[cite]Posted By: robert[/cite]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.
Have come across the expression "it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all".
I don't think its false hope. We were told what the chances were before we embarked. If you were told your child was gravely ill and would die however there was a new treatment which could save their lives but the treatment itself might kill them, would you take the chance? I know I would. If my child died as a consequence I would be devastated but I would know that at least we tried.
IVF holds out hope. It's that hope that we clung to. Would I do it all over again knowing what the outcome was for us. Yes If I was younger and without children. If I was counselling people considering IVF, I would tell them my story but to balance that I would give them stories of successful outcomes. I would give them the statistics and leave it to them to decide.
[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 thought twice about now which is great.
Oh i didnt know you were. Lovely.
Not that there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm not! I can see how it reads that way though.
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]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.
Scientists are there to push the bounderies, thats what we do....
Its within human nature to explore to the limit, without it we would never have left the caves, let alone gone to the moon, sailed around the world, developed IVF etc....
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]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.
I think to be fair, to some extent if something is possible and scientifically available it is right to have moral considerations before allowing it to be used.
That has been the case and the UK has been in the forefront of looking not just at the science but also the ethical issues.
In the end there very little theoretical limit to human scientific achievement and it is hard to see any sustainable block being put on the science. It is up to us and our representatives in government to erect the ethical structures around the use of the scientific knowledge. That is where the focus should be, why we must ensure we have a robust and open democracy to ensure that enough light is shone on these issues.
[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 thought twice about now which is great.
Oh i didnt know you were. Lovely.
Not that there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm not! I can see how it reads that way though.
Did they not mean that you were skinny enough to fit in a test tube?
[cite]Posted By: robert[/cite]Congratulations! IVF has helped millions of couples worldwide, and is probably one of the greatest scientific milestones. Hope everything goes to plan
Thank you so much :0
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]
[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.
Thankyou, I'm so sorry it's not worked out for you and your partner, I feel for you so much.
I have no problem at all with the idea of assisted conception per se, but I do have a number of concerns about IVF. I object to the post code lottery aspect and the involvement of private clinics. A lot of clinics jumped onto the bandwagon because there was money in it and there was no reliable way of comparing success rates between clinics, although I understand that the statistical models have been refined in more recent times. In my working life, I have seen both successes and failures for the couples concerned, and whilst the successes are immensely heartwarming, the majority are 'failures'. This in itself labels couples, and the devastation caused in their lives, quite apart from the financial burdens they may end up with, can be immense. I have seen women becoming totally obsessed with their desire to have babies and whilst this may be understandable, I can't see it as desirable, and it has totally wrecked some lives, (one of our family members included). IVF offers the constant hope that 'next time we may be lucky' and it is not in the interests of private clinics to discourage this. Other ethical issues which IVF has opened the door to, such as 'designer babies' are very challenging, designing out genetic defects for example make me very uncomfortable.
At a dispassionate economic level, we have some pretty hard decisions to make about what we want the NHS to do for us, and IVF is a more obvious area for cuts. I don't see any given 'right' to have babies, but we have the technology to enable people to make choices. It seems pretty unjust to say to people, if you're well off, you've got more choice than others, but that is the harsh reality, however much I dislike it.
[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.
I do see where you are coming from and contrary to others opinion I think preserving life is very different to creating one. If a mother is at risk during birth and it is a choice of saving the mother OR the child (not when both are possible) then doctors will generally try to save the mothers life unless the opposite desire is firmly expressed.
For those who are desperate to have children, there are thousands of children out there desperate for families. The problem is most will only adopt babies. I used to live opposite a children’s home and used to think how terribly sad it was that there were so many children, in our own country, who were unwanted. And they weren't always 'troubled' children. Many were children of single mothers who had died and no other relatives were available.
IVF helps people to avoid going down routes like adoption which I believe should be much more promoted (and easier for those who wish to).
[cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]I used to live opposite a children’s home and used to think how terribly sad it was that there were so many children, in our own country, who were unwanted. And they weren't always 'troubled' children. Many were children of single mothers who had died and no other relatives were available.
