Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can say from very recent experience that Shady Grove is now advising against transferring two embryos (I’m mid-thirties, though, so cannot speak for the 40+ patients).

I wonder if it’s really about the risks, or if they are realizing that their two for one promotion wasn’t as profitable

Seriously though, I do wonder if it’s economically driven vs risk aversion. I know PPs have mentioned the risks and anecdotal experience, but I will add that my anecdotal experience is that I know many, many twins via IVF (elementary age through high school) and they are mostly all fine.

If there is an entity that is anti-twin for profit reasons its insurance companies. NICU charges and complications for the mother get pricey fast and they cannot create plans without coverage, like they have with IVF. I think the insurance companies bring pressure to bear on professional associations and in turn doctors to avoid twins at all costs. The ranking of outcome look like this:

Singleton birth
.
.
No birth
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Twins

I hadn’t thought about that. You’re right that insurance companies have motivation to avoid twins before the pregnancy. They can’t deny coverage for the complications that can arise even if the twin pregnancy was by “choice”.

Adult twin here and mother of children less than 2 years apart. Twins can definitely be more competitive with each other than the average singleton sibs, but on the other hand, twins can also get along much better with each other than the average singleton sibs. My children are so much more competitive with each other and fight way more than my twin and I ever did. My mom was totally thrown by how difficult it is to parent my children than she parented my twin and me. Having said that, I was relieved to find out I wasn't having twins (regardless of whether it's genetic or not- we have a lot of twins on both sides of the family- my MIL is a twin and her non-twin sib has twins. My father was a twin and he also had a set of younger twin brothers).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can say from very recent experience that Shady Grove is now advising against transferring two embryos (I’m mid-thirties, though, so cannot speak for the 40+ patients).

I wonder if it’s really about the risks, or if they are realizing that their two for one promotion wasn’t as profitable

Seriously though, I do wonder if it’s economically driven vs risk aversion. I know PPs have mentioned the risks and anecdotal experience, but I will add that my anecdotal experience is that I know many, many twins via IVF (elementary age through high school) and they are mostly all fine.

If there is an entity that is anti-twin for profit reasons its insurance companies. NICU charges and complications for the mother get pricey fast and they cannot create plans without coverage, like they have with IVF. I think the insurance companies bring pressure to bear on professional associations and in turn doctors to avoid twins at all costs. The ranking of outcome look like this:

Singleton birth
.
.
No birth
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Twins

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who haven't done IVF in a while - even within a year or two - most of the reputable REs won't do 2 anymore anyway... for all the risks mentioned. Nothing against twins - mine are awesome - but I had an intensely scary and unhealthy pregnancy, one kids with mild disability issues and one born with a slight physical malfunction from basically being smushed in the womb. I have loved every minute of life with my twins, but in retrospect & with science knowing now what it didn't know then, there's really no excuse for transferring multiples anymore.

Is this true? They aren’t doing 2 embryos with IVF anymore? So will people look back on the 2000s and 2010s as the big twin baby boom? Are the days of 3 sets of twins in one classroom going to be a thing of the past?

I think the onset of PGS/PGD testing really lead to fewer twin outcomes, particularly for younger women with DOR who if they generate blasts are likely to have good ones. That said there is a bit of a rebound of higher order transfers with the transfer of mosiacs and the concern about false abnormal PGS testing in difficult cases.

When I began IVF my first RE was focused on PGS testing and putting back one embryo. For example once cycle I had just 2 fertilized embryos, they grew them out to 5 days and put back the one that reached blast (untested). They should have put both back on day 3, which is perfectly in line with SART guidelines.

After multiple failures including the transfer of 2 PGS normal embryos that didnt take, I am seeing a new RE. Given my previous difficulties he has recommended skipping PGS testing and putting back 2 or 3 blasts at a time. Since I am older he says the chances of twins are small bc of egg quality.

Recent experience with Shady Grove and I got a hard no on twins. Context is that I had done some failed IVFs with SGF and then had a naturally conceived identical twin pregnancy. Lost the pregnancy in the second tri. Went to SGF to try to get pregnant again and asked if we could try for twins and they said no way is it worth the risk, they only will transfer more than one embryo if the specific issues make it very difficult that the woman will conceive at all.


Having lost my own twin pregnancy due to issues with the shared placenta and having 2 sets of friends that lost one of their twins due to premature delivery and another set of friends who had both twins survive but several issues due to being premature I would absolutely NOT try for twins.

Yes you see lots of healthy twins out there but it is truly much higher risk that you'll lose one or both babies or have them very early. You just don't see those stories because its not like people talk about their lost twin every day in public. It is not worth the risk to do this on purpose if your goal is to end up with a healthy baby overall.

Anonymous wrote:From what I know of SGF recently, they are pretty laissez faire about twins. My three friends who recently went there all had twins and said their doctors were like, great!

We've had the opposite experience. My embryos were all PGS normals, and I was STRONGLY encouraged to transfer them one at a time, and I'm 40.

From what I know of SGF recently, they are pretty laissez faire about twins. My three friends who recently went there all had twins and said their doctors were like, great!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can say from very recent experience that Shady Grove is now advising against transferring two embryos (I’m mid-thirties, though, so cannot speak for the 40+ patients).

I wonder if it’s really about the risks, or if they are realizing that their two for one promotion wasn’t as profitable

Seriously though, I do wonder if it’s economically driven vs risk aversion. I know PPs have mentioned the risks and anecdotal experience, but I will add that my anecdotal experience is that I know many, many twins via IVF (elementary age through high school) and they are mostly all fine.

I don't think that SGF is motivated by profit here, as they've advised against transferring two when I've been part of their Shared Risk programs, where you'd think they'd want to me to have a baby in the fewest number of cycles. The clinic has only advised me to transfer two on a fresh transfer when I had no embryos that were blasts on day 5, when the odds of either embryo taking was much lower.

Anonymous wrote:I can say from very recent experience that Shady Grove is now advising against transferring two embryos (I’m mid-thirties, though, so cannot speak for the 40+ patients).

I wonder if it’s really about the risks, or if they are realizing that their two for one promotion wasn’t as profitable

Seriously though, I do wonder if it’s economically driven vs risk aversion. I know PPs have mentioned the risks and anecdotal experience, but I will add that my anecdotal experience is that I know many, many twins via IVF (elementary age through high school) and they are mostly all fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another twin mom here saying don't do it. One at a time is better for all kinds of reasons.

I gave birth to my twins just days before I turned 45. I had a pretty straightforward pregnancy, scheduled c-section at 37 weeks, two healthy 6 lb babies who went home w/ me, easy recovery from c-section, etc... Basically the dream scenario. I was very lucky and perhaps you would be also.

But I still STRONGLY wish I'd had one at a time, and tell anyone who asks that I don't recommend twins. I wish my kids had my undivided attention at infancy, or at any individual developmental stage. I wish I only had one baby to breast feed at a time - perhaps it would have been easier and I would have done it longer. I wish they didn't compare themselves to each other so relentlessly and unforgivingly ALL THE TIME. I wish they didn't have hurt feelings over who had more friends show up for their b'day party. Etc..,.

There are wondeful and fun things about having (or being) a twin, for sure. But the kids really do pay a price that I wish I could spare them. Maybe I'll feel differently when they're adults but so far (still in elementary school) I have consistently felt that they would have been better served by being one at a time in each developmental stage.

my older kids are 2.5. years apart and they do this all the time. sibling rivalry is a thing. there is also personality... neither of those has anything to do with twins.

I'm not talking about standard sibling rivalry. I'm talking about one child being painfully aware of ways in which his twin is ahead of him - developmentally, socially, physically, etc... It is incredibly painful for him - in ways it simply wouldn't be if the answer was "she's two years older than you Johnny - of course she can run faster." Or, if he were the big brother who was ahead of her. Or if they weren't counting how many friends showed up on the day of their birthday party - because they don't have the luxury of two different birthdays. Or if they didn't see their sibling being rewarded for something in school when their class does not yet have that privilege (or that teacher does things differently). And so on...

