The newest article on infertility

by DaCheech 20 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Iforget
    Iforget

    It is insulting at the highest level to me. I am in the throes of this so I suppose I am biased. They have no clue as to what they speak. Science is an ever changing thing and what was not even considered possible 10 yrs ago is now the norm with infertility. It's a process that changes daily.

    They can f**k off as far as I am concerned. Until they want to educate themselves or stand in my shoes.

    I am no longer considering my sister. I am too afraid she wouldn't be able to let go and try and witness to my child.

    It's heartbreaking and the WTS has no idea however I am not longer being controlled by them. I could SCREAM reading that article because members will take it to heart and preach about what they do not know. Hell even the Catholic church doesn't have a problem with it.

  • DaCheech
    DaCheech

    We let doctors touch us in every place possible to fix us. (women go to male obgyn!)

    Then why is artificial insemination "adultery"?

    A man donated his semen in the hands of the doctos, the doctor takes a siringe and pushes the semen into the womans body!

    Non intercourse needed!

  • Scully
    Scully

    The WTS's arguments on artificial insemination being the equivalent of adultery got to me too.

    I actually asked an elder one time: You need sperm to fertilize an ovum, right?

    He said: Yes, of course. That's how Jehovah designed us.

    Me: OK, then, tell me this - whose sperm fertilized Mary's ovum that became Jesus?

    Elder: Well, Jehovah transferred Jesus' life force....

    Me: So Jehovah is responsible for Jesus' birth, even though Mary was already betrothed to Joseph. Doesn't that make Jehovah an adulterer, if you apply the same logic to Jesus' birth as you do to artificial insemination?

    Elder: Well, Jehovah can do whatever he wants, really, can't he... he's GOD after all.

    I wonder if the WTS is discouraging infertility treatments mainly because they know how much couples can spend on them, and is thinking that they're losing out on some whopping donations.

    The WTS couldn't care less if a couple actually wants a family. All they care about is their cash flow.

    Love, Scully

  • dh
    dh

    i'm surprised they don't say 'infertility is a blessing from jehovah, and a sign that you should be doing more', that's what i would write if i was one of those psychos in the writing department.

  • DaCheech
    DaCheech

    Quote: Awake September 22, 2004

    Page 5: What are the risks "Human error", "Multiple births", "Birth defects", "mothers' health"

    Page 4: "a 45-year-old woman who has gone through seven cycles of IVF can easily spend $100,000 on treatment"

  • Scully
    Scully
    Page 4: "a 45-year-old woman who has gone through seven cycles of IVF can easily spend $100,000 on treatment"

    I don't know where they are getting their statistics from, but working in Maternal-Newborn Care, I can safely say that NONE of the infertility specialists (physicians) I know would consider a 45-year-old woman an appropriate candidate for IVF. The failure rate is so high once you pass that 40 year mark, that it makes it cost prohibitive to even consider IVF, for both the couple and "The System".

    By the same token, it doesn't surprise me in the least that the WTS is using these idiotic statistics to dissuade ALL infertile JW couples from considering IVF. They take extreme numbers like these and the inclination of an infertile younger couple would be "oh my gawd, we could never afford that on my window cleaning wages, we better look at alternatives like pioneering instead." These people have not learned the skill of critical thinking to look objectively at the statistics the WTS has used and realize that they are using unrealistic numbers in order to persuade people away from an option that may well be viable for them.

    Here's a current article from Medscape.com (you need to be a registered member to access the site) on the topic of age and IVF success rates:

    Ask the Experts about Infertility/Assisted Reproduction Technology from Medscape Ob/Gyn & Women's Health
    alt Age and In Vitro Fertilization altQuestion
    I have a 45-year-old patient who is considering having a baby. She is a G3P3. What are the latest statistics? She specifically wants to know what are her chances of conceiving at this age and if she does conceive, what are the chances of having a genetically healthy pregnancy outcome.

    alt Response from Peter Kovacs, MD
    Research and Scientific Coordinator, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest, Hungary; Visiting Clinical Instructor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY
    alt There are numerous factors that affect a woman's chance to conceive. The most important factor is probably age. The ideal age range for successful pregnancy is between 20 and 30 years. Several studies have shown that fecundity declines with age, and a reduction in the monthly fecundity can be observed as early as age 30. There is some further acceleration of the rate of declining fecundity after the age of 35. For women 40 years and older, however, the chance to conceive is reduced by 50% with each additional year, and by the mid-40s it approaches zero. [1]
    This decline is mainly attributable to oocyte factors. With advanced age, there is an increased rate of meiotic errors that will result in abnormal oocytes. These eggs will not fertilize; if they do, the majority of the embryos will fail to implant. Most of the embryos that do implant despite the genetic defect will be lost during the first few weeks of pregnancy. Preimplantation genetic studies have shown that for all women a large proportion of embryos are genetically abnormal. Although the rate is "only" around 30% among younger women, it is as high as 80% to 85% among women older than 40. The risk of trisomy 21 among women 45 years and older is 1:10 if chorionic villus sampling results are evaluated 1:20 if amniocentesis results are evaluated, and 1:40 at birth. Spontaneous abortion rates are significantly higher (about 40%) in the older age group. This high rate of genetic errors is one of the reasons why in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles have poor outcomes among older women.
    There are other reasons as well. At birth, about 2 million primordial follicles in the ovaries exist, but their number steadily declines with age When no more follicles can be recruited during ovulation, women enter menopause. The change from being reproductively active to menopausal is not abrupt and occurs over several years. During the perimenopausal transition, it becomes increasingly difficult to recruit follicles, and in some cycles it just does not happen. With respect to assisted reproductive technologies (ART), ovarian resistance to stimulation can occur during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in perimenopausal women Despite the high doses of exogenous gonadotropins, few follicles can be induced to grow, and few eggs will be retrieved so that very often appropriate embryo selection and the transfer of morphologically good-quality embryos cannot occur.

    The net effect of these factors will influence IVF outcome. In most countries, outcome is not required to be reported for women 42 years and older. On the basis of available reports and on the experience of infertility specialists, it is rather rare for a 43- or 44-year-old to conceive, and the situation is even worse for a 45-year-old. Even if her ovarian reserve testing yields good results and she successfully completes IVF treatment, her chances of conception will not be higher than 1% to 2% She would also face the increased risk of spontaneous abortion. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine reported a 7.1% delivery rate per initiated ART cycle among women 41 years and older on the basis of 1997 data. One would have to believe that most of these pregnancies occurred among the 41- and 42-year-old women. The rate of pregnancy loss was 41.6% in this age group. [2] More recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a 6% live birth rate for women 42 years of age and older undergoing ART whether or not they had had previous ART or a previous birth. [3] If there is no medical or other contraindication, an older woman is a good candidate for donor eggs, ; and her chances of successful pregnancy would be similar to that for a younger woman. [4]

    IVF with donor eggs would be the best solution for the patient described in the question. If a donor oocyte is not acceptable to her, ovarian reserve should be evaluated, and if the testing reveals normal function, she could attempt a cycle of IVF. She needs to be informed about expected poor outcome, however, before the stimulation protocol is initiated.

    Posted 03/25/2004


    References
    1. Pal L, Santoro N. Age-related decline in fertility. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2003;32:669-688. Abstract
    2. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1997 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:641-653. Abstract
    3. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2003;52:1-16. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5209a1.htm Accessed March 18, 2004.
    4. Toner JP, Grainger DA, Frazier LM. Clinical outcomes among recipients of donated eggs: an analysis of the U.S. national experience, 1996-1998. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:1038-1045. Abstract
  • DaCheech
    DaCheech

    So, as usual the WT society is guilty of irresponsible journalism.

    Bring out extremes, to make "their" point!

    Even if they are quoting someone, it is either out of context or they quote the 1 out of 1000 that agrees with their point!

    I don't even read the Awake, and the WT I read during the study. When I saw the headline of this article I just had to put things in check!

    dacheech, aka Society hating MS

  • Iforget
    Iforget

    Well I have to admit we are close to 100k at this point with 4 IVF's and 6 IUI's. We have great insurance so we have not been out of pocket much. There are currently 4 states that require insurance companies to pay for infertility treatments.

    They are off the mark on amounts because 7 IVF's would be hugely expensive even with insurance. Well over 100k. Also...one would have to have a doctor that was not credible. RE's who are worth a damn would never ever do 7 IVF's on a woman over 42. They told us at our beginning appointments that donor eggs were our best bets at age 35.

    I am in my late 30's and there are so many midagating factors to infertility that to label even two women the same is too many. Again I digress...I know too much. What works for one doesn't work for another. It is one of the most painful things I have ever had to go thru emotionally. Maybe they are jealous now that it's not helpful elders making my life a living hell. It also requires one to read and be knowledgable. It also requires a lot of me physically. They would argue that would/should be time spent in service.

    They can kiss my ass.

  • Balsam
    Balsam

    The WTS seems to think they have far more expertise in just about everything. 99% of the nonsense they spout is just silly and ignorant. They still don't want their followers to have children. They want the rank and file to just dedicate themselves to preaching and placing literature. I know back in the late 70's none of the young couples listened to them. There was babies being born right and left after 1975. I am sorry for your not getting pregnant, is a terrible pain I am sure. I've never experienced that but did have children in my 30's after some 10 years of thinking my ex-husband and I couldn't have kids. Then we had 3 of them after he stopped the hot baths. That was in the 80's.

    I remember back in the 70's there were articles by the WTS about infertility, of course discouraging artifical semination with donor sperm. Secular law and secular thought is so much more kind and considerate of people's needs than religion has ever been. Good for you standing up to you JW parent when they wanted you to read their baloney. The literature of JW hold little value in every day life.

    Good Luck in all your heart desires,

    Balsam

  • Momofmany
    Momofmany

    I can't find my copy right now, but isn't that the one that has the word Preembryo? Of course I had to do a bit of research on this, because if they are trying to educate, they would use the words that are used by medical staff. Well I found this:

    (4) The term "preembryo" is not an accepted term and serves as a false distinction between the developmental stages of a human embryoDavis v Davis v King, Seven Frozen Embryos

    So of course I talked with my Mother about this, to which she replied, well they are making it a new word. Things develop and change. People will now use this word because the society said it's ok. I'm like WTF? You can't make up words as you like.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit