Children Conceived by IVF Have Nearly Twice as Many Health Problems

LifeSiteNews ^ | 7/24/07 | Elizabeth O'Brien

[wagglebee]

LONDON, England, July 24, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A recent British study shows that children conceived by IVF have increased health problems and spend almost double the time in hospital than naturally conceived children, the Daily Mail reports.

The 7-year follow-up study, done in conjunction with Finnish studies, compared the hospital costs of IVF-conceived children to naturally conceived children. It examined 303 IVF-conceived children as well as 567 naturally-conceived children, all of whom were born between the years 1990 and 1995. Prior studies had reviewed the pregnancies of these children, their medical history and neo-natal health as well as the case notes of their hospitalization.

Published in the June 21, 2007 issue of Human Reproduction, the study showed that on average, a child conceived through IVF was in hospital significantly more times (1.76 vs. 1.07 times) than a naturally conceived child.

Dr. Marjo-Riitta Jarvelin, professor at Imperial College London and one of the lead researchers behind the report, told LifeSiteNews.com, "What we showed was that actually there were certain disease groups which were more common among those born after IVF." She added that this included "certain infections, respiratory disease, and inflammatory disease," and noted that there are some neurological disorders that are slightly more common as well.

The report also notes that low birth weight and pre-term birth have been linked to IVF, but these results may be influenced by the multiple births often resulting from IVF. Nevertheless, single IVF children were also sicker than naturally conceived children and spent more time in the hospital. During the 7-year period, 61% of the singleton IVF children were hospitalized versus 46% of the naturally conceived singletons.

Jarvelin told LifeSiteNews.com that researchers don't know the reasons for the increased amount of certain diseases among IVF children. Most of the children born through IVF, however, are still healthy children, she said, "But we have to be more cautious and parents should be carefully informed that there might be some dangers that we might not know."

There are dangers involved in the multiple implantations of embryos involved in IVF, but this is not recommended anymore, said Jarvelin, because the fetuses are at higher risk.

The IVF mother is also at higher risk, not only from multiple implantations, but from other clinical problems such as blood toxemia. There is an additional, very rare condition seen among IVF women called Ovum Stimulation Syndrome, Jarvelin stated, that is caused by the medication that is used to stimulate ovaries during the IVF process. She stated that it can be "quite dangerous" for the woman.

"What this research really means," she concluded, "is that we need studies following these children…It shows that we need follow-up and long-term studies to see whether these people are really more healthy than naturally conceived children."

These newest findings are in accordance with past studies that have indicated that children who are conceived through IVF have a higher risk of deformity and over-all health problems. These problems include cerebral palsy, higher mortality rates and "ambiguous genitalia".

Read related LifeSiteNews stories:

UK Doctors Warn IVF Drugs Pose Health Hazard for Mothers
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06101104.html

Mounting Evidence of IVF Defects 
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/mar/03032107.html

IVF Children Suffer More Over-All Health Problems Than Naturally-Conceived Children
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06120409.html

Finnish Study finds IVF Increases Risk of Deformity
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05122311.html

IVF Babies up to 40% More Likely to Suffer Severe Birth Defects
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/05013107.html

Read UK's Daily Mail coverage:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/health...

[ndt]

"I am totally opposed to eugenics, it's advocates and everything it stands for."

Then stop doing it.

You are arguing that some couples (those not able to conceive naturally) should just not reproduce. That is the textbook definition of eugenics.

[mamelukesabre]

I generally try to avoid imposing my idea of eugenics on other people. That has worked out very poorly in the past.

What's eugenics got to do with it? You are using your same old mind trick on yourself again. You imagine yourself to be fighting against people of lower morals than yourself.

" One study put the number of natural miscarriages at 25%. Making it to term is a major hurdle."

It's supposed to be that way. That's what make health defects the exception rather than the rule. If you try to go around that rule of nature, it will bite you (not you, you will be long gone, others will suffer for it later) on the a$$ later. Most of those miscarriages shouldn't be classified as such however. Because they occur before the woman even knows she was pregnant. The embryo simply fails to implant or is absorbed when it does implant. That's not really a miscarriage in my opinion.

[Ditter]

Cows, hippie, I’m talking about 4 legged cows. Are you some kind of a wimp? ;9)

[shattered]

I wouldn’t call it selfish to want to have a family.

[wagglebee]

Would you call it selfish to kill several embryos to have one child?

[mbraynard]

I’m not mad at him at all, I’m just naturally curt in tone.

Ok - you're on the internet and anonymous. I guess it works.

But your post to him that got my first response is ... broken. He didn't spread propaganda. And he is talking about specific issues related to IVF.

I wonder how much of IVF is due to the difficulty of adopting new borns in the US or due to racism/tribalism/vanity of wanting your child to 'be your own blood.'

There is a big difference between giving someone with a heart defect a pacemaker and giving someone with some genetic flaws the ability to reproduce another who has those same flaws. It seems like this is getting blown over as if there is no difference. As if the 'right to life' also includes a 'right to reproduce by any means necessary.'

It reminds me of the case of some couples who are deaf who are 100% likely to produce children who are also deaf. Should they reproduce? Not from a legal perspective, per se, but from an ethical one. I think it's unethical. Either pre-screen sperm or eggs to remove the possibility or use in utero genetic therapy to fix the problem (yes, deafness is a problem, not a lifestyle), etc.

Lots of complex issues here. No need to be at each other's throats.

[Twink]

I really can’t imagine my life without my children. I would have had more if I hadn’t already had 4 c-sections. I have family and friends who couldn’t have their own child for some reason and a few looked into IVF. We probably would have looked into it too if we couldn’t conceive.

[Southerngl]

So how do you feel about naturally conceived fetuses with birth defects?
I think they should be born and loved, unlike many others who support murdering them in the womb.
*****************************

So you support not so perfect babies conceived naturally, but find fault in science conceived babies... So is God a screw up?

[ndt]

"What's eugenics got to do with it?"

Well you said...

"How many of those health problems are then being passed on to the next generations? You didn’t think about that did you?"

Which, given the topic and your position on it I assumed was an argument that IVF is "bad" as it might result in more problems passed to the offspring.

I may have misunderstood you but if you want to limit IVF for that reason, you are practicing eugenics, or as you say producing a "designer baby".

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but is nether your nor my place to impose on another person.

"Because they occur before the woman even knows she was pregnant. The embryo simply fails to implant or is absorbed when it does implant. That's not really a miscarriage in my opinion."

Well it is by definition a miscarriage. My point is that it is very comparable to the destruction extra embryos (i.e. not yet implanted).

[dennisw]

Sperm compete to be the one sperm of millions to successfully mate with the female’s egg. The winner of this competition will very likely have other good attributes

In vitro fertilization negates this. The idea is to get a (any)sperm to mate with the egg. Not a winner type sperm, a vigorous sperm, to mate with the egg. Thus more health problems will show in these offspring

[gondramB]

It could be that there are negative health consequences from IVF - I don’t know.

But I would bet that parents who do IVF are on average older, wealthier and generally more likely to take their kids to the doctor and hospital in general.

[ndt]

"And he is talking about specific issues related to IVF."

Multiple embryos are not a necessary result of IVF. It's done that way out of convenience, but could be done otherwise. They are not the same issue.

Anyway, wagglebee is not just trying to "save the embryos", he is anti medical intervention as is clear in post #39. "Save the embryos" is just propaganda to get people to buy into a luddistic world view that only natural sex between married couples is an acceptable way to make a baby.

"There is a big difference between giving someone with a heart defect a pacemaker and giving someone with some genetic flaws the ability to reproduce another who has those same flaws."

If you want to impose that on people by limiting the availability of IVF, then you are practicing eugenics.

NOTE TO READERS: Please stop and actually read the definition of eugenics as there seem to be many who just don't "get it"

"Not from a legal perspective, per se, but from an ethical one."

OK, now here is where the distinction lies. If you think it is unethical but should remain legal, fine. If you want to limit the possibility in any way then we have a problem because you (IMO) just don't have that right.

"Either pre-screen sperm or eggs to remove the possibility or use in utero genetic therapy to fix the problem (yes, deafness is a problem, not a lifestyle), etc."

You do realize that this is what is meant by "designer baby". It just that you agree with this set of criteria.

[crymeariver]

My parents, being the good Catholics that they were, wanted a large family. My mother had a number of miscarriages and when she was pregnant with me, took a drug (DES) that was supposed to help prevent a miscarriage. Subsequently, when I tried to get pregnant, it was discovered that I had a deformity caused by the DES, that made it impossible for me to get pregnant without some help. Being the good Catholic that I am, I wanted children and so I used a procedure that involved insemination with my husbands sperm directly into the fallopian tube. I also had to take fertility drugs because the timing had to be perfect. I became pregnant the first time, and four years later, I succeeded again. I was surprised that my Church found this to be against church teachings. I accept that, but I certainly would do it again in a heartbeat.

[ndt]

"Being the good Catholic that I am, I wanted children and so I used a procedure that involved insemination with my husbands sperm directly into the fallopian tube. I also had to take fertility drugs because the timing had to be perfect. I became pregnant the first time, and four years later, I succeeded again. I was surprised that my Church found this to be against church teachings. I accept that, but I certainly would do it again in a heartbeat."

A wonderful story that will sadly be missed by many trying to claim the moral high ground here.

IMO you have all the moral authority you need here and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[Radix]

You misread.

You mentioned “positive results” in your post.

Is obedience to the very first commandment given to man by God in the Bible a negative thing in your estimation?

[RFC_Gal]

What is the difference?

[kinoxi]

What? Explain you’re version.

[Radix]

"What? Explain you’re version."

My version of what?

Have you ever even read Genesis?

My version of the first commandment to man by God according to the Bible? Is that what you mean to ask?

It might only take a few minutes to read about just what my version is. You can find my version in your Bible.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

My point is that the alternative for many couples is no child at all.

A biological child is not a right. They are God's greatest gift, and any attempt to steal them from Him through morally corrupt artificial synthesis is to sin against Him. Regardless of the seemingly benign nature of the intended ends, this sad propensity toward medical defect is a natural consequence of an objectively evil means.

[ndt]

"They are God's greatest gift, and any attempt to steal them from Him through morally corrupt artificial synthesis is to sin against Him."

Any god capable of having a child stolen from his is not worthy of his title.