03.19.06
Life and death decision our leaders can’t face
 |
Now the matter may be taken out of politicians’ hands. The High Court is currently being asked to decide if frozen embryos are lives in need of protection, or property that can be destroyed. It’s as appalling as vistas get.
The failure of the government to address the definition of “beo gan breith”, or life without birth, means that a South Korean scientist could set up a clinic in Dublin tomorrow, buy donor eggs from women, clone a human and insert it into the uterus of a 70-year-old Italian woman hoping to produce an heir for her ex-husband’s fortune. Any surplus embryos could be flushed down the toilet. There is neither legislation nor regulation to prevent this from happening. But mention the issue to a minister and they’ll turn on their heels and run screaming down a corridor pleading that the Medical Council, the Supreme Court or the street sweeper make a decision. Anybody but the government, even though that’s its job.
Fianna Fail has been overtly fudging this issue whilst simultaneously attempting to make political capital out of it since the eighth amendment was put to the people in 1983. Back then Michael Woods said “there is no attempt in the wording of the amendment to define the moment at which the life of the unborn begins” because “in preparing the wording of the amendment we felt it was not appropriate to the constitution to have such definitions”. Thanks a lot Michael.
“Not appropriate” to your political career, perhaps, but it would have been appropriate for the rest of us so we wouldn’t have to keep revisiting this issue.
Because the issue won’t go away, there have been all sorts of delaying tactics. Governments tried throwing it back to the people in 1992 and 2002, and we threw it back at them by defeating badly worded amendments. Then they set up a commission and hoped that by the time it reported they’d be out of office. Micheal Martin established the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction in 2000. It took a very long time to consider the issues. Unfortunately, five years later, when it finally reported back, Fianna Fail was still in office.
In another attempt to stall, the government sent the report of the commission to a committee. It set up a sub-committee. The sub-committee will report back to the main committee next week. Their expected recommendation? Send the report back to the government. The circle is complete and nothing has happened.
Meanwhile the fate of the embryos lies with the unfortunate judge of the High Court who has to make a decision in the absence of any guidance from the legislative (more properly called non-legislative) arm of government.
I can just see the ministers on Questions & Answers over the next year while we wait on this election. When asked for their views on when life is life, they will solemnly declare that the report of the commission is being studied. What a laugh. It’ll actually be gathering dust in a lonely corner of some underling’s musty office. Ask a member of the opposition what they would propose and the answer will go something like: “If the government isn’t going to propose anything, you hardly expect me to commit political suicide by suggesting anything constructive.”
But would it be political suicide? Isn’t there a consensus on when life is life? On the face of it, there isn’t. One the one hand you have the “life from the moment of conception” argument, that is, life beings the moment at which the egg is penetrated by a sperm. By that logic the embryos currently residing in a freezer of a Dublin fertility clinic are life, and cannot be destroyed.
Then you have the ultra-liberal mob of family planning associations and socialists who say that life is only “viable life”, i.e. a foetus that can survive outside the womb, say from about 22 to 25 weeks. Tell that to a mother who miscarries at 20 weeks. If labour is induced at this stage, you don’t say, “I lost a non-viable foetus.” You say you lost a baby and you mourn for it. You do that if you lose a baby from the first day you become pregnant. I’m pro-choice, but let’s call a spade a spade.
Once you see the blue line on the pregnancy test, you are hyper-aware that there is a life inside you. But when are you pregnant? Easy. It takes about three days to go from unprotected sex to implantation. In that time, if you don’t want to get pregnant, you take a morning-after pill.
If there was a genuine consensus that life starts from the moment of conception, the morning-after pill would be banned. When you see a blue line on the pregnancy test, the embryo is implanted and then, and only then, are you pregnant. If a fertilised egg doesn’t implant, you were never pregnant.
I know this means that the unfortunate embryos in storage in Rathgar cannot be considered life, and it is most unpleasant that science has presented us with these horrible decisions. It does make one feel a tad sympathetic to the Catholic church’s position that messing with eggs and sperms in laboratories is a bad idea, regardless of how badly people want a baby. Since IVF is a miserable, painful, expensive procedure with a huge failure rate (over 80%) anyway, maybe it would be easier just to forget about the whole business and tell childless couples to adopt. But since science can, then we do, regardless of whether we should.
Coincidentally, as we await the High Court’s decision, Governor Michael Rounds of South Dakota has started a process which will force the US Supreme Court to do the same thing. Like Fianna Fail, the Republican Party has courted the pro-life vote while never actually doing anything constructive about it. Rounds has decided to test President George Bush’s coded messages of support for a “culture of life”. He has signed a bill banning abortion in South Dakota, knowing it to be unconstitutional, precisely so that the Supreme Court will have to consider the issue. So we may find out if Bush’s two nod-and-wink pro-life appointments to the Supreme Court (Roberts and Alito) are pro-life after all.
Apart from forcing the judiciary to make a decision, which terrifies politicians, we have something else in common with America. In the state of South Dakota only one clinic performs abortions. In several states, such as Wyoming, Texas and Lousiana, 95% of women have to leave their states to get an abortion because no clinics will do them.
For poor people in America, it doesn’t matter if abortion is legal or not. If you can’t afford to travel, you can’t have an abortion. Just like home; if you don’t have the cash to get to England, you can’t have an abortion. If you don’t have the cash for IVF, you don’t get to have embryos frozen.
The poor just have to live with whatever Mother Nature throws at them. No baby even if you want one, or a baby even if you don’t. At the end of the day, the politics of human fertility is only for the rich.
Update: I just want to clarify here that to be really honest, I think that the life actually is life from the moment of conception, or certainly, has such an enormous capacity for life that I am DEEPLY uncomfortable about the whole business of destroying embryos. However, I recognise that this is totally impractical because being consistent on that point would mean no morning-after pill and you have to have a morning-after pill. What I am saying is that regardless of what one’s opinion is on pre and post implantation, there is an existing medical and legal consensus that we use the morning after pill and therefore the most honest position is to legally define “unborn” as an implanted embryo. Anything else is just unworkable.
Also I really am pro-choice even though I don’t shy away from the fact that an abortion is taking a life but I recognise that there are just too many hard cases that must be legislated for. Any abusive comments will be deleted on this one so don’t even go there.
simon said,
March 19, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Good piece I would agree that it is the implanted time that life begins.
anyway I added you to the abortion debate list http://dossing.blogspot.com/2006/02/abortion-debate-poll.html
Pete said,
March 20, 2006 at 9:55 am
>Anything else is just unworkable.
The politicians would, of course, like to avoid the whole issue because they know that if they take a decision they will upset some people and lose some votes, no matter what the decision is.
If they’re forced to take a decision, they will take the one that loses them the fewest votes. If that turns out to be “life begins 2 weeks before you have sex” then that’s the decision they’ll take. They won’t care if it’s unworkable. So by forcing the issue we easily could find ourselves in a position where using the morning after pill becomes illegal.
Ray said,
March 20, 2006 at 10:42 am
You know, I didn’t really need the update to figure out your position. The fact that ‘life begins at conception’ is described as an argument while the counter-argument is only held by a “mob” of socialists (=crazy) and family-planning associations (=suspect because they have a financial interest in that position).
Your dividing line is also quite arbitrary – basically, you are only _really_ pregnant when you can take a pregnancy test and get a positive result. That seems to be less of a philosophical position about human development and more of an argument from your personal experience. That’s when you felt pregnant, therefore that must be when the embryo became important.
The trouble with this argument from personal emotion is that when it conflicts with another emotion – the ickiness of messing about with sperm and eggs in labs – you have no way of resolving the conflict, except to really, really hope that a lab won’t be set up.
Which has pretty much been the government position for the last 14 years.
auds said,
March 20, 2006 at 10:52 am
We could still have legislation and regulation for the IVF industry without having to legislate for the beginning of life. Which is scientifically when our genome is complete at the end of fertilisation.
We could easily legislate in line with other European countries like Italy and Germany without defining when life begins. As the constitution stands, the definition of the beginning of life is certainly more inclusive than exclusive.
Implantation is a very vague time for legislation to based on, as is legislating against the MAP – simply becuase a woman does not know if she is pregnant yet.
