NY Times article on twins and infertility

[Anonymous]

This was the front page story today. Really advocates for single egg transfer and also alludes to the fact that new guidelines are coming soon. An interesting read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/health/11fertility.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

[Anonymous]

I read it yesterday and I now wish I had not. We are pregnant with twins via IVF.

[Anonymous]

Today's article on IUI's/selective reduction is good too. It is freaking me out though. After two single embryo transfers (both BFNs) we were planning to transfer 2 embryos this time but these articles are reminding me why I am afraid of multiples...

[Anonymous]

Times has an online discussion on limiting the number of embryos that can be transfered. Dr Stillman from SG is one of the participants. http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/the-trouble-with-twin-births/

[Anonymous]

Did you read the coments? Twelve pages and 95% has some "why not adopt?" in it. I always said I don't wish infertility to my worst enemy, but right now I wish all these people suffer from it - and then come talk about it!

[Anonymous]

PP again! I am finally pregnant with "only" more 14 w to go, but I still find myself so annoyed with these kind of assumptions! It frustrates me in a deep level... What's up with everyone there blaming the women like if all the infertility problem is our fault and never our SO's? Again, just to show complete ignorance on the subject!

[Anonymous]

People don't blame women for infertility they assume, probably wrongly, that women's desire to conceive drives the fertility industry. I think the comments are skewed by single, childless New Yorkers. Most people I've met seem quite understanding of people's wish to have biological children.

[Anonymous]

I sought a physician that truly believed in single embryo transfers and was willing to risk their clinics stats by doing natural cycle IVF. It not only worked but I saved a lot of money by pursuing this treatment and there was no risk of twins. I'm currently pregnant with my second NCIVF baby.....
http://www.naturalcycleivf.net/green-fertility/hope-fsh-levels.aspx

[Anonymous]

I have two healthy kids and never had fertility issues but I find a lot of the people who judge are people who fall in my category or are single and just don't get it yet. I now have a number of friends who are going through various fertility issues and can honestly say that I get it when someone is happy they are pregnant with twins. They know they would like at least two kids and are sick with fear that they are not going to get pregnant again. Some friends have been through many many rounds of IUI and IVF. While I am sure everyone gets that pregnancy with twin can be dangerous, there are also things that you can do to lesson the danger and twins is not like carrying triplets or more. I also think that with the growing changes to healthcare, I can see a future where the government intervenes and says sorry--only can tranfer one and that will mean a lot of parents over 40 will not have kids--maybe good for the government and number crunchers but not good for families at least families that will not have the means to travel overseas to get various procedures done.

[Anonymous]

I have two healthy kids and never had fertility issues but I find a lot of the people who judge are people who fall in my category or are single and just don't get it yet. I now have a number of friends who are going through various fertility issues and can honestly say that I get it when someone is happy they are pregnant with twins. They know they would like at least two kids and are sick with fear that they are not going to get pregnant again. Some friends have been through many many rounds of IUI and IVF. While I am sure everyone gets that pregnancy with twin can be dangerous, there are also things that you can do to lesson the danger and twins is not like carrying triplets or more. I also think that with the growing changes to healthcare, I can see a future where the government intervenes and says sorry--only can tranfer one and that will mean a lot of parents over 40 will not have kids--maybe good for the government and number crunchers but not good for families at least families that will not have the means to travel overseas to get various procedures done.

It doesn't sound like you read the NYT article that this thread is about. Your comment reflects exactly the kind of notion the article was trying to dispel. That was one of the main points - that people say "yeah we know twins are risky" but they don't truly appreciate the reality of the risks involved with twin pregnancies. The article argued that avoiding twin pregnancies should be made more of a priority in the fertility treatment process and that couples need to be made more aware of the risks of such a pregnancy - so they don't approach fertility treatment with the idea that "twins would be great, we can get two kids with one pregnancy!" Yes, it's not as dangerous as carrying triplets or more, but that doesn't mean it's a risk that can or should be taken on just because we think modern medicine can manage the risk (which it sometimes succeeds in doing, sometimes not). We see lots of healthy twins (and celebrity twins) around us and we tend to think twins are fun and cute (which they are) but the statistics do bear out that twin pregnancies are high risk. I am someone who is undergoing fertility treatment right now, and I can tell you that we're doing everything we can to avoid twins. If it happens we will to do our best to deal with it, but we are really hoping and praying we will end up with a singleton.

[Anonymous]

One thing that most people don't realize is that many twin pregnancies come from the use of fertility medicine combined with IUIs or timed intercourse. Yes, offering GUIDELINES for the transfer of embryos is nice but it will not totally address the rise in medical costs.

The article does not show you the number of couples that attempted infertility treatments, transferred a few embryos, and were unsuccessful. Also, it does not address couples that transfer all embryos back due to religious concerns.

[Anonymous]

The whole fertility industry is dangerous. These drugs are doing god-knows-what to our bodies. There is evidence (there is a book out about this) that much of the medications used are untested (and untestable) so this is the guinea pig generation of women and children conceived in these ways. There is also evidence on the effects on child health. Its fundamentally unnatural, and yet so many are willing to risk their health and the health of their future offspring for the sake of biology. I think biology is hugely important. Infertility has always been around, some of it is "natural" as in certain people are not meant to reproduce. Some of it has to do with the older age of mothers-to-be. It is individually tragic. But the solution may not be to drug ourselves and create children via bizarre means that might affect ourselves and them in the future. For example,. it is possible nowadays to create infertile children (i.e., pass on a condition that was not meant to be inherited via infertility). How awful is that? As for these children born via donor eggs and sperm, I shudder at their psychological issues down the road. Infertility is tragic, but this society has lost all sense on this topic. Donor eggs and sperm are illegal in Europe because of the ethics and psychology. In the U.S., the government lets you do whatever you want as long as you can pay for it. There will be a steep price to pay in the next generation. I think people who push adoption are saying that it is a lesser evil than the infertility industry and its tech babies.

[Anonymous]

Provacative post PP. My sister in law married late in life and her new husband wanted children. But she had a sister who had just died of ovarian cancer and was convinced it was the all the infertility treatments that caused it. So they decided not to try that.

[Anonymous]

I am also deeply disturbed by my friends and relatives who have had babies using the new technologies. Like the PP, I think infertility is terrible and almost unimaginable when it can't be resolved. (We had a "surprise" natural pregnancy after infertility.) But I am so relieved that we didn't have to go the route of the drugs, donor gametes, etc. God alone knows what that does to one's body and to the resulting children. Infertility is not worth dying over, in my mind. Or creating fundamentally unhealthy children. Nor is it worth creating children who will never know their biological parents and who will always question their origins. Who might end up marrying their natural siblings by mistake. (Sperm donors can create quite a few children, particularly the popular ones.) No one understands or thinks about the aftermath of all this. If our surprise pregnancy hadn't happened, we were going to look into adoption. We weren't sure it was for us but the drugs really didn't seem worth it either.

[Anonymous]

To the PPs who are critical of fertility treatments, as you can probably tell by the threads on this board, many of the women reading this post are using fertility treatments. While you likely did not mean for your posts to be hurtful -- do you really think we are going to be convinced by some posts on an anonymous board? And unless you are an MD or epidemiologist - I'm going to take your medical advice with a HUGE grain of salt. I had been looking forward to discussing these articles with women who know what it's like to make the difficult decisions around embryo transfer -- not to get unsolicited advice from people who have never walked in my shoes. And BTW, not all of us are older. I started TTC when I turned 31 and am not starting my third IVF cycle at 33. And donor eggs/sperm are available in Europe (maybe not everywhere in Europe). I have a friend who is single and using donor sperm in France. Also, there is another thread on this topic, in the "off topic" section -- feel free to judge my choices there... Thanks.