IVF babies at risk of brain defects

BABIES conceived through in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are almost three times more prone to have two genetic brain disorders, a study by consultants at two Irish hospitals has found. The authors have surveyed the families of almost all the 1,105 IVF babies born in Ireland since 1989. While the number with the brain disorders was tiny, the consultants have called for similar research to be carried out worldwide.

The two genetic disorders, Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome (BWS) and Angelman Syndrome (AS) are rare, occurring in about one in 15,000 births in the general population. But the study found they were almost three times more prevalent among IVF babies. Cathy Allen, of Human Assisted Reproduction Ireland (Hari), at Dublin’s Rotunda hospital, and Professor William Reardon, a genetics expert in Crumlin children’s hospital, have also analysed data on the disorders worldwide. The results were published in the International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

Allen said that while IVF is still regarded as entirely safe and a valuable solution for prospective parents having trouble conceiving, the discovery of a link between IVF and the two conditions must be investigated further. BWS affects the physical development of a foetus, increasing the baby’s size, but also increases the risks of defects in the abdominal wall, low blood-sugar levels and of macroglossia, or oversized tongue.

In 1965, Harry Angelman, an English physician, first described three children with characteristics now known as the Angelman syndrome. He noted that they all had a stiff, jerky gait, excessive laughter and seizures. Other symptoms include mental retardation and poor balance. “It’s not to deter any would-be parents from undergoing IVF, but it’s something that both they and anyone working in the field should know,” said Allen. “The idea is very new. That’s why we felt the need to put the study in an obstetrics journal. Geneticists are only coming to terms with it now.”

Their research included data from studies conducted on both human and animal subjects around the world over the past 20 years. The report concluded: “There are strong circumstantial observations that suggest a cause-and-effect relationship between assisted conception and clinical conditions caused by imprinting mutations.

“The absolute numbers of imprinting defects . . . are small and unlikely to deter any would-be patients from undergoing (assisted reproduction) treatments. Nevertheless the emerging data are of concern and highlight the need for further investigation.”

Since completing the report the authors surveyed most of the IVF children born in Ireland so far. “The problem is that the incidence of the conditions we’re talking about are very low anyway,” said Allen. “To do a study that looks for an increased incidence of something with IVF you’d really have to do a pan-European, multi-centre study in a prospective manner in order to see it, and we’re calling for that.

“We’ve just completed a questionnaire-based study, sent to all parents who successfully had a baby from IVF in the Hari unit, from 1989 to 2002. We asked all those parents to fill out a questionnaire looking for certain features of these imprinting defects, for specific symptoms that would be associated.”

Based on the replies, invitations were sent to some 40 children to attend a clinical examination. Only 22 attended, of whom four were given molecular genetics blood tests in the past few weeks. One Irish couple in six has problems conceiving and about 4,000 couples undergo assisted reproductive treatments every year in Ireland’s fertility clinics. Ten years ago there was one such clinic in Ireland, at the Rotunda. Now there are six, according to the National Infertility Support and Information Group, with each charging about €3,500 per treatment.

No, it does not. How on earth did you ever arrive at that notion?

The same point I raised with you previously. During the process of natural fertilization, conception, and pregnancy, a substantial number of babies are also lost before birth (e.g., genetic defects, zona pellucida too thick, ectopic pregnancy, failure to implant, luteal phase defect, HCG problems, fetal defects, twin absorption, and so forth), all of which happens in natural as well as IVF pregnancies. Just because a woman trying to get pregnant never has a positive pregnancy test does not mean that eggs are not fertilizing and then dying within her. And plenty of women who test positive for pregnancy have miscarriages. Further, a variety of birth defects can also result from perfectly natural pregnancies. Thus natural conception can also have all the bad side effects of IVF, including the death of babies before they are born. Research suggests that 15% of known pregnancies end in miscarraige and a higher number of fertilized eggs die before they reach the point of registering on a pregnancy test. That means that even if a woman sticks to entirely natural pregnancy, some 15% of those babies will die after natural conception.

The reason I think you really need to address this is a trendy new pro-abortion argument is to claim that because so many babies die before birth in the process of natural pregnancies that the fertilized egg or embryo is somehow less human or less a person. By looking only at these losses during IVF and linking them to immoral behavior, you are losing sight of the fact that the loss of fertilized eggs, embryos, and even quite developed fetuses is a part of even natural pregnancy and has nothing to do with how sinful the parents are. Not every genetic combination works, nor does every woman's reproductive tract always work properly. And that's in God's hands whether the egg was fetilized inside or outside of the woman and has nothing to do with that location. And regardless of where the fertilized egg or embryo is, it's not any less of a person.

wrong, in most cases, a woman passes only one egg during her menstrual cycle.

First, there is some evidence that might not be as true as was always assumed. Very early pregnancy tests combined with very early ultrasounds have shown that at least some percentage of women who start out with twins wind up giving birth to only a single baby, whether one twin dies, is crowded out by the other, or combines with the other to form a chimera, the natural process is not as clockwork as you are making it sound. You are aware that there are people walking around who contain the combined cells from two fertilized eggs and can have children with a different set of DNA than what's found in their blood, right?

If that one egg is fertilized and becomes a baby/embryo it's according to God's natural and moral law. And if the baby/embryo is passed, doesn't implant or destroyed it's in accordance to natural law.

Then what difference does it make whether that happens entirely within the woman's body or in a lab and then within the woman's body? Isn't it still God's will that ultimately determines whether a baby is born or not? If you want to object on religious or doctrine grounds, that's fine, but then the rest of the problems you have with IVF are irrelevant.

IVF takes God out of the conjugal act in the sacrament of marriage, medicines and other procedures are used, masturbation is done and 12 or more eggs are fertilized and 12 or more embryos are made, many individual humans in a test tube or petri dish.

You can certainly argue about IVF from a conjugal angle if you want. But that's not the same argument you are making about survival. It's a different argument that's certainly valid if you accept the moral grounds that it's based on, for religious or other reasons.

As for the number of eggs fertilized, that's a product of (A) how many eggs the woman produces, (B) how many eggs fertilize, and (C) the way IVF is carried out in practice, not how it has to be carried out. With respect to (C), there is no technical reason why IVF couldn't fertilize the eggs one at a time and implant them one at a time. The reason they don't to so is because it's cheaper and easier, not because it's necessary. But ethicaly, whether they implant one or three (what I've heard about) or four (your claim) is irrelevant unless the impantation of more than one has some negative impact on the survival of each of them. Do you have any evidence that it does?

The doctors and parents are aware that most of the 12 will not make it. Those inserted, usually 4, don't always take, 4 babies die, if it's done again then another 3 may die if the ONE implants.

And if a man and a woman try to have a baby the old fashioned way, many eggs may get fertilized and only a few might make it, too, especially if the woman has the sort of fertility problems that normally drive couples to IVF.

Just because a woman does not get a positive pregnancy test does not mean that eggs are not being fertilized, only to die within her. Studies suggest that 30%-50% of all fertilized eggs are lost before the woman knows she's pregnant. Another 15%-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriages. That means that the normal person attempting to get pregnant needs to face the fact that around 50% of eggs that fertilize are going to be lost. And that's narrowing the field to only woman who have fertility problems, the subset that seek IVF. Many of the fertility problems that push women toward IFV result in much higher losses, even if the woman just keeps trying naturally, which is at least one reason why IVF losses are higher.

A woman who has a luteal phase defect might be having eggs fertilize just fine within her yet they'll never implant properly and will die. A woman (particularly an older woman) whose eggs produce a zona pellucida too think for an embryo to escape may fertilize an egg and that egg will advance to an embryo and then die, trapped in a shell it can't escape. Older women have a higher chance of genetic abnormalities that will produce spontaneous miscarriages and there are a host of other problems that can cause women to naturally lose children before birth. These are the sorts of women who seek IVF, and they'll be losing just as many fertilized eggs if they keep trying naturally as they will with IVF. In fact, if they don't seek fertility treatments at all to find out why they can't bear children, they may lose dozens and dozens of fertilized eggs without even knowing it.

Now, what do you do with the remaining children, the siblings of the ONE that made it? They are put into suspended animation for life or used in baby parts research.

You either use them yourself or you donate them. For example, I know of one Christian woman who resorted to IVF because her husband was born with no vas differens. Oh, and by the way, there was no masturbation involved either, since his semen contained no sperm. They had to remove it from him with a needle. They have two children already and plan on giving every embryo that was created a chance to be born. That's how moral people deal with IVF, though plenty of people don't do that.

Nope, not the same. You can attempt to rationalize all you want.

Of course it's not exactly the same. A child who has had their cleft lip surgically repaired isn't exactly the same as a child who was born with a properly closed face but does that mean we should leave the child with the cleft lip because that was God's will?

Some couples can't have children for a variety of reasons. I'm sure the vast majority would prefer to have children the natural way, rather than spending tens of thousands of dollars, getting dozens of shots, and spending hours being probed and prodded by doctors. I'm also sure that they'd prefer it if they could ensure that every egg they fertilized would result in a perfect born baby. In some cases, they can't get pregnant because sperm can't reach egg (e.g., the example I gave above). In some cases, it's because every egg that is fertilized is lost (e.g., luteal phase defect). In some cases, it's because a woman can't ovulate. Do you also object to fertility drugs that help a woman ovulate who otherwise can't? What about hormonal treatments that help a woman overcome a luteal phase defect or problems that occur as progesterone production transfers from the woman to the placenta? What if the woman whose husband had no vas differens was simply artificially inseminated instead of resorting to IFV? Is the sin you see in IFV really because the risk of losing the fertilized egg is higher, because sex is removed from the equation, or because you object to people medically overcoming fertility problems?

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.