Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

IVF

edited January 2011 in Not Sports Related
I have to give a presentation on Thursday about the 2010 physiology nobel prize winner Dr Robert Edwards for the development of IVF.

I would just like to know what everyones opinions are on it? i.e. ethical etc

(my presentation is based on the development of IVF, so dont worry I wont be using any of your opinions! :) )
«1

Comments

  • Ethically do not have any problems with it whatsover. Allows choice and opportunity for a couple to have a much loved child when it was medically not possible.
  • I agree with you there Kimbo...the thing that worries me is the whole designer baby thing (then it would get out of hand)...

    I understand that knowone would want a ginger child, but going through IVF to prevent it is probably to far... :P

    In all seriousness though, I think their could be a problem with designer babies, especially in countries where doctors tend to be corrupt, doing pretty much anything for money
  • My wife is 27 weeks pregnant through IVF we had been trying for 7 years and has finally worked on our 3rd attempt. It actually worked on our first attempt but she had a silent miscarrige after 7 weeks. So we see it as a blessing as there was nothing medically wrong with either of us.
  • Congratulations! IVF has helped millions of couples worldwide, and is probably one of the greatest scientific milestones. Hope everything goes to plan :)
  • edited January 2011
    Hi Mate,

    My wife and I had multiple IVF treatment cycles - ultimately we were unsuccessful and we ended up adopting our children.

    I have absolutely no moral problem with basic IVF treatment. I would prefer to call this assisted conception which is at the far end of a journey that most go through via other forms of assisted conception - i.e. Maximising chances of conception by monitoring ovulation, to improving sperm count, to fertility drugs. For us it was the logical end to the process which also involved freezing spare embryos for later implanting.

    It amounted for us to the mixing of our gametes externally to cause fertilisation and then the return of the fertilised embryo to my wife's uterus to develop. I don't see any moral case for objecting to that.

    As for screening to produce a particular sex or appearance, I have a little more concern about that but provided it is done correctly and not for cosmetic reasons, I can see a moral case for doing it. If for example, a couple have a genetic defect which can be screened out, I don't have a problem with that. If on the other hand for example, culturally people want to avoid conceiving girls and undertake screening on that basis, I do think there is a moral case against allowing that kind of choice.
  • As with any system, its oopen to abuse by poeple who want designer babies, babies at 80 years old etx. But the advantages far outwiegh the negatvies. Its a shame the cost is often restrictive.
  • Just to be controversial, I would add that there is a global warming issue related to this. The earth is already massively over populated by humans and having children is the thing that causes the most environmental damage. Therefore should IVF be seen as causing even greater environmental problems?
  • [cite]Posted By: Nicholas[/cite]My wife is 27 weeks pregnant through IVF we had been trying for 7 years and has finally worked on our 3rd attempt. It actually worked on our first attempt but she had a silent miscarrige after 7 weeks. So we see it as a blessing as there was nothing medically wrong with either of us.

    Congratulations. Its great to learn of your success. As I mentioned above we had a number of attempts - six plus one implant of a frozen embryo but ultimately we failed.

    Best wishes.
  • I find all these threads about hooligan gangs boring.

    Oh I. V. F. Sorry, carry on.

    : - )
  • [cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]Just to be controversial, I would add that there is a global warming issue related to this. The earth is already massively over populated by humans and having children is the thing that causes the most environmental damage. Therefore should IVF be seen as causing even greater environmental problems?

    I understand that argument but I don't buy it. There are many many other things that effect the size of the population. One of the primary ones being ignorance of or the social stigmatisation of contraception. A very small cohort of couples going through IVF makes virtually no difference to the world population growth.
  • Sponsored links:


  • No problems at all with this. I am lucky to have 3 kids and it is the greatest privilage and blessing ever.
    So anything tha helps those who struggle to have kids is a good thing in my book.
  • [quote][cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]Just to be controversial, I would add that there is a global warming issue related to this. The earth is already massively over populated by humans and having children is the thing that causes the most environmental damage. Therefore should IVF be seen as causing even greater environmental problems?[/quote]

    Good point...however, the same could be said for mr and mrs joe blogs having 5 children via natural conception....(i.e. after a few bottles of wine and using the spray on condom)

    There is a problem with too many people on this planet, and the population is starting to grow to much in this country (due to our size as much as anything)...

