A new study links assisted reproductive technology (like IVF) to an increase in birth defects.
I know many of us have been hearing about this for a while, but it's good to see a study has been done and that it's finally getting out there in the national media (although the segment I watched on Fox News was pretty biased. The only person interviewed was an IVF doctor who completely downplayed the findings, which isn't surprising since ART is her bread and butter. What about "fair and balanced," Fox?)
I'm saddened that any babies are born with problems that may cause them to suffer. Let's pray for them, for their parents, and that those who are considering ART may be aware of the risks.
www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/11/18/fertility.treatment.defects/
And thanks, Lifehopes, for letting me know it was coming on!!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
ART linked to birth defects
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is nice to see that research is actually being done to make people aware of this tragedy. When I was working with early intervention (0-3 year olds) I worked with lots of families who had used ART services to help them conceive. I had never really had a deep desire to go that far in trying to conceive, but I know that seeing and working with these children I really questioned the widsom of seeking and using ART. These beautiful babies did nothing to deserve the medical/developmental problems they were experiencing, but I knew that beyond any shadow of a doubt that these parents loved their children very much and were not aware that this result could be a consequence for their decsion to bring about new life. I don't think enough people are aware of the facts and the doctors that you see are very biased and do not concern themselves with the qualitiy of life the child will have, they are primarily concerned with the successes of a viable pregnancy. I guess this is one of my soap box issues, I did not mean to go off the deep end. I just worry about these young souls. I found out yesterday that you can adopt frozen embryos that some couples have left over from their IVF treatment. I was in such a shock of this disturbing information that I just could not really process it. Check it out! I found a link to it on klove.com
ReplyDeleteOh, man, you beat me to it!! Someone just sent this link to a catholic IF online group I'm a member of, and I was thinking of posting it.
ReplyDeleteI really and truly think that the Holy Spirit uses health and nature to guide what is wrong and right. I was just having this convo with my mother the other day. For example, is it ok for women who are not genitally active to take bcp for "health" reasons? Is IUI licit (the Church STILL hasn't made a ruling on it)? In my honest opinion, I think we can look to studies like these (and on the bcp) for our answers. Anything that works AGAINST our bodies' natural rhythms and defenses can't be the "right" thing, kwim? Some may argue that IUI just helps the sperm get where they need to go and conception still occurs naturally... but is it really natural to have a 3rd person injecting semen in you? Not to mention bypassing the cervix like that? The cervix is SOOOO important in aiding healthy conception, and defending our upper reproductive tract. IDK, just seems like such a clear-cut case to me, why can't they just make the call already?!
Hi TCIE,
ReplyDeleteI attended a conference on Humanae Vitae that our Archdioceses put together and on it both answers to your questions are NO. IUI is not acceptable and the Pill should NOT be used to treat illnesses. There was a doctor present at this event. She had all these statistics on the effects the pill has on individuals who use for any reason whether medicinal or to stop procreation. I was going to post a blog about it but I've been kind of busy. I took notes at the conference. I've also requested the PowerPoint presentation the doctor provided at this event. If she does provide it I'll ask for permission to post it on my blog.
First let me say that I wholeheartedly agree that doctors need to be more open with their clients. Clients have every right to be informed about the possible risks, regardless of a doctor's opinion, before undergoing a procedure. I would also say that it is the duty of every patient to seek to be informed. Do your research!
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I want to address the responses above a bit more specifically. LIM - I'm a bit curious as to why you view embryo adoption as disgusting. I've done quite a bit of research on it and have heard all sorts of adjectives to describe it, both positive and negative, but "disgusting" is a first. Could you please elaborate? I've heard it called "surrogacy" on the grounds that a mother is carrying another's offspring. I've heard it called an intrinsic evil due to the implicit cooperation in IVF. However, I've also heard it called embryo rescue because without such an "adoption" the embryo would remain frozen indefinitely and inevitably die. Why would a Church that extends the fullness of life to rape victims not offer/promote the same life quality to embryos conceived through equally illicit means?
On another note, why would the potential of birth defects make a choice illicit? Based on the article AYWH provided, all defects described can be fixed by surgery or regulated by medication. If one chose not to procreate solely on the birth defects that may ensue, then all women over 40 should not have children, nor should those with any family history of genetic disorders.
One can summarize Church teaching on ART quite succinctly. If anything violates the two-fold nature of the marital act (openness to procreation and openness to unity), then it is wrong. IVF is wrong because there's no unity. Conception takes place through a third party outside the womb. All contraception is wrong because it purposely and deliberately closes the door on procreation. And one is not fully giving the gift of self to one's spouse.
ReplyDeleteIUI, to address TCIE and Eilyn, doesn't technically violate the two-fold nature of the marital act. It does introduce a third party, but not into the very act of fertilization which still occurs naturally in the body. The sperm just get a head start. (don't get me wrong - I have big problems with IUI but it's not evil by nature like IVF).
Birth control when used for its primary purpose (regulating birth) is morally evil. However, using it outside of marital relations for other non-contraceptive reasons is not a moral evil. It's not healthy and can have long lasting adverse affects on one's health, but it's not by nature immoral as long as one is celibate.
I'm sorry if I appear to be splitting hairs here, but it is important to distinguish between acts that are morally evil in and of themselves (like IVF) and those which can vary by circumstances. Almost any act can be done for the wrong reason and become sinful.
Wow, you are receiving quite a few differing responses here. I just want to clarify that I did not say that I thought that the idea of adopting embryos as disgusting. I mentioned that I found that this whole process was disturbing. I was having a very difficult time processing it all and trying to determine what the moral high road is in this circumstance. I even talked with one of my friends who is a priest about it today to try to get an idea on the church's teaching on this controversial issue. I intend to find out more information and research it further, but regardless of where these embryos burrow themselves to await their time to arrive in this world they deserve our prayers, as well as their biological and adoptive parents!
ReplyDeleteHi SMW,
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying. I want to clarify what I'm saying.
What i was saying is that the pill has very bad side effects and it shouldn't even be used as a form of treatment. According to research done the pill ages the cervix 2 years for every year you use the pill, amongst many other adverse effects, that is what i was getting at when I answered why it shouldn't be used as a form of treating an illness/disease. It's still not the best treatment for you if the effects are worse then then problem to begin with.
IUI replaces the conjugal act. The act of husband and wife giving themselves totally and in that conjugal act, "the act of love brings forth life". IUI replaces the conjugal and therefore UNITY is not there, only openness to procreation.
While not all acts of love lead to life, we as infertile couples must also remember that as husband and wife have the right to "make love" but that does not me we have a right to a child. As I very well know, a child is a gift from God. Also, we can't by pass the right of a child has.
I am so interested in this discussion, because I am always getting the feeling that people think my husband and I are crazy for not pursuing ART. Even my husband was questioning it at one point, and so I was trying to find ways to explain the Church's teaching. If any of you have a Catechism of the Catholic Church, I think you will find answers to many of your questions. If you don't have one, YOU SHOULD GET ONE! It is very helpful and easy to use when you want to know the Church's true teaching on something. Here are a few quotes regarding the current discussion:
ReplyDelete"Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, bu the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertizilization) infringes the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' 'right to become a father and a mother only through each other." 2374-2376
"Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselvs to one another, but one that 'entrusts the life and indentity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person." 2377
"A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The 'supreme gift of marriage' is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged 'right to a child' would lead. 2378
"The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others." 2379
"A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The 'supreme gift of marriage' is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged 'right to a child' would lead. 2378
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with this. I think too many people think of a child as a right we "deserve" but it's not, it's a gift, a blessing. I've always though of it as such, we are not owed a baby just because we want one. It's for God to give as He sees fit and if we are not given it then there is a reason for our higher sanctification and if we can accept this cross we will be better for it. Maybe we are being called to adoption, maybe not.
like is says here:
"The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others." 2379
May God Bless us all.
Napro Technology-nuff said! :)
ReplyDelete