Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP's assumption that, because she conceived easily at 39 "her fertility is good" is ignorant. Her worries about twins are, frankly, ludicrous.
What happened to "only transfer as many as you are willing to carry"? I'm new to these boards, and honestly, I'm stunned at the stone throwing. If you transfer several and get multiples and have to do a selective reduction, you get massacred for transferring more than you were willing to carry. If you're scared of multiples and only want to transfer one, you get massacred for being "ludicrous." One would think that those of us going through these difficult decisions would try to be more supportive of each other.
OP, in your situation I would transfer as many embryos as you get; it's unlikely that you will end up with healthy multiples, but if you do, there is the option of selective reduction. It's not a perfect solution (there's a chance that it can damage the surviving embryo) but transferring several and keeping the selective reduction option open is the course that is most likely to work with your own eggs at this age. Good luck--I'm just a few years younger, and in the same boat.
Hey, I am the PP you quoted and I never advocated "only transfer as many as you are willing to carry". I find that philosophy to be of limited applicability. Btw, I had my RE transfer 5 (3 "very good", 2 crappy) at 39 and I sure didn't intend to carry five.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Responders should have to be 40+ in order to answer questions of those 40+ asking questions.
Why?
OP asked about ART options and 19:17 suggests trying naturally. That might be okay advice for someone 34, but not 44.
Many doctors argue that IVF does help - or doesn't justify the cost - after 43 or so.
What is the reasoning behind this??
Anonymous wrote:OP have you checked out this dcurban post? I think the pt was treated at DF by Dr Dimetina
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/149805.page
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP's assumption that, because she conceived easily at 39 "her fertility is good" is ignorant. Her worries about twins are, frankly, ludicrous.
What happened to "only transfer as many as you are willing to carry"? I'm new to these boards, and honestly, I'm stunned at the stone throwing. If you transfer several and get multiples and have to do a selective reduction, you get massacred for transferring more than you were willing to carry. If you're scared of multiples and only want to transfer one, you get massacred for being "ludicrous." One would think that those of us going through these difficult decisions would try to be more supportive of each other.
OP, in your situation I would transfer as many embryos as you get; it's unlikely that you will end up with healthy multiples, but if you do, there is the option of selective reduction. It's not a perfect solution (there's a chance that it can damage the surviving embryo) but transferring several and keeping the selective reduction option open is the course that is most likely to work with your own eggs at this age. Good luck--I'm just a few years younger, and in the same boat.
Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure at 44 that It's donor eggs or nothing. By 44 there is a huge precipitous drop off in fertility for almost everyone. No matter who great your fertility used to be.
Anonymous wrote:OP's assumption that, because she conceived easily at 39 "her fertility is good" is ignorant. Her worries about twins are, frankly, ludicrous.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Responders should have to be 40+ in order to answer questions of those 40+ asking questions.
Why?
OP asked about ART options and 19:17 suggests trying naturally. That might be okay advice for someone 34, but not 44.
Many doctors argue that IVF does help - or doesn't justify the cost - after 43 or so.
What is the reasoning behind this??
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Responders should have to be 40+ in order to answer questions of those 40+ asking questions.
Why?
OP asked about ART options and 19:17 suggests trying naturally. That might be okay advice for someone 34, but not 44.
Many doctors argue that IVF does help - or doesn't justify the cost - after 43 or so.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:HI OP, I'm 43 and conceived with my own egg with NCIVF, you should at least have a consult with DF.
http://fertilegrounds.dominionfertility.com/profiles/blogs/this-story-is-so-incredible-we-need-to-highlight-it-48-year-old
Have you also tried unsuccessfully for 4 years on you own? To me, that's more troublesome than OP's age.
She should at least give Dominion the time for a consult. Her odds might be low, and Dr D or Dr G would be honest and tell her that. Dr D told me NCIVF was a long shot and that I should think about DE or adoption. I wanted to try with my own eggs. It worked on the first try. I admit, I was lucky, but sometimes luck is on your side.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:HI OP, I'm 43 and conceived with my own egg with NCIVF, you should at least have a consult with DF.
http://fertilegrounds.dominionfertility.com/profiles/blogs/this-story-is-so-incredible-we-need-to-highlight-it-48-year-old
Have you also tried unsuccessfully for 4 years on you own? To me, that's more troublesome than OP's age.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
The fact that you conceived easily at 39 suggests that you have no tubal/immunological/uterine etc issues and that your husbands sperm is probably serviceable.
But her DH is also 4 years older, and sperm quality does go down with age. An SA is easy to do, and it should be done alongside OPs battery of tests.