to adopt an animal should do so from a rescue?
> group, pound, etc, so that those animals already?
> living and in need may be cared for and loved.?
>?
> I use this as an illustration, not to equate animal?
> life with human life (because they're not equal), nor?
> do I wish to open up a debate about animal breeding;?
> rather, my question is this: considering that there?
> are thousands, perhaps millions of children waiting to?
> be adopted, is it consistent with Christian ethics for?
> parents to go out of their way to create biological?
> offspring rather than open their homes to orphans or?
> other children already in existence, that are in need??
> Is infertility perhaps a "sign" from God that His will?
> is for parents to have children through adoption?
> rather than the "natural" way??
>?
> Though my own personal leanings are to favor such a?
> view, I hesitate to think that this is a "Christian?
> ethic" for all. Any thoughts??
>?
> Christine?
>?
>?
> --- drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:?
>?
>?
> ---------------------------------?
>?
> In looking up something for the "worthy response"?
> thread. I came across this article.?
>?
> http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/07/souls_on_ice.html?
>?
> There are several interesting points in this article.?
> First of all they estimate that there are 500,000?
> embryos in cryo storage without any clear destination.?
>?
> Second, I am impressed with how much these parents?
> struggle with the issue of these frozen embryos, and?
> what to do with them. If there are so many people?
> that think of these embryo's as human, that gives some?
> weight to David O's view that because they are?
> potentially people they are people. (And even though?
> I find it interesting it is not enough to convince me?
> that David's position is correct.)?
>?
> Third, I expect someone to mention Nazi medical?
> experiments with this comment, but if the embryos are?
> there, and they are just going to be destroyed, why?
> shouldnt we use them for stem cell research, even if?
> one thinks that they are fully human??
>?
>?
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu?
> with"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the?
> message.?
>?
>?
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with?
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.?
> ?
?
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with?
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.?

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 6 22:54:39 2007