Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IVF babies ‘risk major diseases’
The Sunday Times (UK) ^ | January 10, 2010 | Jonathan Leake

Posted on 01/12/2010 6:29:05 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o

Scientists have discovered that the DNA of babies conceived through IVF differs from that of other children, putting them at greater risk of diseases such as diabetes and obesity later in life.

The new research could explain why IVF babies tend to be at higher risk of low birth weight, defects and rare metabolic disorders.

The changes are not in the genes themselves but in the mechanism that switches them on and off, the study of which is known as epigenetics.

“These epigenetic differences have the potential to affect embyronic development and foetal growth, as well as influencing long-term patterns of gene expression associated with increased risk of many human diseases,” said Professor Carmen Sapienza...

(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: bioethics; infertility; invitro; ivf; technology
There are better, healthier approaches to infertility than IVF and other technologies which substitute lab processes for sexual union and conception. One is called NaProTechnology.
1 posted on 01/12/2010 6:29:06 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; fight_truth_decay; GonzoII; Blogger; Clemenza; trumandogz; Ballygrl; RobbyS; DJ MacWoW; ...

Thought you might be interested.


2 posted on 01/12/2010 6:34:29 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
One possibility is that couples who are infertile may have naturally higher levels of epigenetic changes than the rest of the population, perhaps explaining the cause of their infertility.

Small study, 23 babies. Did they control for maternal age and health? What you'd really like to do is look at parents matched for age, health, and SES, and who ALL had difficulty conceiving - and compare IVF babies to those conceived after three years of trying, say.

3 posted on 01/12/2010 6:43:03 PM PST by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

ping


4 posted on 01/12/2010 6:45:49 PM PST by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Did the study say anything about the health of the Six or Seven babies that are washed down the drain in almost every IVF procedure?


5 posted on 01/12/2010 6:46:08 PM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

And thus the seeds of the Butlerian Jihad were sown.


6 posted on 01/12/2010 6:56:33 PM PST by NonValueAdded ("'Diversity' is one of those words designed to absolve you of the need to think." Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Thanks.


7 posted on 01/12/2010 7:00:10 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I miscarried for 13 years and then had 3 babies...eat sweet potatoes and take prenatal vitamins before you conceive!


8 posted on 01/12/2010 7:03:44 PM PST by Domestic Church (AMDG...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Wasn’t that traced to killing Serena Butler’s baby for population control, not genetic management?


9 posted on 01/12/2010 7:18:06 PM PST by tbw2 (Freeper sci-fi - "Humanity's Edge" - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

One wonders about the health of the frozen babies, as well.


10 posted on 01/12/2010 7:55:26 PM PST by Marie2 (The second mouse gets the cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Yes, thank you for posting.
11 posted on 01/12/2010 8:48:37 PM PST by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

Yes, but for whatever reason a proscription against artificial insemination was one of the results (Dune Messiah).


12 posted on 01/12/2010 9:28:26 PM PST by NonValueAdded ("'Diversity' is one of those words designed to absolve you of the need to think." Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Again, the science of DNA (life?) continues to admit, in additional ways, that “the gene” alone is not the master of its own fate.

Also, I have often asked if, in as much as one reason couples do things like IVF is that they are having problem reproducing naturally; and therefore, given how many years IVF has been in use now, has there been any study to determine if some percentage of the people who were conceived by IVF have inherited the conditions that limited their parents reproductive chances. And the corollary to that is - if my first question proves correct, then is the whole artificial reproductive industry a self-perpetuating, and expanding industry - helping to “create” a supply of ready future clients?


13 posted on 01/12/2010 9:59:12 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
I don't know how much this "study" can be taken as fact, because of the small size of the sample population.

Again, the science of DNA (life?) continues to admit, in additional ways, that “the gene” alone is not the master of its own fate.

The DNA of the infertile parents are somewhat off the norm in the first place. IVF merely enforces reproduction, usually over-riding the obstacles that occur in its achievement, without artificial aid.

That said, it is accepted knowledge that genes can be affected by behaviour:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/debate.html

14 posted on 01/13/2010 6:12:13 AM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

Good point. I’d like to see a lot more information.


15 posted on 01/13/2010 6:31:47 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
It's so ironic. Infertile would-be parents (and my heart goes out to them) want babies and treasure life; and yet the whole procedure is based on the most radical dehmanization. IVF treats the conceived child as, at best, a "product" to be made --- maybe even made-to-order --- or, a "by-product" to be kept on ice, or tossed.
16 posted on 01/13/2010 6:40:28 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church

Congrats to you and your husband for your three babies! Mr. Don-o and I hit the jackpot with B-vitamins, Benedryl, and boxer shorts!


17 posted on 01/13/2010 6:42:14 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
Very wise. Were they perhaps Catholics? Proto-Catholics? Crypto-Catholics? NINO's (Noncatholics In Name Only)?

:o)

18 posted on 01/13/2010 6:47:24 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
I don't know how much this "study" can be taken as fact, because of the small size of the sample population.

The quality of the sample (is it unbiased?) is much more important than the size.

19 posted on 01/13/2010 6:47:34 AM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
Good question. Another point to make is that IVF doesn't actually "cure" infertility: which is to say, people who were incapable of reproducing normally via sexual intercourse, remain incapable: the underlying cause is not addressed.

A true, morally unobjectionable therapy would identify and modify the underlying cause in order to restore sexual reproductive health and natural fertility--- not try to replace it with a laboratory process.

So strange that nowadays "sexual health" is used as a euphemism for a program of deliberately, temporarily or permanently, subverting normal sexual relationships and procreative processes.

20 posted on 01/13/2010 6:54:16 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Exactly. Reproductively healthy people do not normally conceive via IVF.


21 posted on 01/13/2010 7:50:49 AM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Would you treat a child born through an IVF treatment, any differently than one conceived naturally? If not, then hasn’t the procedure helped the parents achieve what they initially sought, overcoming a natural obstacle?


22 posted on 01/13/2010 10:30:19 AM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
"Would you treat a child born through an IVF treatment, any differently than one conceived naturally?"

Yes; no; not exactly. I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. I happen to have two sons, one born to me and one adopted, and I love them both and treat them differently (that would be to say, I treat theam "individually") as their different talents, temperaments, and circumstances warrant. It does not, I hope, involve invidious discrimination: they're just strikingly different.

"...and if not, then hasn’t the procedure helped the parents achieve what they initially sought, overcoming a natural obstacle?"

But I do treat them differently. I hope I will not confuse the issue if I try to get at your point in a different way: IVF helped the couple get a child, as pursuing adoption helped my husband and me a get a child. It's the same in that sense.

It's different, though, for other reasons, which I will try to untangle here.

IVF is commonly a matter of just one of the couple contributing genetic material: the wife's ova, with donor (more accurate to say: vendor) sperm; or egg-vendor ova, with the husband's sperm. Or it could be vendor all the way: Couple A+B getting ova from Woman X and sperm from Man Y, and then having an embryo generated in vitro and implanted which is "theirs" as paying customers, but not related to either of them genetically.

As child-getting, it succeeds (they get a child) but as fertility-treatment, it fails. IVF is no more a fertility tretment than adoption is. The underlying fertility problem, as a therapeutic matter, is not addressed.

But IVF is also morally distinguishable from adoption, and morally objectionable, for these reasons:

I refer you to the 1992 Tennessee Frozen Human Embryo Case so you can contemplate the probably unforseen, but inevitable result.

Not wanting to turn this into a full-fledged essay, let me just summarize here: One more step in the humanization of the human race.

23 posted on 01/13/2010 11:26:12 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Adoption requires sacrifice of a nature that not many couples are capable of bearing. The innate drive to have genetic progeny is an extremely powerful one, and this is where IVF comes in, for those unfortunate couples who, for various reasons, end up being infertile. The whole question becomes whether the State has any right to deny an infertile couple the chance to have their own progeny.

The morality argument here, is in fact, another dimension of the war between religion and evolution.

It will never be resolved, except after great extremes of time and knowledge accumulation.

24 posted on 01/13/2010 9:24:11 PM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
I don't know that there's a war between religion and evolution, tout court, since there are various different religions and various different versions of evolution. Certainly there's no war between my religion (Catholicism) and the idea that God has the power to cause different life forms to be brought forth through material processes, all the way up through the physical origin of Homo sapiens through predecessor non-human species.

I am not sure what this has to do with IVF, but perhaps you'll explain further?

"The whole question becomes whether the State has any right to deny an infertile couple the chance to have their own progeny."

No, that's not the whole question. In fact, the way you state it is tendentious, as if we shared an underlying assumption that infertile people possess a "right" to create laboratory progeny. It's like the homosexual activists saying that the state of Tennessee denies the "right" to gay marriage, or the socialists claiming the state is denying the "human right" of universal health insurance.

First you have to prove that such a right exists.

I say it does not; and that the state has a legitimate interest in preserving human children's status as persons rather than products or property. This, you will discover, is the point of the 1992 Tennessee Frozen Human Embryo trial. Which, by the way, settled for the concept that conceived children are property. This is a position truly obnoxious to a genuine human right.

25 posted on 01/14/2010 3:28:17 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Mammalia Primatia Hominidae Homo sapiens. Still working on the "sapiens" part.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I am not sure what this has to do with IVF, but perhaps you'll explain further?

To be able to have genetic progeny, is the critical ingredient for evolution. IVF comes in right here, with regard to infertile couples.

No, that's not the whole question. In fact, the way you state it is tendentious, as if we shared an underlying assumption that infertile people possess a "right" to create laboratory progeny. It's like the homosexual activists saying that the state of Tennessee denies the "right" to gay marriage, or the socialists claiming the state is denying the "human right" of universal health insurance.

Marriage is one thing. Reproduction is an entirely different thing. One entity here does not require the other. One entity here is man-made, while the other is innate among all living species.

One entity here is not bothered by man-made laws. That entity isn't marriage.

26 posted on 01/14/2010 6:06:54 AM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
I'm all for genetic progeny, as an end, but I object to the use of explorative or dehumanizing means.

Surely you and I must agree that the means must be moral as well as the end. For instance, genetic progeny can be, and are, gotten by many objectionable means, including rape, concubinage, surrogacy, fornication with a minor, prostitution, etc. We would concur (I suppose) that therefore it is reasonable to agree with the end, but not with the means.

I am convinced that IVF in an objectionable means. And why? Because, I would argue, a child has a natural right to be conceived in the loving embrace of his married parents, and any choice which deliberately deprives him of this natural and honorable beginning, does him dishonor.

It's a matter of respecting the child's natural birthright.

And because,secondly, human society itself ought to take carefully-considered and reasonable steps to curb human progeny from any form of abuse. That could include (notice I said "could" include) a public policy of discouraging abortion, sexual intercourse outside of marriage, IVF and human experimentation involving embryos, as well as encouraging marriage and the therapies needed to help married couples achieve their desired fertility.

You have not mentioned the moral and legal implications of the Tennssee Frozen Human Embryo case, which I cited twice. This case illustrates the one offensive public corollary of IFV: the commoditization of offspring.

27 posted on 01/14/2010 7:35:42 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Mammalia Primatia Hominidae Homo sapiens. Still working on the "sapiens" part.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson