Anonymous wrote:For those that delivered a baby conceived with IVF did your Dr do any of the following? I'm trying to see how much of this is evidence based and protocol.
1. Early GD testing at 12 weeks, again at 16 and 24 weeks
2. Low dose aspirin 81mg to reduce preeclampsia risk
3. Induction at 37-39 weeks to reduce increased still birth rates going to 40+
4. Echo fetal cardiogram between 20-24 weeks
5. 16 and 20 week anatomy scan
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."
Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).
This is completely insane.
Yes agreed like most posts here. Why someone would go through IVF voluntarily and without any fertility issues is nuts. There’s so much time and effort and injections and hormones involved. Sounds like a super control freak to me! I wonder how many embryos are on ice for them. I imagine they have several if they have no issue with egg and sperm count and quality etc. definitely unethical. Good thing they aren’t in Alabama!
Well it also stretches the limits of plausibility that you would go through all of this, rather than just have sex with your husband.
I think they probably have an issue like ED and for obvious reasons did not want to say the real story.
Anonymous wrote:For those that delivered a baby conceived with IVF did your Dr do any of the following? I'm trying to see how much of this is evidence based and protocol.
1. Early GD testing at 12 weeks, again at 16 and 24 weeks
2. Low dose aspirin 81mg to reduce preeclampsia risk
3. Induction at 37-39 weeks to reduce increased still birth rates going to 40+
4. Echo fetal cardiogram between 20-24 weeks
5. 16 and 20 week anatomy scan
Anonymous wrote:For those that delivered a baby conceived with IVF did your Dr do any of the following? I'm trying to see how much of this is evidence based and protocol.
1. Early GD testing at 12 weeks, again at 16 and 24 weeks
2. Low dose aspirin 81mg to reduce preeclampsia risk
3. Induction at 37-39 weeks to reduce increased still birth rates going to 40+
4. Echo fetal cardiogram between 20-24 weeks
5. 16 and 20 week anatomy scan
Anonymous wrote:For those that delivered a baby conceived with IVF did your Dr do any of the following? I'm trying to see how much of this is evidence based and protocol.
1. Early GD testing at 12 weeks, again at 16 and 24 weeks
2. Low dose aspirin 81mg to reduce preeclampsia risk
3. Induction at 37-39 weeks to reduce increased still birth rates going to 40+
4. Echo fetal cardiogram between 20-24 weeks
5. 16 and 20 week anatomy scan
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."
Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).
What? Your friend had ivf with no infertility issues? Wtf?
PP here and I was also surprised. But they were very upfront about it. They knew we had fertility issues so when they told us they were doing IVF, we assumed, but they explained they had this perk through work (it wasn't via insurance -- her company just covered IVF treatment for up to two kids and you didn't need to "qualify" with an established history of infertility). They wanted maximum control over the pregnancies and doing IVF meant they could select the "best" embryo before implantation and maximize the timing based on her fertility window. I don't know, I thought it was weird, but they are fairly normal UMC people otherwise. Though my friend is super type A generally so this is in keeping with her super-controlled, planner personality.
Your body gives you the best egg through normal ovulation, and gets rid of all lower quality eggs through a process called atresia, so when you do IVF you are messing with the very process that would ensure the best egg. When you do a retrieval, you are retrieving all of the many eggs your body would have naturally discarded through atresia, and hoping one or more of them turn out OK to create an embryo, transfer, and implant. You can still get a decent egg but it's very very likely one that the body would have discarded and destroyed (you could also be retrieving and creating an embryo with the actual egg you would have naturally ovulated - the "best" egg - but that's a smaller likelihood with IVF and there's no way to tell). There are many reasons to do IVF but getting the best egg is actually what does not happen with IVF.
And to anyone who thinks PGT can tell you the best egg, that's not how it works. PGT can tell you, based on sampling a few cells, if there's a correct number of chromosomes and can screen for a few major genetic disorders. The genes that control for the crazy illnesses people get years down the line, intelligence, athleticism, mental health, beauty - all of that cannot be screened (not yet anyway).
Before that I also did not know that people did IVF without fertility issues.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."
Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).
This is completely insane.
Yes agreed like most posts here. Why someone would go through IVF voluntarily and without any fertility issues is nuts. There’s so much time and effort and injections and hormones involved. Sounds like a super control freak to me! I wonder how many embryos are on ice for them. I imagine they have several if they have no issue with egg and sperm count and quality etc. definitely unethical. Good thing they aren’t in Alabama!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."
Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).
This is completely insane.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."
Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).
What? Your friend had ivf with no infertility issues? Wtf?
PP here and I was also surprised. But they were very upfront about it. They knew we had fertility issues so when they told us they were doing IVF, we assumed, but they explained they had this perk through work (it wasn't via insurance -- her company just covered IVF treatment for up to two kids and you didn't need to "qualify" with an established history of infertility). They wanted maximum control over the pregnancies and doing IVF meant they could select the "best" embryo before implantation and maximize the timing based on her fertility window. I don't know, I thought it was weird, but they are fairly normal UMC people otherwise. Though my friend is super type A generally so this is in keeping with her super-controlled, planner personality.
Before that I also did not know that people did IVF without fertility issues.