As somebody who has experience both IVF and adoption I would say that there are many, many kids who need to be adopted. The problem is a shortage of parents with the correct experience and support.
Please take it from me that adopting is a fantastic thing and we have two wonderful kids. My daughter aged 7 has suffered no great ill effect when she was taken into care and in consequence has no major behavioural difficulties. My son aged 11 on the other hand has significant issues. Both were adopted at just over a year old and neither, we were told, had any reason to suggest that they would develop problems as they got older. That is the case with my son who has serious behavioural problems not spotted by experts at the time we adopted him.
The scandal is not enough support for children in care right through from birth, their early life and post adoption/fostering.
I agree that the care system is a different issue and one that too many seem willing to over look.
Is it really an issue though that there are not enough parents with suitable experience? For parents that conceive naturally there is no 'test' they have to go through and no perfect manual telling them how to do it. I wonder if 'the system' expects too much of adoptive parents and therefore shortens the already too short list of those willing.
For example my neighbour is a single mother who also provides respite care for a disabled child. She sought to adopt (with no specifications on the age as her sone was already 6) and after many interviews was rejected.
She is a brilliant Mum with a good, well paid job and the only obvious thing she had going against her was that she is a single parent.
[cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]I used to live opposite a children’s home and used to think how terribly sad it was that there were so many children, in our own country, who were unwanted. And they weren't always 'troubled' children. Many were children of single mothers who had died and no other relatives were available.
As somebody who has experience both IVF and adoption I would say that there are many, many kids who need to be adopted. The problem is a shortage of parents with the correct experience and support.
Please take it from me that adopting is a fantastic thing and we have two wonderful kids. My daughter aged 7 has suffered no great ill effect when she was taken into care and in consequence has no major behavioural difficulties. My son aged 11 on the other hand has significant issues. Both were adopted at just over a year old and neither, we were told, had any reason to suggest that they would develop problems as they got older. That is the case with my son who has serious behavioural problems not spotted by experts at the time we adopted him.
The scandal is not enough support for children in care right through from birth, their early life and post adoption/fostering.
This is though a whole different subject.
Bing, i'm sorry things didn't work out for you both with IVF, just because i don't agree with it doesn't mean i'm heartless and wouldn't have wanted it to have been successful for you. As i said i accept the "other options" cannot be the same emotionally, even though the Love for your children and the effort you both put in is still the same. Respect to you for going down the adoption route and it's obvious you both have a lot of good to give your children. I wish you and your family all the best. And i agree there are big problems with the systems.
I readily admit I don't have any natural urge to want children and obviously that has a big influence on my view. I'm not looking at this from an emotional or personal point of view. And I accept IVF is different than genetically creating (which obviously i certainly have no time for) but to me there is still more than just a little helping hand that at the moment i don't agree with. For subjects like this i also have a tendency to look at the bigger picture and not just as an indipendent subject as everything is intrinsically linked as far as i can see.
This is a grey area and one where there are no absolute wrongs or rights as there is so much emotion involved even without different perspectives and experiences. We can also all justify exceptions to our own rules.
Robert Scientists are there to push the bounderies, thats what we do....
Its within human nature to explore to the limit, without it we would never have left the caves, let alone gone to the moon, sailed around the world, developed IVF etc....
Of course but with pushing bounderies, as with having freedom, there are responsibilities. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should and that it's for the better in the long term. Unfortunately It also seems that human behaviour and intellect can't deal with the advances we are making and we're all suffering for it (some a lot more than others!). We humans are naturally selfish and concentrate on making ourselves happy, so in general are not ideal judges of what's best.
Good to see a conversation on here that is obviously emotive but hasn't decended into abuse. It's interesting and a pleasure to read.
Could go on for ages answering and re putting differenet points however i don't want this to turn into a back and forth as that just gets boring for others and acheives nothing. As i said we can all justify exceptions to our rules. I hope i've expressed my view well enough that i don't agree with it but have no problems with those that do. Congratulations to those it has worked for and good luck to those who are/will be trying. Also my heartfelt sympathies to anyone it hasn't/doesn't work for, i hope you find someway to deal with it that makes you happy.
[cite]Posted By: DRAddick[/cite]here is still more than just a little helping hand
I know that Ben Elton wrote a book about IVF which was turned into a film. Mines still in my head but you saying that makes me laugh because if you have problems producing a sperm sample on the day, the nurses do offer, literally a helping hand! Fortunately or not as the case may be, I never had a problem in that direction.
One day I will write the book. There are so many funny and emotional stories to tell!
I have no problem with other views on this. Moral issues are matters of individual conscience. That we can debate them opening and without rancour is great.
i agree with ivf and think it should be free to those that want it. being a parent is a fantastic experience. i have two kids from my first marriage which is great, but my new partner has been unable to conceive after two years. not thinking of IVF, just accepting things as they are. her sister had some kind of hormone therapy and had her last child aged 43. a friend had tried for 7 years without luck, then his third attempt at IVF (costing a few £k) got lucky and had twins. this changed his life for the better and i was made up for them.
there are some wider ethical issues with IVF, like surrogacy and close family donors (as discussed on 5live this morning - woman donating her eggs to her daughter) that need to be monitored.
[cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]I agree that the care system is a different issue and one that too many seem willing to over look.
Is it really an issue though that there are not enough parents with suitable experience? For parents that conceive naturally there is no 'test' they have to go through and no perfect manual telling them how to do it. I wonder if 'the system' expects too much of adoptive parents and therefore shortens the already too short list of those willing.
For example my neighbour is a single mother who also provides respite care for a disabled child. She sought to adopt (with no specifications on the age as her sone was already 6) and after many interviews was rejected.
She is a brilliant Mum with a good, well paid job and the only obvious thing she had going against her was that she is a single parent.
I can't speak for all Social Services Depts. I only have experience of Norfolk. What I know of the dedicated caring people who work in their Adoption Unit, it isn't the lack of desire to approve adopters. You have to remember that their primary responsibility is to find suitable parents for children and not the other way around.
Given that in pretty much all cases, it is seen as being beneficial for children to be placed with appropriate parents, then they have to be some good reasons why certain people are not approved for adoption. Some of the time, they are just over cautious and that leads to perfectly decent parents not being approved.
On the other hand about 30% (I think that an uptodate figure) of adoption placements break down. One could argue that there are flawed criteria/assessments being made if that kind of failure rate pertains. On the other hand one might say that even with the rigorous approval process, a third break down. I am not certain where the truth lies but I suspect the cautious approach is a result.
In our case neither of our childrens adoption placements have broken down. When we first adopted our son, we believed, and to some extend so did Social Services, that if you had the right background, a decent stable and loving home, that was all that would be required. I can assure you that we ticked all these boxes. My son through no fault of his own, due to an early life trauma the effect of which was unknown, has deep psychological problems. It took my wife and I six years to get a diagnosis of his problems. By this time he was on the verge of exclusion from school and his behaviour at home was extremely hyper and chaotic. Since then by sheer bloodymindedness, we have fought to get him support at school because it affected his cognative functioning. We finally got him a Statement of Special Educational Needs which has been amended several times and he now attends a private school for bright kids who have emotional and behavioural issues. In the last three months after a monumental fight with the Authorities, they have agreed for him to board during the week.
I am involved with adoption support groups where all of those people attending have children with similar issues to my son. It is true to say that not all adopted kids have these kinds of issues, maybe the majority don't. Certainly my daughter doesn't have the acute psychological issues that my son has. She does have issues though, especially about her birth parents.
The point is that children who come from the care system, even very young ones come often deeply traumatised and willing parents that tick all the boxes such as my wife and I have massive challenges which require supporting through that childs life. I think that Adoption teams are more and more aware of this and that is having an effect upon the approval process.
What is needed is much more close support throughout a childs time within their adopted family. That way many of the problems we had can be worked on at much earlier stage. If that support was available, then I think there would be more confidence to approve a greater number of adopters.
Comments
Have come across the expression "it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all".
I don't think its false hope. We were told what the chances were before we embarked. If you were told your child was gravely ill and would die however there was a new treatment which could save their lives but the treatment itself might kill them, would you take the chance? I know I would. If my child died as a consequence I would be devastated but I would know that at least we tried.
