Posted on July 3, 2008 by Kathy McManus in All, Children, Ethics, Health, Parenting Comments (17)
Fertility Treatments: For Convenience?
Motherhood—achieving it and surviving it—is a perennially popular topic of blog discussions. But rarely does one comment continue to draw responses years after first being posted, like the following one has from a woman who wanted to undergo IVF fertility treatments as a matter of convenience.
“I don’t have fertility problems,” she wrote, “but I would like IVF because it would be better for my career and lifestyle if I could give birth to multiples rather than prolong my family planning.” The woman then posed this question: “Is it immoral to want fertility treatments to become pregnant with more than one baby?”
That was in 2003, and the responses have continued since, some barbed, all blunt.
“Do you realize how insane and ridiculous you sound?”
“You are better off with a goldfish that doesn’t require your time.”
“Not only are you talking about something immoral, but something that’s just wrong!”
Many women wrote to tell their own stories of the difficulty and danger involved in multiple births, aghast at what they saw as a selfish quest for a “designer” family. “Putting your babies’ lives at risk for the sake of convenience is incredibly irresponsible,” one stated. A mother of triplets answered the original question head-on: “It’s not immoral to try fertility treatments when they’re unnecessary, but it is unethical.”
Others were less judgmental, like this mother who was pregnant with twins as she responded. “You have to do what’s right for you. If you want more than one child, then it’s your decision, no one else’s.” And another woman attempted to create room for discussion. “There are more of us out there that have had that same thought,” she wrote, “although some may not admit it.”
Tell us what you think: Is having unnecessary fertility treatments for career and lifestyle reasons immoral…irresponsible…acceptable?
Comments (17)
Skip comments
Untitled
I read the original comment and I think she posed the wrong question: the question is not whether it’s immoral to want to get pregnant with more than one baby (as she asked); the question is, is it moral to treat parenthood like something to be sandwiched in between your “career” and “lifestyle”? And the answer is no, it’s not moral. I’m assuming she wanted to have all her kids right away so she’d only have to pregnant once. The ethical thing to do would be to roll the dice, get pregnant, and stop at one if that’s her game plan. (Parenting multiples is not just another Big Box choice, after all.)
RE:
In order to fully support your children
I disagree. In order to fully support your children, taking career into account is essential. That is an unavoidable issue, if you are to have the resources to raise a child in this day and age.
If a woman believes that she can be the best mother for her children by having those both at once, what is so wrong with that? She is planning for her future family. I agree that parenthood is nothing to be taken lightly, and it is imperative that a woman realizes that it must take first priority. But you have to consider these other major parts of life.
Why not
If the mother wants more than one baby why shouldn’t she get that? It’s up to the person that has to carry the children for nine months. I think it’s great that she want more than one kid, so let her do what she wants.
RE: Why not
Kids as consumer choice
There’s a bigger risks associated with carrying multiples. If you choose it, you are also accepting the risks: a greater risk of premature birth, low birth weight, cerebral palsy, and stillbirth. I guess you would have to set these risks against your family planning goals. Is this fair? I would be interested to know that you think.
Multiples
While multiples are not a given result of IVF, they often result especially if the mother is young and more than one embryo is transferred to her uterus.
IVF for a woman with no fertility impairment would be medically unethical for the following reasons: there is risk associated with IVF in and of itself – to the women who undergoes egg retrieval under “light” anesthesia; and, there is a risk from the anesthesia and there is a risk of infection or perforation of other organs in the abdomen. So any reproductive endocrinologist who performed an IVF cycle on a woman with no infertility impairment would be unethical, IMHO.
Secondly, pregnancy of multiples, even twins, carries a higher risk to the mother than carrying single babies one a a time does. In nature, fraternal twins only occur in one in every 100-300 births (depending on ethnicity). In IVF, the incidence is much higher.
I happen to be an identical twin myself, and also a mother who gave birth via IVF. Every child must bond with its mother and when a mother bears two children at once, that bonding is cut in half and made much more difficult for both the mother and the two children. IVF is not a procedure to be undertaken lightly. If a woman is lucky enough to be able to get pregnant naturally, and give birth to her children one at a time, she will have a far better chance of bonding well with each child. That is my opinion having been there!
Meant to be?
I apologize in advance if you take issue with my view on this. I am not a woman; therefore, I can never fully understand what it is to be pregnant or to be a mother. However, I am a father who loves his child more than anything else in the world and would do whatever it took to provide for her needs. This in mind, it confuses and upsets me when I see couples (or individuals, for that matter) delve into the world of fertility treatments when they are unable to have children as is. I should say, when this is the only avenue they seek and pursue with everything they have.
I don’t know what the statistics are, but it seems that many fertility treatments produce multiples. Most people would be in agreement that in many regions, overpopulation is a problem. It seems to me that if you are unable to produce children without treatments it may be that God didn’t intend for you to produce your own children. Perhaps it was meant for you to be one of the greatest gifts in the world – an adoptive parent. We see on a daily basis, the results of children who grow up without someone to love them and guide them. Yet, many would spend tens and hundreds of times the resources to chemically alter their reproductive state than to take a needy child into their home. Again, as stated before, these treatments often carry health risks that a natural pregnancy would not and risks that adopting a child never would. Just my 2 cents.
RE: Meant to be?
Reply to meant to be
Dave, you may be a man, but I agree with you. There are so many children in this country that need loving, caring parents that if you can’t conceive or want to have all your children at once, adopt. That being said, there are selfish people out there that feel that the child has to carry their genes for them to love them. My best friend is unable to have children and at this time, she is in the process of adopting her second child. She and her family love these children every bit as much as if she had had IFV and given birth. I’m sure she would also agree with your statement.
RE: Meant to be?
As a father who
As a father who “loves his child more than anything else in the world”, how dare you speak about people who can’t bear their own children. Maybe if for one second you had to feel the unbearable pain of infertility you wouldn’t judge so quickly. You said yourself that you would do anything to provide for your child, what is the difference between providing for your child and using fertility treatments to provide a child? And as to spending everything you have, or tens of thousands, it’s equally expensive to adopt. The waiting list to adopt can be years. So, maybe next time before spouting off about something you know nothing about, you will just count your many blessings, and not be so judgmental. Speaking as a person who has had many needy children stay in my home, and also someone who has undergone fertility treatments I can assure you that if I were to become pregnant w/ multiples I would be overjoyed! The risk of multiples is small, and the risk of more than triplets is really small. If I had to have all my children in one pregnancy, so is it…what’s the difference to you?
RE: Meant to be?
As a father who loves his children
As a father who loves his children, it’s surprising how little compassion you have for those with physical issues that have prevented them from becoming naturally pregnant. And to lay the blame on God (by assuming he might want them to do something else) is appalling. If someone has cancer, would you suggest that they not accept medical treatment because perhaps God wants them to die? Infertility is a medical problem — and one that has some very good treatments available. If you have a medical problem — any medical problem — and treatment is available, you should avail yourself of it if you so wish.
You’ve also clearly no idea of the adoption process and the expenses often involved. If you did, you probably wouldn’t be so quick to suggest it: It’s not uncommon for it to cost $25-40,000 per child. As a foster parent, adoptive parent and biological parent, I find it really sad to read comments like yours. This post is about a woman seeking multiples for convenience and you made it about infertility. I can assure you that infertility (and the treatments that go with it) is in no way convenient: they can be painful, stressful, and very scary.
Untitled
Well, this is a sticky issue. If she does this, she possibly will get more than one child-and her children, if multiples-are at higher risk of many health problems as a result. If convenience is an issue, don’t have kids. Seriously, think about it. This isn’t fast food. These are children, and she isn’t at McDonalds! If you get pregnant, then good. If you don’t, IVF is an option. And if IVF doesn’t work, there is always adoption. And there is always the other option, she can get a dog. And if she wants lots of them, she can get more than one!
Thoughts on multiples
In all honesty, I’m in my twenties, married, and wanting children soon. I have wished for multiples. I think having a sibling is such a positive thing for a child to begin with, and since I know I want more than one, the concept of being able to have them at once would work so well for our lifestyle – and contribute to the best raising of them that I can think of. It may come across as a convenience factor, but I just feel this would be the best possible way for us to raise children- take ONE maternity leave- then be able to work out who stays home in alternating (my husband is a nurse so that allows him to choose his schedule).
I think a mother has a right to make that decision. If she is in good health and takes care of herself, those risks with multiples can be worked with and lessened. I don’t believe that is unethical, either, provided she does the research and understands the great responsibility she is setting herself up for. I also am very supportive of adoption, too, and I have considered this. This is also an alternative.
My question is- with so many people that I know taking these fertility drugs- are we going to learn of more serious side effects than what is listed?
RE: Thoughts on multiples
I don’t agree you should leave it to God to decide if you should have twins or not. You save one maternity leave and then go back to work. It is not that easy you might end up on bed rest and not being able to work the whole pregnancy vs. having 2 maternity leaves that are only 6 weeks.
RE: Thoughts on multiples
Have you thought of potential problems?
It seems that you have given some thought to this, but there are a number of factors to consider: you would like your child to have “a sibling”: what if fertility drugs cause you to conceive quadruplets? Will you be able to raise four babies at once, or will you “reduce” the number of embryos? To me, that am far worse than an ending an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy with an abortion—which itself is something that should never be done lightly. What if you or your husband should become seriously ill? What if one of the babies has a serious illness? Are children of different ages likelier to have different needs from their parents, rather than both competing for the same form of attention? It seems to me that there are too many variables in raising children that can’t be planned for in advance. You may be able to schedule one maternity leave, but after that, all bets are pretty much off.
Fertility Treatments
I haven’t read the comments, but I suspect my reaction to the original post may be unpopular. I am basically opposed to fertility treatments under virtually all circumstances. There are too many children unwanted, fertility treatments are (to my knowledge) very expensive, which means (1) higher costs for insurance companies for elective procedures (if covered), thus increasing the average cost of the entire “risk pool” of their customers, leading to higher premiums for all, or (2) it is available only to those who can afford it, the wealthier among us, causing economic discrimination. I feel for couples that can’t have children together, but they are adults—old enough to know that we can’t have everything we want (although television advertising would seem to tell us otherwise). My parents seemed unable to conceive after I was born, and 8 years later were considering adoption when it happened. Not every couple is this lucky, I know, but I would rather see these couples seek out soon-to-be mothers looking to have their child adopted. I admit, I am speaking theoretically, as I am not a parent, but this is my belief.
From A Mother of Twins
I agree you should be able to make your own decisions and have more than one child at a time if you want but I am not too sure that it will be that convenient for your life style. I have four children two of them are twins and they were my first and it was a handful trying to take care of them. For starters, when you only have one child you have one to take care of. Having two or more at a time you have to spend more time taking care of them and getting them ready and its more expensive for everything. I say try and get pregnant on your own and if it is meant to be ( like me ) you will have twins. You never know you might like the concept of having one in diapers at a time not 2 or 3 or more.
Thoughts on Unnecessary Fertility
I guess my first thought is why would anyone without any fertility issues, choose to go through such an invasive process and also choose to have multiples which can be dangerous for both the mother and the child. As someone who struggled for years going through fertility treatments, it’s very hard for me to feel right about someone who mainly wants this procedure for convenience. I was lucky enough to finally get pregnant on my own, and now that I have one child, I feel very differently about IVF. I may go through that procedure the next time, b/c getting pregnant on my own was a miracle and I would like more children soon. However, I am taking a far more conservative approach with IVF the next time and will most likely implant only one embryo. I’m trying to REDUCE my risk of having multiples even though it will also reduce my chance of getting pregnant. I feel that one child requires so much time and attention and if I can avoid multiples I think it’s better for my son and any future children I have. Before I had my son, I was very open to having multiples through fertility b/c all I really wanted was a baby. But now that I know what it’s like with one, I just feel that actually choosing to have multiples for convenience is more of a selfish choice for yourself and I would never want to put my baby at risk for all the things that can be associated with having multiples. If it happens naturally than I feel it was meant to be, but planning for it I feel is irresponsible.
I Suppose The Will of God
The idea of ‘the will of God” must be horribly antiquated these days, with so much medical and technological equipment and knowledge. Where is the fine line, exactly? Well you can rest assured as we continue to progress the understanding might be something like this: the babies are born perfectly healthy and normal? Yes, or at the least we hope. The person who felt this was a better choice for reasons A,B,and C, is willing to pay, and is willing to acknowledge she might even end up with maybe one or two other children that she didn’t anticipate. How would that work out? On the flip side, lets say, we are going to go with God, and let life play it’s part as it surely will. You get pregnant, and slowly have baby number 2, and number 3, but in 6-8 years deciding on the timing, family planning?
This is a highly gray area, many couples may not always be happy to hear one spouses answer versus another. One spouse may welcome another mouth to feed and plan for, another may be thinking, this is really going to throw a monkey wrench in our plans to travel, buy a new car, or just plan to do as we please without any interruption.
We are a people of many choices, all complex and personal, that are either working, struggling, hurting, or making decisions. Those decisions are made easier by acceptance on both parties to either absorb why one feels that a child will be too costly at a particular time. It depends, in my eyes, on how the couple is seeing their dilemma. Have they sat down and spoken to a doctor about their choice? Are they sure that they will only have a set number, lets say 2 children — what should happen if it’s triplets or quads? I would like to instill in people a sense that God is a supreme power, but in philosophical debate to be completely unbiased, it is best to leave the choice up to those that must live with their decision.