Sarah said,
March 20, 2006 at 11:22 am
Auds, I know its easy to fall in love with the fudge but I don’t think that will wash any more. Our constitution guarantees to protect the unborn. If an unimplanted embryo is life then that effects the whole IVF strategy. It doesn’t nullify it BUT it does mean that you can’t make extra embryos and store them and then destroy them. It would mean that EVERY embryo produced would have to be protected e.g. if you get 8 implant them all, assume most will fail and pray that 1 or 2 hang on for a pregnancy (I think they actually implant about 4 now). If you read the Commission’s report they go into a lot of detail on what “life” and “Unborn” means. It is the very basis of sorting out the regulation of IVF the no. 1 question of which is….what do you do with the spare embryos?
You say that the definition of life is inclusive but the simple fact is we don’t know. Peter Sutherland said in 1983 and it still stands: A court could decide that it is either from the moment of conception/fertilisation or from the moment of viability. So far they haven’t been forced to decide on that. But this case does force them and it’ll go all the way to the Supreme Court. If they go with conception then I suppose we’ll all just shut our eyes and keeping doling out the MAP. Until another Harry Whelehan comes along and refuses to stick his head in the sand and takes a case. THEN we’ll have great crack! The ostrich strategy got us this far but sooner or later……
Colman said,
March 20, 2006 at 2:12 pm
auds, the problem is that there is no sensible answer to when life begins: you’re drawing an arbitrary line. Fertilisation, implantation, viability, birth, it doesn’t matter – pick a point and justify it but you can’t prove it scientifically. About the only consistent position is that we shouldn’t intervene at all in human reproduction and I don’t think we want to go there…
Sarah said,
March 20, 2006 at 2:30 pm
have to agree with that Colman. It’s not about what you personally really believe but about finding a practical solution…The ultra right wing Catholic pro-lifers do have a certain amount of logic and consistency on their side but it’s just sooooooo unworkable….
auds said,
March 20, 2006 at 2:32 pm
“You can’t prove it scientifically?”
Why not?
Fertilisation results in a new genetically complete human being. I think science agrees.
The question is when do we decide to respect that human being – when do we grant it rights?
i believe that as a member of the human family, that embryo is deserving of respect. It’s a fairly consistent position.
auds said,
March 20, 2006 at 2:35 pm
“ultra right wing Catholic pro-lifers do have a certain amount of logic and consistency on their side but it’s just sooooooo unworkable…. ”
Not really. (Plus I don’t think I’m ultra right wing!)
Catholicism is against IVF as it interferes with creation, that’s not the issue here – that debate is long over.
IVF can be, and is, practiced in a way that respects all the nascent human life that is created. I would like to see legislation that does that.
Sarah said,
March 20, 2006 at 2:45 pm
ultra right wing tag removed from Auds!
well two things then:
1. Where do you stand on the morning-after pill? It’s easy to be pro “respectful” IVF but if you are pro-MAP then things start getting a bit tricky….How do you reconcile the two?
2. And if life is life from the moment of conception,then how many embryos do you make and/or what do you do with left overs? If they are life, even freezing them indefinitely is a bit horrible.
and finally (now at 3)
I’d be curious to know how you vote….If FF have had that report for the last 12 months and intend to do zilch about it before the next election (which means that IVF is completely unregulated and anything can happen those embryos) will you make this a consideration in how you vote?
Daniel K. said,
March 20, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Sarah, I think your own stance is similar to my own in that while recognising that while there will be people who seek terminations for a variety of reason, they should be safe, that the actual choice involved is not necessarily the only one available to them. It should be safe and more rare.
On the political question, the problem arises because if the elected reps were to legislate then who will vote for them on the basis that they tried to tackle the problem. As a nation we get the reps we deserve, we have consistently showne ourselves to be people more inclined to voted against things than in favour and this translates directly into the people who get elected.