    What would be peoples views be on capping the number of children that a couple can have?
  • [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]I find all these threads about hooligan gangs boring.

    Oh I. V. F. Sorry, carry on.

    : - )

    Before embarking on the treatment, I used to get muddled up with Loyalist gangs. :-)
  • My biggest worry is that there is money in it for the specialists - where that is the case- it is bound to be abused. It's great when a couple who can't have a much wanted child gets one but that should be it- no choosing sex, allowing people that are too old to have children etc... It is a big worry how the procedures will be used in other countries where boys are favoured above girls and new found wealth is available and moral standards are less of a consideration.
  • Absolutely no problem with IVF as it is just assisted conception. Now designer babies is a different matter entirely.
  • I know it's not gonna be a popular view but i don't agree with IVF.

    I'm not/haven't been in a position where the question was personal to me and I can't begin to imagine how difficult it is emotionally for couples who are desperate to have a child of their own, they have my utmost sympathy.
    But i don't think having kids is a right, if you can't it's unfortunate but that's nature trying to control populations as it does with every animal. There are also other alternatives, even if they're not the same as having your own.

    As i say, won't be popular, and if anybody is going through it then i genuinly wish them every success and happiness.
  • [cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]Absolutely no problem with IVF as it is just assisted conception. Now designer babies is a different matter entirely.

    That was my point only much more succinctly put!
  • [quote][cite]Posted By: DRAddick[/cite]I know it's not gonna be a popular view but i don't agree with IVF.

    I'm not/haven't been in a position where the question was personal to me and I can't begin to imagine how difficult it is emotionally for couples who are desperate to have a child of their own, they have my utmost sympathy.
    But i don't think having kids is a right, if you can't it's unfortunate but that's nature trying to control populations as it does with every animal. There are also other alternatives, even if they're not the same as having your own.

    As i say, won't be popular, and if anybody is going through it then i genuinly wish them every success and happiness.[/quote]

    But thats the same as saying that you wouldnt have life saving heart surgary, or you wouldnt take statins to reduce your cholesterol.....as dying via a heart attack/failure is nature's way of controlling populations....
  • [quote][cite]Posted By: DRAddick[/cite]I know it's not gonna be a popular view but i don't agree with IVF.

    I'm not/haven't been in a position where the question was personal to me and I can't begin to imagine how difficult it is emotionally for couples who are desperate to have a child of their own, they have my utmost sympathy.
    But i don't think having kids is a right, if you can't it's unfortunate but that's nature trying to control populations as it does with every animal. There are also other alternatives, even if they're not the same as having your own.

    As i say, won't be popular, and if anybody is going through it then i genuinly wish them every success and happiness.[/quote]

    Nature trying to control populations......?......so applying the same thinking, if someone has cancer we should not treat them, same with heart transplants?
    Cant say I agree.
  • No experience either way but it's good how far as a society we have moved on. I remember at school being called a "test tube baby" was an insult, not thoguht twice about now which is great.
  • Sponsored links:


  • [cite]Posted By: robert[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: DRAddick[/cite]I know it's not gonna be a popular view but i don't agree with IVF.

    I'm not/haven't been in a position where the question was personal to me and I can't begin to imagine how difficult it is emotionally for couples who are desperate to have a child of their own, they have my utmost sympathy.
    But i don't think having kids is a right, if you can't it's unfortunate but that's nature trying to control populations as it does with every animal. There are also other alternatives, even if they're not the same as having your own.

    As i say, won't be popular, and if anybody is going through it then i genuinly wish them every success and happiness.

    But thats the same as saying that you wouldnt have life saving heart surgary, or you wouldnt take statins to reduce your cholesterol.....as dying via a heart attack/failure is nature's way of controlling populations....

    Not to me it isn't. Using medicines, surgery, lifestyle etc is just an extention of eating and drinking, it's preserving life. Creating life is different.
  • [cite]Posted By: DRAddick[/cite]There are also other alternatives, even if they're not the same as having your own.

    My wife and I have adopted two children having first tried IVF. If you try and express things in terms for rights, you can get into real difficulties.

    We wanted children, we couldn't (or were very unlikely to) conceive without assistance. Scientists had developed techniques to assist us in our desire. We were offered what was a mechanical manipulation of our natural bodily functions to assist us to have a child. I do not see that as a right to have children but it does offer a hitherto unavailable option.