IVF holds out hope. It's that hope that we clung to. Would I do it all over again knowing what the outcome was for us. Yes If I was younger and without children. If I was counselling people considering IVF, I would tell them my story but to balance that I would give them stories of successful outcomes. I would give them the statistics and leave it to them to decide.
Scientists are there to push the bounderies, thats what we do....
Its within human nature to explore to the limit, without it we would never have left the caves, let alone gone to the moon, sailed around the world, developed IVF etc....
I think to be fair, to some extent if something is possible and scientifically available it is right to have moral considerations before allowing it to be used.
That has been the case and the UK has been in the forefront of looking not just at the science but also the ethical issues.
In the end there very little theoretical limit to human scientific achievement and it is hard to see any sustainable block being put on the science. It is up to us and our representatives in government to erect the ethical structures around the use of the scientific knowledge. That is where the focus should be, why we must ensure we have a robust and open democracy to ensure that enough light is shone on these issues.
Did they not mean that you were skinny enough to fit in a test tube?
Sorry G, couldn't resist : - )
Thank you so much :0
Thankyou, I'm so sorry it's not worked out for you and your partner, I feel for you so much.
At a dispassionate economic level, we have some pretty hard decisions to make about what we want the NHS to do for us, and IVF is a more obvious area for cuts. I don't see any given 'right' to have babies, but we have the technology to enable people to make choices. It seems pretty unjust to say to people, if you're well off, you've got more choice than others, but that is the harsh reality, however much I dislike it.
I do see where you are coming from and contrary to others opinion I think preserving life is very different to creating one. If a mother is at risk during birth and it is a choice of saving the mother OR the child (not when both are possible) then doctors will generally try to save the mothers life unless the opposite desire is firmly expressed.
For those who are desperate to have children, there are thousands of children out there desperate for families. The problem is most will only adopt babies. I used to live opposite a children’s home and used to think how terribly sad it was that there were so many children, in our own country, who were unwanted. And they weren't always 'troubled' children. Many were children of single mothers who had died and no other relatives were available.
IVF helps people to avoid going down routes like adoption which I believe should be much more promoted (and easier for those who wish to).
As somebody who has experience both IVF and adoption I would say that there are many, many kids who need to be adopted. The problem is a shortage of parents with the correct experience and support.
Please take it from me that adopting is a fantastic thing and we have two wonderful kids. My daughter aged 7 has suffered no great ill effect when she was taken into care and in consequence has no major behavioural difficulties. My son aged 11 on the other hand has significant issues. Both were adopted at just over a year old and neither, we were told, had any reason to suggest that they would develop problems as they got older. That is the case with my son who has serious behavioural problems not spotted by experts at the time we adopted him.
The scandal is not enough support for children in care right through from birth, their early life and post adoption/fostering.
This is though a whole different subject.
Is it really an issue though that there are not enough parents with suitable experience? For parents that conceive naturally there is no 'test' they have to go through and no perfect manual telling them how to do it. I wonder if 'the system' expects too much of adoptive parents and therefore shortens the already too short list of those willing.
For example my neighbour is a single mother who also provides respite care for a disabled child. She sought to adopt (with no specifications on the age as her sone was already 6) and after many interviews was rejected.
She is a brilliant Mum with a good, well paid job and the only obvious thing she had going against her was that she is a single parent.
Bing, i'm sorry things didn't work out for you both with IVF, just because i don't agree with it doesn't mean i'm heartless and wouldn't have wanted it to have been successful for you. As i said i accept the "other options" cannot be the same emotionally, even though the Love for your children and the effort you both put in is still the same. Respect to you for going down the adoption route and it's obvious you both have a lot of good to give your children. I wish you and your family all the best. And i agree there are big problems with the systems.
I readily admit I don't have any natural urge to want children and obviously that has a big influence on my view. I'm not looking at this from an emotional or personal point of view. And I accept IVF is different than genetically creating (which obviously i certainly have no time for) but to me there is still more than just a little helping hand that at the moment i don't agree with. For subjects like this i also have a tendency to look at the bigger picture and not just as an indipendent subject as everything is intrinsically linked as far as i can see.
