Should lifestyle affect access to IVF?

Well, Tallulah, I answered Bat, right after her post, maybe I should have quoted her also, but as my first answer was very specifically about hormones and weight I don't see how it could be seen as an answer to someone else.

Of course, anyone is allowed to answer anyone, as a always with forums. If i didn't want to talk to anyone else, i would have, as you mentioned PM:ed that person.

But you quoted me, why did you quote me if you weren't talking to me?

Edit: Lets end this by saying like this; YES, I thought you where trolling when you answered me in that manner since what you said to me, didn't have anything to do with my posts really. I asked you if you where trolling (didn't say you where) and you said you where serious. Fine and dandy. Lets leave it at that. Think we both need to chill. Cheers!

Tallulah; Schechter:

I quoted you because I was using the information you brought to the discussion and I added to it.

I've already answered this.

It was part of the discussion.

Referring to me as a troll wasn't.

Doh, you answered when i edited my post

Fine. If you want to we can leave this, however am I still very much offended by you referring to me as a troll. I can't help that. You didnt just ask me if I was trolling, you stated in a reply to someone else that I was exhibiting troll-like behaviour.

But hey, lets move on right. Who cares if people are offended.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

OK. so back to the discussion.


Should the same restrictions on IVF stand for women who are classed as underweight. We all know fertility is directly effected by being underweight, many women who are underweight stop having periods. Should the same rules apply?

Tallulah; Schechter:

Should the same restrictions on IVF stand for women who are classed as underweight. We all know fertility is directly effected by being underweight, many women who are underweight stop having periods. Should the same rules apply?

If you don't allow one group of people to use it because of certain risks then no one whose lifestyle increases the risks should be allowed to have it. That or make it open to everyone.

There will always be certain physical limits that needs to be met in order for proceedures to be more sucessful.
An athlete needs to stop running while the broken leg heals. A person with lungcancer needs to stop smoking why else jump to surgery?
So, should IVF be restricted in my opinion?
There should be conditions as with all other procedures, physical requirements that needs to be met in order for the procedure to be succesful.
An owerweight person needs to loose some weight in order for IVF to have a high sucessrate. Just as an overweight woman needs to loose some weight before breastredocution today.

But then, I'm living in a country where you don't pay that much for procedures. Since all the taxpayers do, I feel that its a persons duty to take every effort there is so that the procedure doesn't have to be repeated.

if a person is underweight, having them gain some weight in order to lower the risk of failure would be wise.
if a person is overweight, having them lose some wt in order to lower the risk of failure would be wise.

risks are risks. certain failure is not something that is guaranteed. certain success when the above mentioned corrective action is taken is also not a guarantee.

if the patient understands that by being overweight (or underweight) the risks are increased significantly and they can afford the procedure, why say no.

if the restrictions are based on the medical history of each individual patient, that's one thing. but from what i'm reading in your post, you are asking that individualism be taken out of the equation. you're asking for restrictions based on a generalizations. but i might be reading your post wrong.

No, I agree with having restrictions placed on potential IVF/adoptive parents.
The reason the restrictions are in place, is because certain lifestyle issues can negatively impact on both mother and child, perhaps even to the point where conception is completely out of the question, or that the baby dies either before or just after birth because of the mother's health issues.

Blah blah, any idiot can have a kid naturally. Yes, because that's what we're meant to do. There's no way of forcibly sterilising men and women until they pass a test permitting them to be parents. (Unfortunately.)
Until that happens, then yes - anybody who can conceive, will breed, whether they're suitable for the job or not. But in the case of people who can't conceive naturally and need to seek medical intervention, well, doesn't it just suck to be you? You CAN go through the tests to see whether you can carry a pregnancy, and if medical professionals use what research and studies they have to show that obesity and other lifestyle factors are detrimental to a woman's chances of conceiving, and detrimental to the baby's health, then sorry - God obviously doesn't want you having children. It just happens that way. Feel sorry for all the hundreds of thousands of women who could never have children because IVF wasn't invented yet.