    In our case that failed after seven attempts. That is emotionally very difficult. If we had been told at the outset that we couldn't have children naturally, that would have been devastating but we would have lived with it. IVF just offers hope that wouldn't be there. That is fine by me.
  • Its not an extention of eating and drinking is it? Its not very natural to have your chest opened up, your coronary arteries bypassed and then be resown up again...(just becuase you ate too many burgers throughout life)...

    I understand that creating life is different, but surely couples who are going through IVF, have more than likely given more thought to having children than the average couple, in some respects making them very responsible.
  • Yes but IVF isn't really creating life as such. It is just assisting with the actual conception. I can't see how you can't accept that but are quite happy with operations that artificially save lives, in some cases using parts from other animals. As said creating designer babies is something entirely different and IMO is something of concern. IVF isnt.
  • [quote][cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: DRAddick[/cite]There are also other alternatives, even if they're not the same as having your own.[/quote]

    My wife and I have adopted two children having first tried IVF. If you try and express things in terms for rights, you can get into real difficulties.

    We wanted children, we couldn't (or were very unlikely to) conceive without assistance. Scientists had developed techniques to assist us in our desire. We were offered what was a mechanical manipulation of our natural bodily functions to assist us to have a child. I do not see that as a right to have children but it does offer a hitherto unavailable option.

    In our case that failed after seven attempts. That is emotionally very difficult. If we had been told at the outset that we couldn't have children naturally, that would have been devastating but we would have lived with it. IVF just offers hope that wouldn't be there. That is fine by me.[/quote]


    Thats my only issue with IVF, is that is obviously it dosnt work 100% of the time, and can give couples false hope. I am sorry to hear of that story though, but at least you have given children a good home when they wouldnt normally otherwise have one.
  • edited January 2011
    [cite]Posted By: DRAddick[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: robert[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: DRAddick[/cite]I know it's not gonna be a popular view but i don't agree with IVF.

    I'm not/haven't been in a position where the question was personal to me and I can't begin to imagine how difficult it is emotionally for couples who are desperate to have a child of their own, they have my utmost sympathy.
    But i don't think having kids is a right, if you can't it's unfortunate but that's nature trying to control populations as it does with every animal. There are also other alternatives, even if they're not the same as having your own.

    As i say, won't be popular, and if anybody is going through it then i genuinly wish them every success and happiness.

    But thats the same as saying that you wouldnt have life saving heart surgary, or you wouldnt take statins to reduce your cholesterol.....as dying via a heart attack/failure is nature's way of controlling populations....

    Not to me it isn't. Using medicines, surgery, lifestyle etc is just an extention of eating and drinking, it's preserving life. Creating life is different.

    Disagree with you completely. Creating and then preserving life are part of the same process in my eyes.
  • [cite]Posted By: DRAddick[/cite]Creating life is different.

    Potential life is created every day inside sexually mature adults. Most of the time the sex cells die, without conception. Sometimes they meet, conception takes place and then the embryo doesn't develop. Sometimes it does. All IVF is doing is creating an opportunity for those sex cells to meet, fertilise and be returned to the body. Its not artificially creating life, its merely giving an opportunity for life to be created naturally. We are not talking about gene manipulation here, or the works of Dr Frankenstein. We are just facilitating a natural process.
  • [cite]Posted By: robert[/cite]Its not an extention of eating and drinking is it? Its not very natural to have your chest opened up, your coronary arteries bypassed and then be resown up again...(just becuase you ate too many burgers throughout life)...
    I understand that creating life is different, but surely couples who are going through IVF, have more than likely given more thought to having children than the average couple, in some respects making them very responsible.
    yo

    If you have been through IVF it is an emotional roller coaster and not a walk in the park and can be stressful and heartbreaking. If you come through the other side with a child from that then I'm sure youd feel truly blessed. I cant see how is unethical or wrong in anyway, shape or form.
  • [cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]No experience either way but it's good how far as a society we have moved on. I remember at school being called a "test tube baby" was an insult, not thoguht twice about now which is great.

    Oh i didnt know you were. Lovely.
  • If everybody had to go through IVF to have a child, the world would probably be a better place! I also agree that if we were happy to let nature regulate, we wouldn't treat people for any conditions at all just let nature take them if that's their fate. Just don't trust scientists/doctors to know when to stop - money and just a desire to push the boundaries is always something to guard against.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!