Front page of the WaPo today today

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why this is a surprise to anyone. I looked into egg freezing in my mid 30s (8-9 years ago) and it was clear it was a) very uncertain and b) very expensive. I quickly decided I would just try a donor egg if it came to that, because the cost seemed similar and the chances of success much better.

[Anonymous]

I'm a little confused as to why everyone is characterizing this article as representing an indictment against egg freezing. Of course, as any good freezer (including myself) knows, frozen eggs are certainly no guarantee. But if you read the article, you notice that TWO of the women mentioned, who both froze on the later side (37 and 39) wound up with babies (one with twins and the other a healthy baby and "tons of eggs" left over). Another woman may have very well had success if she had traveled to her clinic for fertilization and transfer instead of shipping them to her new city. And the focus of the article, Ms. Adams, was 39 - past the age REs recommend to freeze (better to freeze embryos then) - might have had a different results if she had frozen multiple rounds. We also don't know what method was used - was it slow freeze or was it vitrification? The odds are actually incredibly good for vitrified eggs - a clinic in NYC (Extend Fertility) represents a 90%+ thaw rate. For younger women (ideally no older than early to perhaps mid-30s) who are not ready to be single mothers and haven't met their life partners, this is a better option than doing nothing at all and feeling panic every day at their waning fertility. Of course, the price point puts it out of reach for many women, but I'm hopeful for a day when insurance covers all or at least part of the cost, or where increased demand leads to prices falling considerably. Make no mistake, the egg freezing landscape has changed dramatically in the last five years. The real test will come in the next 5-10 years, when the first batch of freezers with vitrified eggs start coming back for their eggs.

[Anonymous]

PP here - edited to add as follows: I was never and have never been one of those women who delayed childbearing b/c of my career - it was for me, like most women, for lack of a partner. I dated vigorously and seriously throughout my thirties, dealt with heartbreak, a broken engagement, and the death of a parent - and I just didn't meet my partner until I was 37. I never dreamed my life would turn out this way, but it did. And maybe my frozen eggs will all die on thaw, or fail to fertilize, but they were well worth the cost because they made me feel like I did everything within my power to preserve my fertility while holding out hope that I could have a family in the context of a stable, committed relationship. That's something that women even a generation ago would not be able to say, and it's remarkable.

[Anonymous]

For cripes sake she waited until she was 45 to start using them - 45!! That was not smart.
That’s really too old to be a new mom too considering she would be 47 at a minimum before she gave birth and most likely in perimenopause - how would her body even support a pregnancy?
It’s nice that she contributed to the article so that others might not think similarly - but 45?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here - edited to add as follows: I was never and have never been one of those women who delayed childbearing b/c of my career - it was for me, like most women, for lack of a partner. I dated vigorously and seriously throughout my thirties, dealt with heartbreak, a broken engagement, and the death of a parent - and I just didn't meet my partner until I was 37. I never dreamed my life would turn out this way, but it did. And maybe my frozen eggs will all die on thaw, or fail to fertilize, but they were well worth the cost because they made me feel like I did everything within my power to preserve my fertility while holding out hope that I could have a family in the context of a stable, committed relationship. That's something that women even a generation ago would not be able to say, and it's remarkable.

Very relatable. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For cripes sake she waited until she was 45 to start using them - 45!! That was not smart.
That’s really too old to be a new mom too considering she would be 47 at a minimum before she gave birth and most likely in perimenopause - how would her body even support a pregnancy?
It’s nice that she contributed to the article so that others might not think similarly - but 45?

[Anonymous]

Ok, fine. She was just oblivious and had no idea how fertility works. But her RE should have informed her of her chances. It's not rocket science, it's stats. Statistically, in her late 30's, she would need more than 11 frozen eggs to take home a baby. She was relaxed and happy all these years, because her RE did not inform her about the process and she was too busy with her career to do the research on her own (it is not that hard this days, really).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, fine. She was just oblivious and had no idea how fertility works. But her RE should have informed her of her chances. It's not rocket science, it's stats. Statistically, in her late 30's, she would need more than 11 frozen eggs to take home a baby. She was relaxed and happy all these years, because her RE did not inform her about the process and she was too busy with her career to do the research on her own (it is not that hard this days, really).

You realize she froze six years ago, right? long before we have the kind of data we do now on egg freezing and the likelihood of a live birth from a given number of eggs. It was an emerging form of technology and she can hardly be blamed for not knowing she needed multiple rounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, fine. She was just oblivious and had no idea how fertility works. But her RE should have informed her of her chances. It's not rocket science, it's stats. Statistically, in her late 30's, she would need more than 11 frozen eggs to take home a baby. She was relaxed and happy all these years, because her RE did not inform her about the process and she was too busy with her career to do the research on her own (it is not that hard this days, really).

You realize she froze six years ago, right? long before we have the kind of data we do now on egg freezing and the likelihood of a live birth from a given number of eggs. It was an emerging form of technology and she can hardly be blamed for not knowing she needed multiple rounds.

but not knowing enough should have made her more cautious not more certain. this does indeed appear to be a case of a woman who thought she could control her fertility and have the kids whenever she feels like it. I think there are many many more more sympathetic cases. I already wrote previously that it was puzzling this person was made the poster girl for donor eggs to begin with - like she was on the cover of magazine despite clearly not knowing anything, having few eggs, merely planning to have children at some point and just being kind of whacky overall

[Anonymous]

Yet another front home-page story today about egg freezing, now a 3 part film series about a millennnial freezing her eggs. I guess Washington Post knows its audience.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2018/01/30/should-i-freeze-my-eggs-one-womans-emotional-journey-to-take-charge-of-her-own-fertility/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.9b8afef38ec8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, fine. She was just oblivious and had no idea how fertility works. But her RE should have informed her of her chances. It's not rocket science, it's stats. Statistically, in her late 30's, she would need more than 11 frozen eggs to take home a baby. She was relaxed and happy all these years, because her RE did not inform her about the process and she was too busy with her career to do the research on her own (it is not that hard this days, really).

You realize she froze six years ago, right? long before we have the kind of data we do now on egg freezing and the likelihood of a live birth from a given number of eggs. It was an emerging form of technology and she can hardly be blamed for not knowing she needed multiple rounds.

Yes, we did. We are not talking 16 years ago, but 6!

[Anonymous]

this woman is a terrible writer. So verbose! What happened to her editor?

[Anonymous]

Fertility clinics make it sound very rosy. I was just at one and they kept talking about "high success rates" over and over again. If I hadn't read the article I wouldn't have known what questions to ask.

[Anonymous]

I wanted to add an update I stumbled upon.

https://www.popsugar.com/family/What-Does-Egg-Freezing-Involve-46038801

Brigitte Adams was interviewed for this article. This was towards the end:

"As for Adams, she achieved her goal of becoming a mom. As we talked on the phone about her journey, she was nursing her 11-month-old daughter. I could hear the baby babbling in the background. “I ended up using a donor egg and donor sperm,” she told me, noting she carried the baby herself. Adams said that when she found out she only had one embryo, she was adamant that she wasn't going to use an egg donor. But it took her a lot to get pregnant, as she had to have a hip replacement and fibroid surgery before her initial unsuccessful chemical pregnancy. “At that point I just really wanted to be a mom,” she said.... Adams now accepts there are so many different ways to get pregnant or become a mother. “I realize I have no opinion of anyone else's way to motherhood after going through what I did. Everyone gets there how they can.”

[Anonymous]

I’m the PP from 8:27 above and will be thawing my eggs for my second child in the next six months. Staying cautiously optimistic for now (froze 20 eggs at 35).