Oh, It’s Tuesday: Punishing the Infertiles While Octo-Mom Thrives
So while the the Octo-Mom supposedly has a new house, a new reality show in the works, and now round-the-clock infant-child care, valued at $135,000, IVF continues to get slammed for her actions.
Apparently, some Georgia pols have introduced a bill that limits the number of embryos that can be inserted in a woman and would prevent the freezing of additional embryos. This bill would also put limits on how many embryos could be created in the lab for transfer.
Though the bill is supposedly sponsored by several Georgia legislators, so far I haven’t been able to find a quote from any woman in support of it. Only male legislators seem to be talking to the media about it. I also highly doubt that any of these bill sponsors did any real homework about IVF.
Here’s the thing, Nadya Suleman is a huge exception to the general rule of IVF. Even though your chances of having multiples are higher with IVF, most doctors are unwilling to insert 6 embryos into spouseless, unemployed women.
If lawmakers really wanted to prevent multiple births, they’d be better off putting limits on IUI (artificial insemination). Usually when you hear about a woman have anything above twins, it’s b/c she has been given drugs which increase the number of eggs that she produces in her normal monthly cycle. Then she was shot up with donor sperm from her husband, partner or another source, and that sperm has fertilized more than one egg. This is what happened with Kate from Jon & Kate Plus 8, and that’s why most news outlets assumed that Suleman’s children were the product of IUI before TMZ really started digging.
So to sum this up: if IUI had worked for CH and me, I would’ve been more likely to get pregnant with multiples than with IVF. I produced 5 eggs the second time we tried IUI — all 5 of them, had conditions been different for us, could have been fertilized. With IVF, my doctor put in one embryo. At the most she would have put in two. So the chances of me having multiples was actually a lot more controlled with IVF than it was with IUI. If states wanted to prevent most over-2 multiple births, they would have to start messing around with IUI, too — which wouldn’t be wise as this is the first, most effective and cheapest diagnosis in most infertility cases.
As for limits on how many embryos you can create, well that’s just insane.
You have to fertilize an egg in order to see if it’s viable embryo. Of the eggs that are retrieved only a few go on to be viable embryos once the donor sperm is brought into the mix. Sometimes none of them go on to be viable embryos. But if there are limits on how many embryos you can create, then how do you know which ones will fertilize properly?
Also if you’re not attempting to create embryos from more than two or three of the eggs, I wonder what doctors are supposed to do with all of the extra eggs — which technically belong to the couple who has produced them. It would be unsafe to leave all of those eggs inside the ovary and I can’t see pro-lifers or the eggs-for-sale industry being okay with doctors just throwing those eggs out.
Which brings us to the not being able to freeze embryos bit. Though I can understand that there are ethical dilemmas associated with freezing — I have them myself and will discuss them in a future post — I also understand that it would cost Georgian couples a ton more money for IVF if this went bill went through. Basically this would mean that you would have to start over from scratch every time they wanted to conceive a kid.
And again, I wonder what they would do with all the extra embryos? Say you have an ethical IVF doctor like mine who only wants to implant one or two eggs in a woman under 35. Even if she’s only created two or three embryos, that would mean that there are still one or two leftover embryos. Do these viable embryos get thrown out — even if it’s against the IVF couples wishes? Donated to other women? Donated to stem cell research?
This Georgia bill would cause way more ethical and financial dilemmas than it solves — and even if it passed, it wouldn’t prevent most over-2 multiple births. So really how much money would Georgia save with this bill? In fact, they’d actually be guaranteeing that IVF doctors and clinics got paid even more money. That’ll show ’em, right?
I understand that people are angry about Nadya Suleman, but punishing women who really do need IVF in order to get back at her is not a good idea. Also, the MSM keeps on pointing out that there are much tougher IVF restrictions in European countries. Guess what European countries also have. Universal healthcare.
If lawmakers really want to be prevent another Nadya Suleman, then they should do what most European countries do — fund IVF. Then they can regulate it all they want to. But until they’re willing to do that, pols should just stay out of IVF matters, unless they really want to go on record and say that infertile couples and women don’t have the right to have children through scientific means.
Ernessa,
I agree, I think that the government should stay out of IVF and other matters. Now, I think the doctor that implanted 8 embryos into Suleman is a crackpot, but I don't think this is something that should be regulated in any way.
I personally don't think it is a good idea for a single and unemployed woman to have 8 babies, but I am also a strong believer that women, regardless of their marital status or income, have the right to make decisions about how and whether they get pregnant. I know your post is mostly about the ethical decisions about how many embryos is too many and what this might mean for infertile couples and I think you make a great case for why this is something that should NOT BE regulated.
However, I also think this case has gotten so much attention because the woman was single and poor. I'm really concerned with the implications of this story for low-income/poor single women. Of course, this is an extreme case, but I don't think we need to move (even the slightest bit) in the direction towards the government or anyone else saying who should or shouldn't be a parent. I know some folks might think I'm being hyper-sensitive, but there have been cases where states have "regulated" poor women's child making decisions from limiting birth control, sterilization, or forcing birth control on poor (mostly of color) women. If folks are interested in learning more about the history of sterilization and birth control policies for poor women check out "Choice and Coercion" by Johanna Schoen.
Ernessa,
I agree, I think that the government should stay out of IVF and other matters. Now, I think the doctor that implanted 8 embryos into Suleman is a crackpot, but I don't think this is something that should be regulated in any way.
I personally don't think it is a good idea for a single and unemployed woman to have 8 babies, but I am also a strong believer that women, regardless of their marital status or income, have the right to make decisions about how and whether they get pregnant. I know your post is mostly about the ethical decisions about how many embryos is too many and what this might mean for infertile couples and I think you make a great case for why this is something that should NOT BE regulated.
However, I also think this case has gotten so much attention because the woman was single and poor. I'm really concerned with the implications of this story for low-income/poor single women. Of course, this is an extreme case, but I don't think we need to move (even the slightest bit) in the direction towards the government or anyone else saying who should or shouldn't be a parent. I know some folks might think I'm being hyper-sensitive, but there have been cases where states have "regulated" poor women's child making decisions from limiting birth control, sterilization, or forcing birth control on poor (mostly of color) women. If folks are interested in learning more about the history of sterilization and birth control policies for poor women check out "Choice and Coercion" by Johanna Schoen.
You bring up some really good points, Katrina. However, just as I don't feel it's fair to lump Nadya Suleman in w/ the usual IVF crowd, I also don't think it's fair to lump her in with low-income and single mothers. I think all women have the right to decide how and when to get pregnant — save for the mentally ill. And I truly believe that Suleman is mentally ill. I doubt she would pass a mental evaluation if assessed by a psychiatrist, and that's why I don't think the reproductive rights of any woman poor or infertile should be associated with her.
Also, there's poor and there's poor. If you have access to non-insured IVF and also to housing in California (even if it's through your better-off parents), I don't consider you poor. Even before the cameras, she had a lot more access to IVF than any truly poor woman that I have ever known. And I consider calling someone with well-off parents "poor" to be misleading.
Also, I don't think any of these politicians are going to go after single or poor women with their bills. So far I haven't seen anything that would prevent anyone who can afford to pay out-of-pocket for IVF from geting it. But many states are thinking about restricting the rights of all IVF-ers in general, which I don't believe to be fair b/c of one case in California.
You bring up some really good points, Katrina. However, just as I don't feel it's fair to lump Nadya Suleman in w/ the usual IVF crowd, I also don't think it's fair to lump her in with low-income and single mothers. I think all women have the right to decide how and when to get pregnant — save for the mentally ill. And I truly believe that Suleman is mentally ill. I doubt she would pass a mental evaluation if assessed by a psychiatrist, and that's why I don't think the reproductive rights of any woman poor or infertile should be associated with her.
Also, there's poor and there's poor. If you have access to non-insured IVF and also to housing in California (even if it's through your better-off parents), I don't consider you poor. Even before the cameras, she had a lot more access to IVF than any truly poor woman that I have ever known. And I consider calling someone with well-off parents "poor" to be misleading.
Also, I don't think any of these politicians are going to go after single or poor women with their bills. So far I haven't seen anything that would prevent anyone who can afford to pay out-of-pocket for IVF from geting it. But many states are thinking about restricting the rights of all IVF-ers in general, which I don't believe to be fair b/c of one case in California.
Ernessa,
I hear you. I certainly am not about generalizing entire groups of people. And you are right, some would not describe her as poor. I will admit I have not followed this case really closely, but from what I understand she was at some point on welfare. And I've read and heard (even some of my "progressive" friends) talk about this case in terms of her being single and unemployed or on welfare. Comments like "I don't think my taxes should pay for this woman having 8 kids" blah blah blah.
You are right the laws are not going after single or low-income women, but I think, in part, this is what is underlying the push for these laws. People seemed to be most disturbed, in my opinion, by the fact that she is single and has no income to take care of the children. She is almost never described as JUST the woman that had 8 kids, but the single unemployed woman that had 8 kids.
I guess, what I'm saying is that I think the way the discussion has been framed and the language used to discuss it is problematic. Maybe my point is irrelevant because most low-income/poor women would never be able to afford IVF, but any debates that involve regulating a woman's reproductive choices and explicitly or implicitly shapes those discussions in terms of class, marital status, etc… just rubs me the wrong way.
With that said, I think we are on the same page–this is NOT something the government should be regulating.
Ernessa,
I hear you. I certainly am not about generalizing entire groups of people. And you are right, some would not describe her as poor. I will admit I have not followed this case really closely, but from what I understand she was at some point on welfare. And I've read and heard (even some of my "progressive" friends) talk about this case in terms of her being single and unemployed or on welfare. Comments like "I don't think my taxes should pay for this woman having 8 kids" blah blah blah.
