New Fertility Treatments - Do we need them?

[Anonymous]

Considering all the news recently based around one kind of treatment or the other, it seems to be a very extensive and progressive issue. Now to have such focus on this seems a little bit strange to me when we live in an overpoopulated country in an overpopulated world so what is the drive for it all?

It is sad that someone who wants children cannot have them, especially when there are so many out there who have kids but don't want them. But how much are we giving in to the "I want" middle class western culture by seeking to provide these sought after services. Is this a champion of modern medical advances or another example of market forces shaping modern medicine? (Consider how many alternative treatments there would be if only working class women required fertility treatment).

Or is there a more pressing need for such treatments? Within the polluted and stressfull environment of everyday life, more and more men are becoming infertile. STD's are at an all time high. The family is almost an outdated concept and working couples do not have the time or drive to start one. Are the scientific community actually responding to a real and present crisis in human procreation within the western world in an attempt to save a failing population?

If this is the case then are we justified in using any means possible, including growing eggs from aborted foetus' in an attempt to save ourselves. What kind of future will we create if we do?

Some ideas. Vote and discuss if you will.

 

[tzb57r]

From a medical ethics point of view rather than an "ick" reaction many of the new treatments are borderline rather than completely abhorent. From a moral position, I think that limiting research into cures for infertility is plain wrong. The desire to have children is very strong in some people and it is hardwired into the majority of us either in the urge to have sex or the desire to care for pets/ children. The inability to reproduce can have devastating effects on some individuals that blights their lives from that point on.

I have little problem with the source of any reproductive material (providing it has been obtained with consent), but rather am always focused on the welfare of the child that will result from the fertility treatment.

Just my tuppence worth.

 

[Anonymous]

My problem with the whole "everyone has a right" to children business is that "everyone has the right to decent housing" too, but in a market economy things just don't work like that. You need to set priorities. I am afraid fertility treatment comes very low on that list.
More generally speaking, O.k. to a certain degree I accept that people should have the right to a child even if they can't afford to have that child, and I don't object to my taxes being used for such purposes. BUT I do object to the people who feel they have the right to have more than that and then expect to be able to stay at home whilst the tax payer's money pays for a myriad of benefits. I know some people at work who would love to have more than 1/2 children but are not doing so because they know they can't afford it, so why can't other people pratice the same kind of self-discipline. AND why do I as a single professional keep getting hammered, whilst more and more measures are put in place to pay for kids, e.g. why do they need a "baby bond" ???
Rant over.............

 

[Anonymous]

From a medical ethics point of view rather than an "ick" reaction many of the new treatments are borderline rather than completely abhorent. B]

Personally I very rarely have a problem with advacning science through "controversial" methods. I have no problem with cloning, stem cells etc if we achieve something meaningful and advantageous from it. The creation of eggs from a foetus would not worry me normally if I felt it was expanding our science towards curing cancer or preventing AIDs being transferred to a mother's child etc. However, I see no real gain from it other than providing an alternative to current fertility treatments and I am not sure why we need that. Which is why I wonder about it's motives, with fertility obviously becoming big business.

 

[diamonddogs]

I don't believe that children are a right - we are privileged to have them; they are a gift. I agree that it's a tragedy some people are unable to conceive naturally, but likewise the latest advances I feel are waaaay to spooky for my tastes (spoken from one who carried, gave birth to and raised a healthy child, admittedly).

The uterus transplant thing I find very wierd - apparently, your own mother is the best possible donor for you - your baby would be grown in the same womb that you were.

The donating eggs from aborted foetuses is just surreal - this would mean that the child's natural mother hadn't ever been born, which is difficult to get even the most hardnosed scientific head around.

Is there a biological reason why a foetus couldn't be implanted into another woman's uterus? Still slightly bizarre, but at least the poor things wouldn't be pulled to pieces for any old cells that someone THINKS they can find a use for.

 

[Anonymous]

This planet is massively overpopulated.

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 7/5/03 at 15:57:25 GMT (7/5/03 at 11:57:25 AM EDT) is

6,303,245,814


I feel steps to reduce the population should be taken but instead we do the opposite.

 

[OneWingedBird]

Most people forget that the advent of IVF has destroyed the adoption market, so a lot of kids who would otherwise have been adopted now have to be brought up by the state.

 

[TheOrigDesperado]

I'm so disappointed at agreeing with the majority in this poll that I can barely find the energy to type. I must have lost my touch...

I don't see as anyone has a "right" to have children. Such a notion is meaningless. It's like saying every guy has the right to be 6ft 2 and look like Brad Pitt. Great if it happens, but otherwise tough luck. Live with it. We already have millions of so-called parents in Britain who aren't fit to look after gerbils, never mind kids, but instead of sorting that problem out we (i.e. the generic "we") ignore it and insted channel even more of the taxpayers' money into exacerbating the problem. Why can't these childless couples adopt, like our family did?

Personally, I don't believe fertility treatment should exist at all. It should be illegal, whether people can afford it or not. It strikes me as grotesque and utterly wrong, regardless of the methods used.

 

[Anonymous]

Baron Doctor Professor Frankenstein Speaks

The donating eggs from aborted foetuses is just surreal - this would mean that the child's natural mother hadn't ever been born, which is difficult to get even the most hardnosed scientific head around.

Tsk! Tsk! It is a mistake to think in terms of primitive and outmoded, 'morality' and 'ethics.' these are just the sort of virulent 'viral memes' which stand in the way of the advance towards the objectivity of scientific progress.

And don't forget there are too many people living into old age now and not enough people being born to support and replace them, in the West.

The sooner the geriatric 'little blue pill' and the 'Sunset Lawns Departure Lounge' become freely available the better.

Ho ho ho.

 

[Imperial_Call]

I can't remember who said it, but I agree with them, "infertility is not a disease that needs to be cured". I'm infertile myself and wouldn't dream of wasting medical resources trying to have a child ...

 

[tzb57r]

I don’t often go out on a limb but here goes.

Lobelia Overhill
I can't remember who said it, but I agree with them, "infertility is not a disease that needs to be cured". I'm infertile myself and wouldn't dream of wasting medical resources trying to have a child.

I am very pleased that you are comfortable with the situation you are in, however, what of those individuals who do not find this acceptable and indeed find their infertility a major blight in their lives. You can equate infertility to deafness. It is a “defect” to the human ideal, but there are work arounds (sign language, writing, hearing dogs, adoption). Many deaf people lead perfectly normal and happy lives and indeed the radical deaf community are anti cochlea implants and a couple in America deliberately had a deaf child.

Since being born deaf is “not a disease that needs curing” does it mean that we should not attempt to develop hearing aids or more radical techniques to either restore or create hearing for those individuals who desire it? Personally I believe that we should develop medial techniques to enrich and improve peoples lives where the desire such an improvement exists.

DESPERADO
We already have millions of so-called parents in Britain who aren't fit to look after gerbils, never mind kids, but instead of sorting that problem out we (i.e. the generic "we") ignore it and instead channel even more of the taxpayers' money into exacerbating the problem.

The arguments that we have plenty of badly cared for children in Britain therefore we don’t need any more children is slightly flawed. The fact the we have badly cared for children needs to be addressed by education and social care with the removal of children being a last resort. Education on contraception would be an excellent way to reduce the numbers of children at risk. The fact that drug addicts cannot raise children should not prevent another set of parents having a child.

DESPERADO
I don't see as anyone has a "right" to have children. Such a notion is meaningless. It's like saying every guy has the right to be 6ft 2 and look like Brad Pitt. Great if it happens, but otherwise tough luck. Live with it.

Unfortunately the logic of this proposal leads to so very unpleasant consequences. At what point do we stop saying “Tough Luck” to people born with defective organs. How about extending the “Tough Luck” approach to medicine from reproductive organs to eyes, these people can get guide dogs; or kidneys, there are perfectly good dialysis machines on the market now; or heart valves “nobody lives for ever you know”.

ChrisWSM
I feel steps to reduce the population should be taken but instead we do the opposite.

How? He said nervously, now reconsidering this rather controversial posting

I guess I’ve now had four pence worth on this debate.

 

[TheOrigDesperado]

tzb57r - Your point about the bad parents is correct. I was just meaning that perhaps some of the childless couples could consider adopting a child rather than taking what IMO is a selfish course of action.

But equating infertility with deformity or illness is not logical. It's not an illness or defect, it's a natural condition. It doesn't adversely affect the person concerned in any physical way. It would be more accurate to compare it with something like baldness, or even gayness (is this a word?)

On top of this, it's likely that infertility is not an accident of nature. It seems to me that it's a natural, regulatory procedure to avoid over-population. If it's artificially overridden to any significant extent then (IMO) population control will fall to other, less savoury, natural means, i.e. disease. It's strange to me that one section of the community is working away trying to combat the effects of overpopulation and another section is there trying to do the very opposite.

 

[Imperial_Call]

I am very pleased that you are comfortable with the situation you are in, however, what of those individuals who do not find this acceptable and indeed find their infertility a major blight in their lives. You can equate infertility to deafness. It is a “defect” to the human ideal, but there are work arounds (sign language, writing, hearing dogs, adoption). Many deaf people lead perfectly normal and happy lives and indeed the radical deaf community are anti cochlea implants and a couple in America deliberately had a deaf child.
Since being born deaf is “not a disease that needs curing” does it mean that we should not attempt to develop hearing aids or more radical techniques to either restore or create hearing for those individuals who desire it?

Deafness isn't a disease, it's a medical condition [unless I'm much mistaken]. Cancer, AIDS etc are diseases that could be cured [when cures are found for them]

Like I said I can't remember who I was quoting, but the point of what they were saying [which in retrospect I should have pointed out] is that there are many people who cannot have a child, and demand that doctors do something about it ... in much the same way that some women seem to think they're entitled to a boob job - almost as though their lives depend on it!

And I've accepted my infertility for what it is, a "glitch", I was left (temporarily) paralysed by a back injury 15 years ago, not being able to give birth is somewhat insignificant in the face of not being able walk

 

[diamonddogs]

tzb57r - Your point about the bad parents is correct. I was just meaning that perhaps some of the childless couples could consider adopting a child rather than taking what IMO is a selfish course of action.

This course of action is not open for consideration by many childless couples these days, which I presume is why so much cash is being sunk into research into infertility. The number of babies being put up for adoption these days is declining rapidly (probably because society seems to think it's perfectly OK for 12 year olds to get pregnant and keep their babies regardless of whether they're fit to raise them, instead of educating them about contraception), and the criteria for being accepted on waiting lists are extremely tight. It's very difficult for couples where one or both are over 30 to even be considered as adoptive parents, and I've heard cases where smokers and overweight people have been refused consideration.

The PC brigade have made it nigh on impossible for a white couple to adopt a black baby and vice versa, and even older children needed a loving family are thin on the ground, and the days are long gone where a childless couple can go to a children's home a choose a child to take home with them (are there still children's homes around?)

Anyone trying to bring a seriously deprived child in from abroad, from say Romania or South America, are treated more harshly than heroin smugglers by the British authorities, and surrogacy, even within families, is in the main treated as baby farming, and therefore is normally shrouded in secrecy.

So, no, adoption is not an option for most couples.