Please do not presume to lecture me about my kids.

i am not lecturing you about your kids - merely pointing out that you don't have experience with kids of different ages and you have no idea how competitive then can get despite age difference.

kids can't take into account that the sibling is older and it is very painful for them when their siblings are ahead even though they are older. they lack perspective. they, too, count invitations, grades etc etc.

singleton parent, Stop!! You don't have experience with kids the exact same age and you have no idea how competitive they can get without any age difference. Kids can't take into account the sibling is the exact same age and it is very painful when their sibling are ahead even though they are the exact same age. They lack perspective.

Tone deaf much?

-Mom of twins, one of whom has a congenital condition.

Yes, while sibling rivalry exists among singletons, it’s definitely magnified with twins.

I have fraternal twins. Twin A is neurotypical and healthy. Twin B has Autism, ADHD and anxiety. Twin B gets the short end of the stick in every way: she’s younger, shorter, slower to reach puberty, less coordinated, you name it. The constant comparisons to her sister because they’re twins is devastating to her self esteem. I had an uncomplicated pregnancy, but ironically, my pregnancy was the least complicated part of having twins.

When my children were born, my uncle (a psychiatrist) told my mother that, with twins, he always worries about the second born. She didn’t ask him what he meant and didn’t know what he was hinting at, but after years and years of complete strangers coming up to my kids and asking 1) “Are you twins?”, immediately followed by 2) “Which one of you is older?”, believe me, I get it now.

Recently, my children both applied for leadership positions at their school. Only one was selected...and if you guessed it was Twin A, you’d be correct. Sure, there were other kids who weren’t selected, when their older siblings had been — but none of those singletons had been in direct competition with their siblings for these coveted positions.

I can say from very recent experience that Shady Grove is now advising against transferring two embryos (I’m mid-thirties, though, so cannot speak for the 40+ patients).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who haven't done IVF in a while - even within a year or two - most of the reputable REs won't do 2 anymore anyway... for all the risks mentioned. Nothing against twins - mine are awesome - but I had an intensely scary and unhealthy pregnancy, one kids with mild disability issues and one born with a slight physical malfunction from basically being smushed in the womb. I have loved every minute of life with my twins, but in retrospect & with science knowing now what it didn't know then, there's really no excuse for transferring multiples anymore.

Is this true? They aren’t doing 2 embryos with IVF anymore? So will people look back on the 2000s and 2010s as the big twin baby boom? Are the days of 3 sets of twins in one classroom going to be a thing of the past?

I think that a lot of twins result from the mom using Clomid to get pregnant, so there will still be twins around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another twin mom here saying don't do it. One at a time is better for all kinds of reasons.

I gave birth to my twins just days before I turned 45. I had a pretty straightforward pregnancy, scheduled c-section at 37 weeks, two healthy 6 lb babies who went home w/ me, easy recovery from c-section, etc... Basically the dream scenario. I was very lucky and perhaps you would be also.

But I still STRONGLY wish I'd had one at a time, and tell anyone who asks that I don't recommend twins. I wish my kids had my undivided attention at infancy, or at any individual developmental stage. I wish I only had one baby to breast feed at a time - perhaps it would have been easier and I would have done it longer. I wish they didn't compare themselves to each other so relentlessly and unforgivingly ALL THE TIME. I wish they didn't have hurt feelings over who had more friends show up for their b'day party. Etc..,.

There are wondeful and fun things about having (or being) a twin, for sure. But the kids really do pay a price that I wish I could spare them. Maybe I'll feel differently when they're adults but so far (still in elementary school) I have consistently felt that they would have been better served by being one at a time in each developmental stage.

my older kids are 2.5. years apart and they do this all the time. sibling rivalry is a thing. there is also personality... neither of those has anything to do with twins.

I'm not talking about standard sibling rivalry. I'm talking about one child being painfully aware of ways in which his twin is ahead of him - developmentally, socially, physically, etc... It is incredibly painful for him - in ways it simply wouldn't be if the answer was "she's two years older than you Johnny - of course she can run faster." Or, if he were the big brother who was ahead of her. Or if they weren't counting how many friends showed up on the day of their birthday party - because they don't have the luxury of two different birthdays. Or if they didn't see their sibling being rewarded for something in school when their class does not yet have that privilege (or that teacher does things differently). And so on...

Please do not presume to lecture me about my kids.

i am not lecturing you about your kids - merely pointing out that you don't have experience with kids of different ages and you have no idea how competitive then can get despite age difference.

kids can't take into account that the sibling is older and it is very painful for them when their siblings are ahead even though they are older. they lack perspective. they, too, count invitations, grades etc etc.

singleton parent, Stop!! You don't have experience with kids the exact same age and you have no idea how competitive they can get without any age difference. Kids can't take into account the sibling is the exact same age and it is very painful when their sibling are ahead even though they are the exact same age. They lack perspective.

Tone deaf much?

-Mom of twins, one of whom has a congenital condition.

Anonymous wrote:For those who haven't done IVF in a while - even within a year or two - most of the reputable REs won't do 2 anymore anyway... for all the risks mentioned. Nothing against twins - mine are awesome - but I had an intensely scary and unhealthy pregnancy, one kids with mild disability issues and one born with a slight physical malfunction from basically being smushed in the womb. I have loved every minute of life with my twins, but in retrospect & with science knowing now what it didn't know then, there's really no excuse for transferring multiples anymore.

Is this true? They aren’t doing 2 embryos with IVF anymore? So will people look back on the 2000s and 2010s as the big twin baby boom? Are the days of 3 sets of twins in one classroom going to be a thing of the past?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another twin mom here saying don't do it. One at a time is better for all kinds of reasons.

I gave birth to my twins just days before I turned 45. I had a pretty straightforward pregnancy, scheduled c-section at 37 weeks, two healthy 6 lb babies who went home w/ me, easy recovery from c-section, etc... Basically the dream scenario. I was very lucky and perhaps you would be also.

But I still STRONGLY wish I'd had one at a time, and tell anyone who asks that I don't recommend twins. I wish my kids had my undivided attention at infancy, or at any individual developmental stage. I wish I only had one baby to breast feed at a time - perhaps it would have been easier and I would have done it longer. I wish they didn't compare themselves to each other so relentlessly and unforgivingly ALL THE TIME. I wish they didn't have hurt feelings over who had more friends show up for their b'day party. Etc..,.

There are wondeful and fun things about having (or being) a twin, for sure. But the kids really do pay a price that I wish I could spare them. Maybe I'll feel differently when they're adults but so far (still in elementary school) I have consistently felt that they would have been better served by being one at a time in each developmental stage.

my older kids are 2.5. years apart and they do this all the time. sibling rivalry is a thing. there is also personality... neither of those has anything to do with twins.

I'm not talking about standard sibling rivalry. I'm talking about one child being painfully aware of ways in which his twin is ahead of him - developmentally, socially, physically, etc... It is incredibly painful for him - in ways it simply wouldn't be if the answer was "she's two years older than you Johnny - of course she can run faster." Or, if he were the big brother who was ahead of her. Or if they weren't counting how many friends showed up on the day of their birthday party - because they don't have the luxury of two different birthdays. Or if they didn't see their sibling being rewarded for something in school when their class does not yet have that privilege (or that teacher does things differently). And so on...

Please do not presume to lecture me about my kids.

i am not lecturing you about your kids - merely pointing out that you don't have experience with kids of different ages and you have no idea how competitive then can get despite age difference.

kids can't take into account that the sibling is older and it is very painful for them when their siblings are ahead even though they are older. they lack perspective. they, too, count invitations, grades etc etc.