People may feel like they're getting a raw deal, but think of the potential child - I see idiots trying to get IVF in their late 40's because they decided they wanted a pathetic career instead of kids, then panicked and changed their minds at the last minute, only to find their time had run out... okay, so if you have a child at 48, you will most likely be dead before the child graduates high school. How inherently selfish, that you would do that to a young child who needs parents? Kids aren't pets, or fashion accessories. You shouldn't be able to have one 'just because you want one'. Yes, people who can conceive naturally have that privilege and some misuse it, but like I said, there is absolutely no way of preventing people from becoming pregnant if it comes naturally to them (for instance, my husband and I conceived within a month of going off the Pill, and I'm now pregnant again within two weeks of going off the Pill). What is the government going to do, send agents around to my house to take my ovaries until I'm 'ready' to use them?
For the record, I'm within a healthy weight range and do not drink or take drugs, but I do smoke. Like a chimney. I smoked throughout my first pregnancy and my daughter was born perfectly healthy, but I know I got incredibly lucky, so I won't be doing it again. That being said, my daughter being healthy (and in a very good weight range at birth) was a rare occurrence so I think people seeking IVF should definitely be made to adhere to certain requirements before being permitted IVF.

I know I sound awful, but honestly, too bad. I certainly wouldn't want parents to give birth to me, then promptly drop dead of a heart attack or something caused by their weight problems, whether it's hormonal or not. The end result is the same, whether you became obese by overeating and laziness, or a hormonal problem.
Either that, or spend my entire life from early childhood caring for an ill parent suffering from, say, diabetes or something, and always in and out of hospital. Hells no. I wouldn't make a child do that, why would any parent want that kind of life for their children, just so they can say they had one?

But if a person has already been found to be an unfit parent, for whatever reason, and they get pregnant again, is it really right to allow that person to take the child home? Or should the government step in on behalf of the child?

While I also agree that the idea of the government controlling procreation is horrifying, I do also feel that it is warranted in some cases.

I have a cousin who is morbidly obese and so is his wife. They concieved triplets through IVF, but all three of them have medical issues. I was there at their house one night and it happened to be a night where one of them didn't need any kind of nightly medicine, but they gave her a placebo pill anyway because they have had to have nightly meds pretty much every night since they were born. Should they have been allowed to have those children, knowing how sick they would be and knowing that Medicaid (the government) is now responsible for their medical treatments?

Taking it a step further, they still have frozen embryos that their religion teaches are "children" -- meaning that they have every intention of going through IVF again because they feel that God created the embryos and has a plan for them.

From a pure monetary standpoint; if they can't afford the medical treatments for the three that they have, they have no right to bring 4 more babies (assuming all of the embryos "took" and became viable fetuses) into the world to continue to leech off of the governmental health care system.

My view on it, right or wrong, is that doctors concieved those babies. Not God. In fact, I no longer believe that God has anything to do with conception at all, but that's a discussion for another thread. The point of all this is that these people want to have more children, KNOWING that they will have the same health problems as the triplets, and possibly more because they have been frozen for 4 years longer than the triplets were; it is a fact that the longer an embryo is frozen, the lower its chances of becoming viable.

I even introduced the idea of donating the embryos, either for implantation in another unfertile woman or for stem cell research. You'd have thought I suggested that they drop the triplets off at a known pedophile's house for daycare. How dare I think that *their* babies belong with another woman, and it's straight to hell for me since I believe that stem cell research is ethical. (that, too is a discussion for another thread)

There aren't any easy answers. Personally I think it would be unethical to give those embryos to parents who have proven that they are financially incapable of caring for their current children, although I did keep that thought to myself while visiting them. But if they were to be able to conceive naturally, nothing would be said, at least, not out loud.

psychochip:

But if a person has already been found to be an unfit parent, for whatever reason, and they get pregnant again, is it really right to allow that person to take the child home? Or should the government step in on behalf of the child?

Short answer: No, they should not be allowed to keep their child. I suppose that's why we have DoCS and other child-protection agencies, who can keep an eye on parents who have a record of being unfit, so that they can step in at the first signs of mistreatment etc in order to protect the new children. That question actually brings to mind a recent case I read about in the news: a woman was charged with manslaughter after her 18-month-old daughter suffocated while hog-tied to the bed 'to make her go to sleep'. The woman got three years for killing her daughter, then within a few months of being released on parole, she was pregnant to her new boyfriend. She has pleaded for sympathy and 'another chance', but the majority of public opinion seems to be along the lines of 'that monster should have been forcibly sterilised in prison' and 'take the child away as soon as it's born so she can't hurt another innocent baby'. I agree.

psychochip:

I have a cousin who is morbidly obese and so is his wife. They concieved triplets through IVF, but all three of them have medical issues. I was there at their house one night and it happened to be a night where one of them didn't need any kind of nightly medicine, but they gave her a placebo pill anyway because they have had to have nightly meds pretty much every night since they were born. Should they have been allowed to have those children, knowing how sick they would be and knowing that Medicaid (the government) is now responsible for their medical treatments?

To be honest, when I read your post in the GG forum about your cousins, I was horrified. I didn't say anything because I didn't know how you felt about the issue, but yes, I think in that circumstance, no way should those people have been allowed medical intervention in order to allow them to have children, especially triplets, when the risks to the health of the children was so great (and it's obviously happened, I think it's sad). Multiple births are especially notorious for being complicated and dangerous, but when you throw in a morbidly obese mother and constant medication for the children (will this last forever? What kind of a life is that?), I think it's just pure selfishness. Maybe your cousins should have just gone and bought a puppy, really.

psychochip:

Taking it a step further, they still have frozen embryos that their religion teaches are "children" -- meaning that they have every intention of going through IVF again because they feel that God created the embryos and has a plan for them.

Again, the embryos should be destroyed, with or without their permission. Obviously something is making the children sick, whether its the genetics or the mother's health issues during pregnancy. Religious beliefs be damned - if they truly believed in their God, they would have considered their inability to conceive naturally to be God's ultimate plan for them, and not 'played God' by seeking medical intervention to give them the gift of parenthood. Using religion as an excuse to produce more children that may be ill or disabled, or even die, is as cruel as people using religious beliefs to prevent their sick children being provided with adequate medical treatment (blood transfusions etc). This is not about God.

psychochip:

From a pure monetary standpoint; if they can't afford the medical treatments for the three that they have, they have no right to bring 4 more babies (assuming all of the embryos "took" and became viable fetuses) into the world to continue to leech off of the governmental health care system.

Exactly. Besides that, how can a pair of morbidly obese people with their own health issues, adequately care for three infants who have their own health issues, let alone bring even MORE potentially sickly children into their lives? It just doesn't make sense to me. Speaking as the perfectly healthy parent of a perfectly healthy child, I cannot comprehend what kind of idiot would inflict that kind of torture upon themselves AND their children. I have enough on my plate without endless visits to the doctor, endless medication, endless worrying about how the child is progressing. I would go so far as to say that if I was informed that the child I was carrying had a disability, no matter how slight, I'd terminate because I just couldn't handle the stress!

psychochip:

My view on it, right or wrong, is that doctors concieved those babies. Not God.

Right on. As I said, God has nothing to do with it when obviously God's plan (if you believe in God) was for them to be childless. Call me horrible, but meh. The world is a fricking unfair place.

psychochip:

I even introduced the idea of donating the embryos, either for implantation in another unfertile woman or for stem cell research. You'd have thought I suggested that they drop the triplets off at a known pedophile's house for daycare. How dare I think that *their* babies belong with another woman, and it's straight to hell for me since I believe that stem cell research is ethical.

How dare you think that 'their' babies belong with other women? I'm sure they don't believe that the children of pedophiles, or drug abusers, or other unfit parents, belong with their natural parents. What makes them any different to an alcoholic or heroin user, really? Their lifestyle issues and health issues have affected not only them, but their children, and as you say, it's quite likely the frozen embryos are also going to produce sick children. Nobody should have them. Yes, I am all for genetic engineering (eradicating disabilities etc), stem cell research, and selective IVF (where parents can choose things like the gender of their child and only implant certain embryos). I may be going to hell in a handbasket for my beliefs, but them's the breaks, eh?

psychochip:

Personally I think it would be unethical to give those embryos to parents who have proven that they are financially incapable of caring for their current children. But if they were to be able to conceive naturally, nothing would be said, at least, not out loud.

That's why I think regulations and restrictions should definitely be in place when it comes to helping people conceive artificially. As you say, if they could do it without help nobody would say anything, but the doctors and the government have the chance with IVF candidates to weed out potentially unfit parents (whether it be financially, emotionally or physcially unfit) and deny them the chance to ruin a child's life.

^^ To be fair, I didn't think it was right for them to have IVF without having some of middle ground, like she had to lose some weight to prove that she was serious about having a healthy baby. Now they have three and they are all sickly.

Someone mentioned it earlier about a woman with a breast reduction, and it's true, before I had mine I had to lose 30 lbs. to show that it was tissue and not fat. I lost 60 lbs. and my insurance *then* approved the surgery. I think that should be something they do for IVF patients.

You and I disagree, however, about selective IVF; I don't feel it's right to choose a gender -- look at what is happening in China. But it's okay to disagree, I see where you are coming from and I know you can see my take on it as well.

Like you said, the world is an unfair place. I don't agree with mindless reproduction and I wish people would be more pro-active about their parenting. But I also know that I can only do for me, not for anyone else.

psychochip:

^^ To be fair, I didn't think it was right for them to have IVF without having some of middle ground, like she had to lose some weight to prove that she was serious about having a healthy baby. Now they have three and they are all sickly.

Someone mentioned it earlier about a woman with a breast reduction, and it's true, before I had mine I had to lose 30 lbs. to show that it was tissue and not fat. I lost 60 lbs. and my insurance *then* approved the surgery. I think that should be something they do for IVF patients.

No, I totally, totally agree with you on that one. It probably sounded like I was just saying 'No IVF for certain people', but obviously if somebody is willing to work hard and change their lifestyle and lose weight or something like that in order to ensure that potential children won't be adversely affected, then yes, if they can put in the hard yards rather than just saying, 'But it's MY RIGHT to have children, I don't care how fat I am!!', then sure, allow them access to IVF, once they're within a healthy weight range.

psychochip:

You and I disagree, however, about selective IVF; I don't feel it's right to choose a gender -- look at what is happening in China. But it's okay to disagree, I see where you are coming from and I know you can see my take on it as well.

I don't agree with what's happening in China either, but I'm not sure what else can be done to fix the problem - until their society progresses into the realisation that females are just as valuable and precious as males, or until they find some magic fix to the population crisis, it will keep happening.
I look at it from the perspective of, I only ever wanted two children - a boy and a girl. Now, I wouldn't mind terribly if I ended up with another daughter, but I know my husband desperately wants a boy, and we have tentatively discussed the option of a third child if our second one is also a girl. I don't particularly want three kids, but then nor do I want two girls - I just want one of each. If I had access to selective IVF, even though I could conceive naturally, I would take the opportunity to just take that bit of guesswork out of the equation in order to get what I want. I think that's all it should be used for, though, is gender selection, I don't see why anybody would want to dictate, say, the colour of their child's eyes or hair, I think that's pretty dumb. I know not everybody sees the issue of that from my perspective, but I will admit that I do worry about the possibility of suffering PND or something similar if this child isn't a boy - plenty of women become severely depressed over 'gender disappointment' (yes, actual term, wtf?) and I just wish I didn't have to spend so much time waiting to find out one way or the other.

I bolded and up-sized the parts which are contradictory.

Cigarettes And Suicide:

Right on. As I said, God has nothing to do with it when obviously God's plan (if you believe in God) was for them to be childless. Call me horrible, but meh. The world is a fricking unfair place.

Cigarettes And Suicide:

Now, I wouldn't mind terribly if I ended up with another daughter, but I know my husband desperately wants a boy, and we have tentatively discussed the option of a third child if our second one is also a girl. I don't particularly want three kids, but then nor do I want two girls - I just want one of each. If I had access to selective IVF, even though I could conceive naturally, I would take the opportunity to just take that bit of guesswork out of the equation in order to get what I want.

Now, I don't believe in any god, so this is merely me playing devil's advocate.

"God's plan was for them to be childless." What if this so-called "god"'s plan for you was to have two girls instead of a boy and a girl? To me it seems like you're slamming couples who cannot conceive naturally because it goes against some kind of plan: but yet for yourself it's perfectly okay for you to pick and choose the gender of your child.

So I guess your logic of the world being "meh" and being an unfair place only applies to people who aren't members of your family.

*sigh* I'm going to ignore the self-righteous tone of your last sentence and not take it as you trying to sound like an arsehole. I'm sure you didn't intend it that way.
Allow me to clarify: If I believed in God (which I'm not sure that I do), I would still not do what Tabitha's cousins are doing, which is put my health, and potentially my life, at risk to produce children that will very likely be sickly and have health issues, and perhaps even die themselves. The people in this example are morbidly obese, have health issues, and still sought IVF treatment in order to have children. They had triplets, who are in need of consant medication and are quite ill. That's completely unfair in itself, but they have four more frozen embryos which, because of their 'religious beliefs', they refuse to destroy and in fact intend on implanting in order to have more children, despite the fact that they are well aware that any subsequent children resulting from those embryos will also most likely be ill and in need of medical care. I'm saying that it is hypocritical of these people to use 'God' as an excuse to essentially abuse more children (call that excessive, but in my mind knowingly bringing a child into the world that will suffer, is tantamount to abuse), when I feel that if they really believed in God, they would have taken their inability to conceive naturally as His will and left well enough alone.
I do not have specific religious beliefs. If I did need IVF, I would have the two children that I wanted, and destroy any remaining embryos, and to be quite honest, if it was found at some point during the process (either when the embryos were created, or during pregnancy) that the potential child would have a disability or severe health problems, I would terminate or not go through with the procedure, and perhaps pursue adoption or some other option in order to have children. I would NOT want a child who would suffer just because I want a child, period.

As to my own situation, we've already covered that I am quite capable of conceiving my own children. As I said, I would have no problems with selective IVF in order to choose a gender, because neither my husband nor I have any health problems, nor does our daughter, and simply choosing a specific gender would not cause any problems with the embryo/fetus/child. If, as you say, 'God's plan' for me is to have two girls instead of a boy and a girl, then so be it, I honestly don't mind that much. But if I had the option of choosing (which, obviously I don't as selective IVF is illegal, at least in Queensland - I lay the blame at the feet of Christian groups who are all too happy for science to interfere with 'God's plan' in order to have children when they can't naturally, but see being able to choose the gender of a child as barbaric and 'playing God'), I would have no obstacles from a medical or legal standpoint as there is very little chance of my child being ill or disabled, and therefore it's a moral moot point - totally irrelevant. It has nothing to do with one rule for me, one for another - if this couple were healthy and in a healthy weight range, and if their triplets had been born healthy and free of complications, then I honestly wouldn't give two hoots about what they do with the rest of their frozen embryos. But because they and their children are unhealthy, and they know any more children would likely be in the same boat, I think it's incredibly selfish of them to ask for medical intervention to allow them more children, and to ask for taxpayers' assistance when it comes to medical bills when they already damn well knew that the children would probably be sick.

As I said, it's not about 'going against a plan' or 'one rule for me, one for others', at all. It's about doing what is best for the future of the potential children, and I think it's selfish, unfair and absurd to produce ill or disabled children through IVF just because you can't be arsed to lose weight and sort out your own health issues before undertaking the procedure. Choosing a gender is a completely separate issue to seeking IVF when you can't conceive naturally because you have health problems that will adversely affect any children you do have.

Essentially, people who are having trouble conceiving solely because their reproductive systems aren't working as they should (eg low sperm count, women whose ovaries don't release eggs etc), should have access to IVF providing they are otherwise healthy, because anybody can suffer infertility through no fault of their own. People whose lifestyle or other health issues (eg obesity) are the cause of their reproductive troubles should NOT have access to IVF until they rectify those issues, because people with unrelated health issues are putting themselves and their children at risk, and that's not right.

First off, I apologise if I sounded self-righteous. But the tone of some of the stuff you have written on this page is also kind of self-righteous as well (for example, down sizing people's problems with conceiving as just life being unfair etc.)
I do agree with most of what you've said - I do believe there should be restrictions on IVF, as I've previously stated.

Cigarettes And Suicide:

Choosing a gender is a completely separate issue to seeking IVF when you can't conceive naturally because you have health problems that will adversely affect any children you do have.

I understand wholly that choosing the gender of one's child is a different process from undergoing IVF because you can't conceive naturally.
But the concept of manipulating nature is the same in both of those scenarios, and it's that point about manipulating nature that I wanted to highlight; not the actual physical processes.

(For the record, I am not against IVF or gender selection)

GoBama!:

[font=5][size=90] IMO,
You cannot deny a woman/couple the right to make a life just because of a life choice/weight issue. My mum smokes, but it doesn't affect her parenting. As long as you're not inhaling it into the God damn pram, I don't see the problem.

But what if the life choice/weight issue can harm the health of the baby? Would you want to bring a sick baby into the world because of your life choices?

Quote

As for being overweight, again, as long as you are able to move and aren't shoving hamburgers into the kid's thraot 24/7 what's wrong with being a couple of sizes too big? I would only ever deny some one IVF if they had some kind of serious mental problem that would affect the kid's upbringing seriously. [/size][/font]

Again, it will affect the child's health. I mean, personally I think you can mess with your own health all you like, but when it comes to affect someone else's, that's a completely different story.
Just because they aren't "shoving hamburgers into the kid's throat", doesn't mean their obesity will not affect the child. I'm pretty sure it increases the chances of the child being ill with heart disease or something similar.

^^ Not to mention the fact that if they are living an unhealthy life, say that they are morbidly obese to stay with the original argument, they are putting the child at risk of being orphaned and having to go into foster care or live with another family member. So even if the child were perfectly healthy, if the parents die of heart attacks at an early age due to their weight issues, their death will leave psychological scars on the child.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have children because they are afraid of death -- I have another cousin who has two young children and their father is in the Marines and being deployed soon, and could very well die in service. Should they have not had children? Of course not. They are both healthy and in love, and wanted to have children -- but they also conceived both of the children naturally. Two morbidly obese people who have to resort to IVF is another matter, because they are purposefully bringing children into a world potentially unhealthy and also at a higher risk for being orphaned.