This is a grey area and one where there are no absolute wrongs or rights as there is so much emotion involved even without different perspectives and experiences. We can also all justify exceptions to our own rules.
Robert
Scientists are there to push the bounderies, thats what we do....
Its within human nature to explore to the limit, without it we would never have left the caves, let alone gone to the moon, sailed around the world, developed IVF etc....
Of course but with pushing bounderies, as with having freedom, there are responsibilities. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should and that it's for the better in the long term. Unfortunately It also seems that human behaviour and intellect can't deal with the advances we are making and we're all suffering for it (some a lot more than others!). We humans are naturally selfish and concentrate on making ourselves happy, so in general are not ideal judges of what's best.
Good to see a conversation on here that is obviously emotive but hasn't decended into abuse. It's interesting and a pleasure to read.
Could go on for ages answering and re putting differenet points however i don't want this to turn into a back and forth as that just gets boring for others and acheives nothing. As i said we can all justify exceptions to our rules. I hope i've expressed my view well enough that i don't agree with it but have no problems with those that do. Congratulations to those it has worked for and good luck to those who are/will be trying. Also my heartfelt sympathies to anyone it hasn't/doesn't work for, i hope you find someway to deal with it that makes you happy.
I know that Ben Elton wrote a book about IVF which was turned into a film. Mines still in my head but you saying that makes me laugh because if you have problems producing a sperm sample on the day, the nurses do offer, literally a helping hand! Fortunately or not as the case may be, I never had a problem in that direction.
One day I will write the book. There are so many funny and emotional stories to tell!
I have no problem with other views on this. Moral issues are matters of individual conscience. That we can debate them opening and without rancour is great.
there are some wider ethical issues with IVF, like surrogacy and close family donors (as discussed on 5live this morning - woman donating her eggs to her daughter) that need to be monitored.
I can't speak for all Social Services Depts. I only have experience of Norfolk. What I know of the dedicated caring people who work in their Adoption Unit, it isn't the lack of desire to approve adopters. You have to remember that their primary responsibility is to find suitable parents for children and not the other way around.
Given that in pretty much all cases, it is seen as being beneficial for children to be placed with appropriate parents, then they have to be some good reasons why certain people are not approved for adoption. Some of the time, they are just over cautious and that leads to perfectly decent parents not being approved.
On the other hand about 30% (I think that an uptodate figure) of adoption placements break down. One could argue that there are flawed criteria/assessments being made if that kind of failure rate pertains. On the other hand one might say that even with the rigorous approval process, a third break down. I am not certain where the truth lies but I suspect the cautious approach is a result.
In our case neither of our childrens adoption placements have broken down. When we first adopted our son, we believed, and to some extend so did Social Services, that if you had the right background, a decent stable and loving home, that was all that would be required. I can assure you that we ticked all these boxes. My son through no fault of his own, due to an early life trauma the effect of which was unknown, has deep psychological problems. It took my wife and I six years to get a diagnosis of his problems. By this time he was on the verge of exclusion from school and his behaviour at home was extremely hyper and chaotic. Since then by sheer bloodymindedness, we have fought to get him support at school because it affected his cognative functioning. We finally got him a Statement of Special Educational Needs which has been amended several times and he now attends a private school for bright kids who have emotional and behavioural issues. In the last three months after a monumental fight with the Authorities, they have agreed for him to board during the week.
I am involved with adoption support groups where all of those people attending have children with similar issues to my son. It is true to say that not all adopted kids have these kinds of issues, maybe the majority don't. Certainly my daughter doesn't have the acute psychological issues that my son has. She does have issues though, especially about her birth parents.
The point is that children who come from the care system, even very young ones come often deeply traumatised and willing parents that tick all the boxes such as my wife and I have massive challenges which require supporting through that childs life. I think that Adoption teams are more and more aware of this and that is having an effect upon the approval process.
What is needed is much more close support throughout a childs time within their adopted family. That way many of the problems we had can be worked on at much earlier stage. If that support was available, then I think there would be more confidence to approve a greater number of adopters.