You are right the laws are not going after single or low-income women, but I think, in part, this is what is underlying the push for these laws. People seemed to be most disturbed, in my opinion, by the fact that she is single and has no income to take care of the children. She is almost never described as JUST the woman that had 8 kids, but the single unemployed woman that had 8 kids.
I guess, what I'm saying is that I think the way the discussion has been framed and the language used to discuss it is problematic. Maybe my point is irrelevant because most low-income/poor women would never be able to afford IVF, but any debates that involve regulating a woman's reproductive choices and explicitly or implicitly shapes those discussions in terms of class, marital status, etc… just rubs me the wrong way.
With that said, I think we are on the same page–this is NOT something the government should be regulating.
I think the caution here is that this is a slippery slope that could be headed towards some Charles Murray "Bell Curve" like laws that dictate which type of women should be allowed to get which type of procedures and when. And that is a huge issue for me. On the flip side, I am very concerned about anyone having eight babies on top of six and the impact this will have on these children. Nadya Suleman is an incredibly disturbed woman and who needs therapy! But the doctor who implanted those eggs is just as crazy and even more irresponsible!
But again, once you start down a path like Georgia, how far off are you from the Bell Curve argument and start calling for sterilization of women because of their race or income?
I think the caution here is that this is a slippery slope that could be headed towards some Charles Murray "Bell Curve" like laws that dictate which type of women should be allowed to get which type of procedures and when. And that is a huge issue for me. On the flip side, I am very concerned about anyone having eight babies on top of six and the impact this will have on these children. Nadya Suleman is an incredibly disturbed woman and who needs therapy! But the doctor who implanted those eggs is just as crazy and even more irresponsible!
But again, once you start down a path like Georgia, how far off are you from the Bell Curve argument and start calling for sterilization of women because of their race or income?
As for the question of what would happen to the unused embryos under the Georgia bill, the answer is that they won't exist. Part of the pro-life agenda of the bill. They won't exist because part of the bill is that there is a limit on how many eggs can be extracted.
Up to 3 extracted, up to 3 embryos created then transferred.
This is perhaps the most idiotic element.
For IVF #1, I had 13 eggs extracted, 10 mature and eligible for fertilization, resulting in 5 embryos. 2 of those were transferred (resulting in miscarriage), 3 did not continue to grow.
For IVF #2, I had 9 eggs extracted, 6 mature, 5 fertilized, 2 transferred (resulting in no pregnancy), 3 did not continue to grow.
22 eggs resulted in 10 embryos, which resulted in zero babies.
To repeat those numbers under the Georgia bill, I'd need to do 8 IVF cycles, to end up with the same zero babies.
I can't stand Octo-Mom for many reasons, but this is way up there.
Though, another infertility blogger pointed out that the pro-life lawmakers in Georgia were just waiting for something like this to come along so that there would be enough public support for this type of bill.
My husband commented yesterday that people making laws about IVF should have some firsthand experience or knowledge of IVF. I replied that under that restriction, almost no laws at all on any topic could ever get written. But yeah, consultation with someone with a passing acquaintance with science would be nice.
As for the question of what would happen to the unused embryos under the Georgia bill, the answer is that they won't exist. Part of the pro-life agenda of the bill. They won't exist because part of the bill is that there is a limit on how many eggs can be extracted.
Up to 3 extracted, up to 3 embryos created then transferred.
This is perhaps the most idiotic element.
For IVF #1, I had 13 eggs extracted, 10 mature and eligible for fertilization, resulting in 5 embryos. 2 of those were transferred (resulting in miscarriage), 3 did not continue to grow.
For IVF #2, I had 9 eggs extracted, 6 mature, 5 fertilized, 2 transferred (resulting in no pregnancy), 3 did not continue to grow.
22 eggs resulted in 10 embryos, which resulted in zero babies.
To repeat those numbers under the Georgia bill, I'd need to do 8 IVF cycles, to end up with the same zero babies.
I can't stand Octo-Mom for many reasons, but this is way up there.
Though, another infertility blogger pointed out that the pro-life lawmakers in Georgia were just waiting for something like this to come along so that there would be enough public support for this type of bill.
My husband commented yesterday that people making laws about IVF should have some firsthand experience or knowledge of IVF. I replied that under that restriction, almost no laws at all on any topic could ever get written. But yeah, consultation with someone with a passing acquaintance with science would be nice.
I think a great solution that wouldn't limit anyone would be that any more than 2 babies born at the same time due to IVF would require the doctor who implanted them to pay child support and medical costs for the "additional" births. If I make a baby the regular way, the law says I have to pay for it (Child support). If the doctor makes extra babies via IVF, he should have to pay for them.
I think a great solution that wouldn't limit anyone would be that any more than 2 babies born at the same time due to IVF would require the doctor who implanted them to pay child support and medical costs for the "additional" births. If I make a baby the regular way, the law says I have to pay for it (Child support). If the doctor makes extra babies via IVF, he should have to pay for them.