Minutes in the mind of a Fertility Doctor

I have recently been studying the various barriers that can block the way for women and men in our society to receive assistance on becoming pregnant. Throughout the US and the world, people are being denied fertility treatment based on marital status, sexual orientation, ability to pay, and other discriminatory factors. In late 2005 and early 2006, legislation in Indiana and Virginia prohibited providers from offering any conception procedure to an unmarried woman (Schneider, Assisted Reproduction Bill Dropped, Indianapolis Star, Oct. 6, 2005). The politically correct knee jerk reaction is to be offended by these realities: how is this happening in our society-- we are all supposed to be treated equally! Even though I know I should be whole-heartedly behind that train of thought, I am not. Truthfully, I am slightly against the thought of an unmarried couple wanting to have fertility treatment. If I were the fertility doctor posed with the case, you bet that in the back of my mind I would be saying, "Most likely, this relationship is not going to last. Especially after the emotionally trying times of fertility treatment. If this woman gets pregnant with my help, I will aided bringing a child into a most likely single-parent home."THAT would be the first knee jerk reaction for me; the 'equal rights for all'/'don't judge' notion would follow.
But then it dawned on me to compare this to natural conception. There are children born every second to homes that many would not approve of, or think that it is an 'optimal' setting. Yet, no one has the right to tell them that they cannot procreate, or dare to think that they shouldn't have been born. Heck, we can believe all we want that it's not great that kids are born to families of criminals, prostitutes, drug dealers, or even to 16-year-olds-- yet it happens and the public doesn't think its morally wrong not to have any say. Why in the situation of fertility treatments I would mentally determine the couple's 'eligibility' to have children? Talk about double standards.

Dr. McIntosh 1/26/12

The science behind reproductive technologies continues to astound me. Recently I have been focusing on the more social and ethical aspects of reproductive medicine, without fully understanding the science techniques that are making it all possible. Though some of it was still a little above my head, I understood how many different variations there could be on a procedure to become pregnant. Clomiphene citrate, Gonadotropins, GnRH Pumps, Interuterine Insemination IUI, and many more-- all give a viable way for reproduction.  

One technique started making me think of the ethical aspects that I have been researching. The ICSI (Intra Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection) technique literally forces the sperm into the egg via a needle. Is this crossing an ethical line? Instead of allowing the most able sperm to "win" entrance into the egg for fertilization, a possible sign of sperm strength, there is a deliberate join. Would a couple trying for pregnancy even think of what the procedure actually is, or would they just see it as a successful option for becoming pregnant? I would hope that many couples would think of the ethical implications each option gives, but then again, if I was in their place I would probably view the prospect of a successful pregnancy much higher in importance than chancing it on other less successful reproductive techniques. 

Anticipating Dr. McIntosh's Talk

I believe that I have heard Dr. Robert McIntosh talk once before in an event held last semester. It was actually a discussion hosted by the pre-medical society of Davidson, interestingly named almost exactly after this class. He brought of a multitude of questions that I am continuing to delve into concerning reproductive medicine. His knowledge of the laws and practices of these technologies astound me, and encouraged me to learn as much as I can on this subject that is very touchy, yet pivotal to our existence as human beings.
In his past talk, he mentioned facts about surrogate motherhood, the laws behind IVF, stories of abortions and treatments, unbelievable ethical situations, and much more talk that had me questioning what I believed. I guess that is why I have already probably been the only one to have a few posts on subjects that I have found interesting. Why am I so interested in this? The only connections I can clearly draw are a) my brother was basically a miracle child, and b) my mom works at Birthchoice as an ultrasound technician.

Now about the class in general-- I am so thrilled that I can't even explain myself. This is the first time BY FAR that I have gone out of my way to do (quite intense) research outside of class, have hour-long conversations with my friends about the articles and books that I have read, and been reading online journals about reproductive medicine while eating my oatmeal in the morning. It's really awesome how I can email and call my mom to discuss the topics I find astounding and ridiculous, and hear her perspective on them, religiously and medically.

I'm excited to find out what semester holds!!

"Reducing" Twins

Since Group 3 is to study how societal pressures impact our use of reproductive technology, I found it very interesting to learn more about twin 'reduction', and even more fascinating to understand the viewpoint of those who are pro-choice on this subject. In Jennifer Fulwiler's August article What Pro-Choice Intellectual Honesty Looks Like, there are opinions on twin reductions from pro-choice individuals who are struggling to determine whether or not they believe this is moral or not. It is unusual how they have no trouble with killing one fetus, but they don't necessarily agree with twin reduction. The way I see it, killing is killing. Is not creating a child a miracle in itself, regardless of whether it was done artificially or naturally?
Apparently, parents choose this option largely based on economical reasons of supporting two children instead of the anticipated one. They thought that they could afford one child, but two would be way too much stress on them and their pocketbooks. My question is: if they were willing to spend between $12,000-$15,000 for one session of IVF, shouldn't they have been so incredibly dedicated to having the chance to have a child that they would be even more overjoyed to be blessed with two, regardless the financial cost?

"Good" and "Bad" Websites

For a well formatted website, I would choose Comixed.com. Though commonly used by high-schoolers and those looking for a quick joke, it exemplifies aspects of a "good" website. Because it covers such a wide area of comics, the key to this website is organization. Along the top navigation bar lies many tabs and toolbars, which prove very useful when browsing the various comics on the site. For those who know what they are looking for, the right hand navigation bar provides particular content areas that narrow the user's search even more. The search bar and the log-in area are easily accessible, the ladder making it more likely for users to become members. My only complaint would be the placement of advertisements on the web page. They significantly hinder the usability of the page, making navigation a hassle.
An unformatted website, though addictive, is Pinterest. This site has become my latest obsession, and is quickly spreading to women all over the US. The idea of the website is simple, thus the page is simple: pictures that lead to links-- little to no format required. It is equipped with 4 drop down menus and a search bar. Because this page is so simple, it leaves the focus on the endless stream of pictures flowing down the page. Although this is not technically "unformatted", it is surely very minimally formatted, thus may seem to be hard to navigate for some. I end up using the search bar for almost everything I am looking for. But BEWARE: if you are a female about to enter Pinterest for the first time, make sure you are prepared to be hooked!!!

New York Times article regarding the LGBTQ community
Another question about access to reproductive medicine-- to people of all sexual orientation? Should one couple be chosen to have IVF over another same-sex couple?

Jose van Dyck's "Manufacturing Babies and Public Consent"

Yes, I became a little over-ambitious with this class and decided to look up all E.H. Little had to offer concerning reproductive medicine. Foraging through the stacks in the library I finally discovered the nook of books that pertained to our particular field of study: the ethics behind it all. I checked out three of the books, but have only looked at a chapter in Manufacturing Babies and Public Consent by Jose van Dyck. A chapter labeled "From Legalization to Legislation: Race and Age as Determining Factors" caught my eye particularly for information for the next in-class discussion.

It described three instances in the mid 1990's that sparked new thought on who has the right to IVF. Firstly, a 63 year old woman who was denied in Britain, but underwent IVF in Italy and later had a set of twins. Secondly, a black woman in Britain who underwent IVF with a white fetus because the bank was very low on eggs. Thirdly, in extenuating circumstances, eggs from aborted feotuses that are extracted and used to help infertile women become pregnant. 

Holy Cow!!! I was so flabbergasted by these conundrums that I finished off another two chapters in this book, later overflowing in conversation to my roommate. 

Using eggs from aborted fetus'? Isn't that kinda gross? Well, it is a baby after all; a human being... but still, who would want that? Someone who is desperate? Isn't everyone who has IVF desperate? But how desperate to be willing to take eggs from an aborted fetus? 

Wow. This will be one great book.