Sarah said,
March 20, 2006 at 4:42 pm
“As a nation we get the reps we deserve”
soooooooo right. They fudge because we want them to fudge. It’s like the way everyone was OUTRAGED that Harry Whelehan took the X case…but actually, he acted absolutely correctly constitutionally speaking. Most people were happy to have our Eight Amendment and let everyone go to England. God forbid we would actually be made to face the consequences of our decisions.
I think that’s why I tried to make a link between the MAP and the IVF….its far too comfy for people to think that the embryos are life but that using the MAP is grand…MAP works by preventing implantation….
On abortion, you know it was amazing how my own pregnancies focused my mind on that. I HATE using emotive phrases, but I can’t get away from the fact that an abortion is taking a life. I would never deny the hard cases the right to do that..there are just too many cases where life and health of mother and baby compete BUT you do wonder sometimes. I met a guy once who told me that 3 separate women he slept with who all assured him they couldn’t get pregnant, got pregnant and all three had abortions. GET IT TOGETHER girls, it’s not that hard NOT to get pregnant. I mean that’s what the bloody MAP is FOR. Of course, you’d think he’d start using a feckin thingy….
One more aside, when I had my first appointment in Holles St (on the midwives scheme) they told me my first (and only unless of suspected trouble) scan would be at 20 weeks. My instinctive thought was..uh-oh, that’s pretty late to find out if there is anything disastrously wrong i.e. way too late to consider an abortion. When I said this the midwife looked at me very pointedly and asked “But what would be the point of knowing earlier?” Translation: If you know earlier you aren’t going to DO anything about it now are you? My response: “er, I suppose”. Of course if you are PRIVATE patient you can get a “nucleal fold scan” at 12 weeks or something…which predicts how likely you are to have a Down’s Syndrome baby. And what would be the point of knowing? So you can DO something about it…in another country.
Interesting isn’t it? Public patients don’t get the same option. No judgement etc etc bla bla
Sarah said,
March 20, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Ray, your comment was caught up in moderation there.
Just to clarify…as far as I know, a pregnancy test is only positive post-implantation. What I am saying is that medically you are not diagnosed as pregnant until there is implantation so therefore there is a consensus on what pregnant is.
Messing with sperms and eggs is morally icky but I am not opposed to it (and for all I know would give it a try if I had fertility problems) but there is an inescapable issue about what to do with spare embryos.
As for the family planning associations, just go the ifpa website and they have all the 22 week shite there. And when I was a member of the pro-choice No campaign in 2002 (there being a pro-life No campaign also) I just couldn’t help but notice all the socialist/anarchist types tagging along. I kinda felt that just as FF are happy to hijack the pro-life side, the socialists were happy to attach themselves to the pro-choice side. It felt, as you would say, a bit icky.
Niall said,
March 20, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah.
Sometimes, I think you are something of a genius. Then you come out with strange arguments like this that just don’t make any sense. I’ll save my objections for my own blog.
You’re dead right about the government though. Shower of cowards, the lot of them.
tom said,
March 21, 2006 at 4:09 pm
“there is no sensible answer to when life begins: you’re drawing an arbitrary line. Fertilisation, implantation, viability, birth, it doesn’t matter – pick a point and justify it but you can’t prove it scientifically.”
I think *scientifically* there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about when life begins: fertilisation. I don’t think any biologist would argue that point.
Ray said,
March 21, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Sarah, I think there’s a difference between saying ‘a pregnancy test will only give a positive result after implantation’ and ‘you are only pregnant after implantation’. This isn’t quantum physics, where the observation changes what is observed. If a new pregnancy test was developed that could detect fertilisation, would that mean that pregnancy then began at fertilisation?
Or is your position that since the medical council allows MABs, but don’t allow abortion, MABs must do their thing before pregnancy starts? You don’t think the medical council might be using a little sleight of hand here to avoid coming taking a politically difficult stance?
The other thing was about how you characterised the two sides. On the one hand, you have an argument. On the other hand, you have a mob. That might be defensible if there was only one group involved that could be described as a mob, but that’s hardly the case.
Oh, BTW, if you want to talk about campaigns being hijacked, you might want to think about who was fighting the pro-choice side back in 1983 and 1992, and the brave stands FG were making then…
Sarah said,
March 21, 2006 at 5:10 pm
I thought I made myself clear. Life probably does begin at the moment of conception HOWEVER since doctors will a)not diagnose you as being pregnant until there is implantation and b) give you a morning after pill to PREVENT implantation (which is how it works) then clearly there is an existing consensus that its ok to do away with unimplanted embryos and they are not considered “unborn” and therefore given the benefit of the protection to which they are entitled under the Eight Amendment.
IF doctors practised that life began at the moment of conception we would be constitutionally bound to ban the morning after pill and implant all embryos produced during and IVF cycle.
All I am saying is, let’s just codify what is the existing consensus as is actually practised. The life-begins-at-conception theory may well be scientifically and theologically correct, but given the wording of our eigth amendment, it is simply impractical to implement consistently.
Copacetic » Blog Archive » GUBU Asks some hard questions said,
March 22, 2006 at 10:05 am
[...] Sarah asks some pretty hard questions about life before birth in a thought provoking article over on GUBU. [...]
Ray said,
March 22, 2006 at 10:06 am
The problem with codifying that practice is there are no strong scientific or legal reaons for saying implantation is the dividing line. Doctors don’t diagnose you as pregnant until after implantation because, right now, they can’t. That may change. The doctors who will prescribe the MAP don’t do so because they’re studied the legal analyses, or taken a moral position on when life begins. They do it because they think that i) fertilisation mightn’t have taken place anyway, and ii) even if it has, what fertilisation has created at that point counts for very little.
Constitionally, we probably are still bound to ban the MAP. There’s an unborn life there, and doctors aren’t asking if women are suicidal before prescribing it. The reason we don’t have a ban is the same reason that nobody before Harry Whelehan tried to prevent people going abroad for abortions. People either disagree with the law or think that it’s right but politically unenforceable and impractical.
Sarah said,
March 22, 2006 at 10:42 am
Eh, yeah. Which was kinda my original point Ray……
omaniblog said,
March 22, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Thank you v much for a really well written, well argued piece. Thanks you too for attracting such an interesting range of comments. As someone who has recently returned to Ireland after 30+ years in UK, it’s been like a mini-seminar, a real education, lots of leads to follow up.
I’d like of offer a few points:
(1) I think we are up againist one of the disadvantages of a written constitution: it fixes things and makes it difficult to permit change in line with public opinion. The process of changing the constitution is nothing if it isn’t elaborate.
(2) If I was an elected politician, I would try hard to avoid defining the starting point of life. There would be no advantage: such a defined starting point would inevitably divide people into those who were against that point and those who were for it. If you find yourself trying to have a baby and needing IVF, I imagine your point of view becomes rather flexible. You are likely to put the effort of conceiving and sustaining a pregnancy well above the nicety of worrying about the embryos that you don’t need or use. If you have nothing to worry about when it comes to getting pregnant, you are much more likely to develop or maintain a clear line on whether life begins at the beginning or not.
(3) It is rather easy to have clear principles. Ambiguity and uncertainly is a lot less comfortable.
(4) Whenever anyone uses the word “abortion”, they stir up many emotions. It is hard to discuss things when the emotions are fully engaged. It is a lot easier to label, and stereotype, and call the other side names than it is to have useful dialogue. An intellectually consistent position is often the last thing you need when you have a problem.
(5) One of the benefits of an independent judiciary is that we can entrust such deliberations to them, while we continue to move towards a new consensus. Judges make decisions in ways that few people understand. They are like magicians. They are often above criticism because their judgements are so difficult to read. This means that we can blame the judge and not tear ourselves apart over the issue. Sooner or later we will have to define a new consensus, and have a new law. It may be too early to do that in Ireland today. We may have to tolerate the messy situation that you describle so well.
Ray said,
March 22, 2006 at 2:14 pm
But you can’t get around the constitution except by getting all Alice-in-Wonderland on the language. Sure, it may _say_ “unborn”, but it actually means “not yet implanted in the womb and/or has been in a test-tube for less than 8 weeks”.
I don’t see what the great difference is between ignoring the issue and coming up with a hilariously fudged law so you can codify existing practices. The pragmatic codification is going to get abuse from those who present the reasonable argument that there should be fewer restrictions on a woman’s control of her sexuality, and from the mob of pro-lifers and religious nuts who want there to be more restrictions, but how does it help anyone?
Feebee said,
March 23, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Life may or may not begin at fertilisation, but viable life does not begin until the fertilised egg has implanted in the uterus. A fertilised egg that does not implant, or one that does not implant properly will not survive – this is known as a chemical pregnancy. Similarly, a frozen embro is only given the chance to develop once it has been transferred to the uterus. It is important to note that doctors do not implant embryos, they simply transfer them, and implantation has approximately a 25% chance of happening. So the frozen embryos have no guarantee of ongoing life, only a 25% chance that this may happen. And as long as they are frozen, they are not going anywhere, they are not developing.
Whether or not a doctor can or can’t diagnose pregnancy before implantation (the body only starts producing the pregnancy hormone HCG after implantation and this is how pregnancy is detected) is not the issue – there is simply no point in diagnosing pregnancy before implantation, because if implantation does not occur, then the pregnancy will not continue. Doctors estimate that this happens in about 25% of natural pregnancies, and in the vast majority of cases the woman will not even know she has conceived. There is nothing that can be done to protect or save an unimplanted embryo; even a frozen one has slim odds of survival in utero. You can guarantee it a right to life in law, but unfortunately science cannot give any such guarantees.
Sarah said,
March 23, 2006 at 12:14 pm
thanks! most informative. Just what we needed.
Ray said,
March 23, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Hi Feebee! I’m Derval’s Ray. We must stop meeting like this…
Feebee said,
March 23, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Hey Ray – yeah, babies, blogs and bombardment by tear gas!
And let’s not forget birthdays – we may meet again shortly…
Niall said,
March 23, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Feebee, why exactly do you consider viability important, and more importantly, why do you think that the law should based one’s right to life on viability?
Feebee said,
March 24, 2006 at 12:03 am
Niall – I was just telling it as it is, not giving an opinion on the legalities of it. But since you ask…
My opinion is not based on the biological viability of the embryo, but it does coincide with it. A frozen embryo’s chance of life is determined by its parents ability to give it life, or to continue its development. It is simply not workable to guarantee a right to life of every embryo produced through IVF. What happens if the parents’ circumstances change dramatically before transferral has taken place? If one parent, in particular the mother, is diagnosed with a terminal illness? If one parent, in particular the mother, dies or disappears? How do we continue to give the remaining embryos life?
In more likely circumstances, what if a couple want one child, but an IVF cycle produces 15 embryos? Should they be forced to undergo transferrals until all embryos have been given an equal chance of life? No matter how many children are born? What if the first successful IVF happens when the couple are in their forties? Should they be forced to endure procedures well into their fifties?
If your answer to all these questions is the IVF itself is unworkable because of the “loss of life”, then my response is that above all IVF creates life (and a desperately wanted one at that), it does not destroy it.
Which brings me back to the issue of viability. It is not just that a frozen embryo is not viable until implantation, it is also not viable until the parents are willing and able to give it a 25% chance of implantation.
Frank said,
March 25, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Fertilisation results in a new genetically complete human being. I think science agrees.
You think wrong. Fertilisation results in anything from 0 to 6+ human beings. Monozygotic twins can even fuse and result in a single human chimera. Genes are irrelevant to personhood and science has nothing to say on the subject.
Besides, most fertlised eggs do not make it. Over half die before birth. If that were happening to real children it would be the biggest public health emergency in all of recorded history. It would dwarf the death toll of the black death, nagasaki, hiroshima, and all of the wars ever fought. But since it is not happening to real children, nobody cares and neither do you.
Don’t believe me? Imagine that you happened upon a burning school. Would you run in and save the children inside, even at risk to your own life?
Now imagine that you happened upon a burning IVF clinic. Would you run in and save the fertilised eggs inside, even at risk to your own life?
All of which goes to show that the ‘pro-life’ don’t care about fertilised eggs half as much as they pretend.
Frank said,
March 25, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Ah, typo above – chimeras don’t result from monozygotic twins but non-monozygotic twins.
woodstar said,
May 4, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Since IVF is a miserable, painful, expensive procedure with a huge failure rate (over 80%) anyway, maybe it would be easier just to forget about the whole business and tell childless couples to adopt.
I really can’t believe you said this – it’s easy to see that you have children already. I may be part of an infertile couple but I don’t think that gives anyone any right to tell me what I can and can’t do with my body – and if I decide to try IVF that is a decision for my partner and I alone. And I can assure you, it is a lot easier to say ‘forget about having children of your own’ than to actually do it. I thought you professed to be a feminist but you want to ‘tell’ other adult women what to do with their bodies and their lives?????
Btw, your stats on the sucess rate are outdated – the success rate per embyro transfer is now between 30%-35%, but as most couples do multiple cycles the sucess rate per couple is higher again. And yes, IVF is very expensive and it is not covered by the public health system or by private health insurers – this adds greatly to the stress and misery of it all.
Maybe you should read some adoption boards before offering that as some sort of panacea – again, due to this wonderful fantastic country of ours it takes 2 years to even get an appointment with a social worker, and approx. 5 years and 9 months from application to having a child placed with you. Also, it costs approx. 35k to adopt – this puts huge pressure on infertile couples to end fertility treatment early as there is only so much money to go round. Plus, make any complaints about delays and/or your social worker and they have the ultimate cop-out of ‘haven’t come to terms with their infertility’ to knock you out of the application process. It’s a bite-your-tongue yes-sir, no-sir process. Makes it look a slightly less rosier picture, no?
As only 30 – 35% of embyro transfers result in an on-going pregnancy, and even allow for some possible reduction due to the medical intervention, that still makes God/Mother Nature the greatest abortionist around.
Sarah said,
May 4, 2006 at 11:00 pm
You went to town a bit all because of the little word “tell”. I didn’t say order, force, or anything else. If your IVF is successful then I am absolutely delighted for you and I have enormous sympathy for anyone who has to face the misery of infertility – I know it would have broken my heart. I merely make two points:
- the existence of procedures like IVF has created very difficult ethical dilemmas such as that described in the article. What do you with the frozen embryos? Are they life? What chance do they deserve? Surely you must have addressed these issues yourself?
- I would certainly advise someone to think very carefully and make sure they know exactly what they are getting into when they consider IVF. It IS miserable, it IS painful, it IS expensive, it HAS a high failure rate. Adoption is slow but what are you going to do? Start IVF when you are 36. Keep at it for 2 or 3 years? Give up, start the adoption process and half way through the process get turned down because you’re 40? Bear in mind that you are not allowed ( unless you fib) start the adoption process until a certain time after your last IVF cycle….If you’re a pretty standard middle class heterosexual couple with no major negative histories, I’d think you have a better chance of having a successful adoption than a successful IVF baby. And if you’re 37 or 38…If as you say there is a 30% chance of success (and I must check that figure) that still means there’s a 70% failure rate. Pointing this out does not trample on your right to do anything to your own body.
With regard to the cost of adoption, I am not sure where you get the 35k from (travel costs for a foreign adoption?) but in any event my point still stands, these IVF vs adoption traumas are strictly for the middle classes. If you’re poor you get neither.
As for your God/Mother Nature “abortionist” comment…what? Are you seriously trying to establish an equivalence between an abortion and a miscarriage?
GUBU » Life begins at implantation said,
November 15, 2006 at 1:39 pm
[...] I see the Supreme Court agrees with me on this issue. [...]
MB said,
November 15, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Im only commenting on this as there is a new post referring to this subject. But just to clarify, the morning after pill can remove an implanted embryo from the uterus. This is not something that doctors are required to mention in Ireland. However in the US before the doctor can prescribe the morning after pill he/she is required to tell you the facts. The morning after pill can prevent implantation. It can also remove an implantated embryo by hormone induced shedding of the uterine lining (as in menstruation). The morning after pill can also damage a developing embryo or foetus and you are required here to take a pregnancy test before being allowed to take the pill. It is an abortifascient. I only wish that with such an emotional debate that people were on a level playing field and clear about all the facts and not working off hearsay.