Implant Fewer Embryos, UK Clinics Told
Twins might be cute, but carrying them can be dangerous to both mother and babies. As a result, IVF Clinics in the UK are being urged to reduce the number of embryos they implant.
Peter Braude, of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told the Guardian that not only is labour more complicated, but twins and triplets are 50% more likely to be born prematurely and 90% more likely to be born at a low birthweight. The risk of death in the first week after birth is five times higher for mothers and nine times higher for babies compared with single births. Women pregnant with twins and triplets are also at an increased risk of miscarriage, pre-eclampsia and anaemia.
About 1 in 4 pregnancies achieved via IVF leads to multiple births. Hospital wards caring for newborns around the world are bursting at the seams due to overcrowding and spending cuts. At the same time, exposure to hormones, infertility stress and the expense of treatment combine to make two for the price of one, an attractive possibility for couples in IVF treatment.
What would you (or have you done) in this position. Insist on only one embryo to lower the birth risks or on two embryos to increase the odds of conception?
Tags: , , , , , IVF-treatment-and-twinsRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Health
8 opinions for Implant Fewer Embryos, UK Clinics Told
Mama-Feminista
Oct 19, 2006 at 6:58 am
I can’t say I’d know what to do in this situation. I have had no trouble in the conception department and can’t imagine what it must feel like to be physically incapable of conceiving a child. On the flip side I think our culture puts a premium on ‘natural conception’ and ‘gestation’ so much so that womanlyness is defined by it. This makes adoption a less attractive alternative for some and even the last resort. Biology is not destiny but we continue to define real women in these terms.
kbaggott
Oct 19, 2006 at 7:14 am
No wonder pregnant women get such terrible indigestion. Definitions are always so hard to stomach.
angela
Oct 19, 2006 at 9:17 am
I’d implant two. Sadly, it depends on insurance coverage and cost. By the time most people reach IVF, they cannot afford more than one cycle or insurance will not pay for more than one. That gives people the perverse incentive to maximize their chances in spite of the risks of multiple pregnancies.
kbaggott
Oct 19, 2006 at 9:31 am
The interesting thing in the article is their position that fewer multiples would decrease the demand for care for premature infants and make more funding available for IVF. Interestingly, though, is that the report assumes universal medical care. It’s an assumption that doesn’t apply to the US.
Holly Schwendiman
Oct 19, 2006 at 11:23 am
Thankfully, many IVF clinics in the US now have money back guarantees and most have a limit of only ever implanting two due to the increase of the process. But there is no way to comprehend the emotional implications of the process. Couples who have never been able to conceive are now forced to make harsh decisions about which embryos live or die, etc. For years their battle has been wanting and waiting and now they are in the very unfair situation to make the opposite decisions. It’s such a large pendulum swing that without experience I don’t think any of us can truly comprehend how hard it is. Honestly, it’s one I never choose to go through in my experience because I couldn’t comprehend the emotional impact. Again, experience is bringing changes, embryo adoption options, etc. But the whole thing is a learning curve to be sure!
Ironically, I always wanted twins when I was younger. Now I think they come one at a time for a reason!! ROFL
Hugs,
Holly
Holly’s Corner
kbaggott
Oct 19, 2006 at 11:38 am
I think you’re right Holly. Experience is everything on these issues.
Mike
Oct 20, 2006 at 7:42 am
Our twins were IVF babies. We went with two at a time and got pregnant on the second batch after a couple other failed attempts at artificial insemination. We got lucky. They were huge (6lb 7oz and 7lb 3oz) and made it past 37 weeks before being delivered and never had any medical problems.
If we ever have another kid we will demand one, but mainly because we already have two kids.
I like Europes initiative. I think the default should be one. Our frozen kids are stored in pairs because the default in the U.S. is to put two in. That means that they have to get thawed in pairs. So, if we do decide to have more kids and only put one in at a time, we will be losing one frozen embryo on each try which I think is just insane.
kbaggott
Oct 20, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Mike, I am so glad you got lucky.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: