# Celebrity chef and wife contemplate IVF treatment



## Jane D (Apr 16, 2007)

Don't know if anyone saw it, but there was a piece in the Daily Mail last week (Friday I think) about a celebrity chef and his wife who has PCOS, hoping to go for a third child using IVF.  The article was a promo for next months Red magazine, where the wife opens her heart to the media.  

Whilst I admire their courage and honesty in discussing past and future fertility treatments, I think the fact that they are publicising their desperation for a son is a little disappointing.  Is gender so important?  I would understand it if they want 3 kids, they are entitled to want that.  What if they have IVF and they have a third girl?  Articles like these may even think you can gender select routinely, at whim with IVF !!!  

Many people crave just the one child regardless of gender. Those with one may want two but cannot have two without help, again they care not for the gender.  It undermines the value of his  delightful, healthy 2 daughters as he is in a round about way saying a son is more important.  God, I wish I had a second daughter, i would walk 300 miles to his bloody restaurant barefoot to have that!  

Sorry to go on, just the issue about preferred gender annoyed me. Lots of people don't have a son, lots of people have same gender kids.  He may have to wait for grandsons and should remember, it is the man's gametes who decide the gender, so remember nice loose fitting pants.


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

I have no problem with those wanting one sex or another, particularly if they already have 1 or more of one sex.  I think lots of bad things happen, if you don’t allow sex selection.

Years ago, one of my friends who was pregnant went to a hospital, that refused, at the 20 week scan, to tell her the sex of her child.  Why?  Because so many of the girl foetuses “miscarried” in the next few weeks.
I struggled for a while, trying to work out how those girl babies were lost, and came to the conclusion, that the pregnant women were going through late abortions.   If a society, does not value females, then putting women through 1,2 5…. late abortions is nothing.  And the only way to stop women’s suffering was to allow sex selection.

There was also the case of the family who had 4 boys, and then a girl.  Their 8 year old girl, had fallen onto a bonfire and died, they  wanted to have another girl.  I strongly suspect that boy 3, and boy 4 knew they were the “wrong” sex.

And if the parents only wanted 3 children, but then had 5 girls followed by a boy, there will be additional stresses on the parents, and inevitably the children, because they had so many extra children.  I am not saying big families are bad, only that having lots of children, to balance a family, is bad, if all you wanted was 2/3 children.

I just wonder how many other unpleasant things are happening.  These things are hidden from us, and therefore very difficult to define, let alone quantify.

More recently, the government’s Science and Technology Committee’s report, in March 2005, set me thinking in another direction.  The government’s Science and Technology Committees says in their conclusion page 175, point 3, that the government should only get involved in parental decisions, when, it can be clearly demonstrated, that harm would occur, if someone, didn’t get involved.
And if you look at the research, that shows the probable effects on society of allowing sex selection, nothing really horrible happens if you allow it.  So why is sex selection banned in the UK?  It doesn't make sense.

We have so many senseless restriction on infertility treatment in the UK, like why cant donors/recipients chose whether to do meet (completely open donation) or ignore each other (anonymous donation)?  These rules place, IMO, an intolerable burdens on the patients, and make it harder/more expensive for you to have a child.  The HFEA rules, add a huge amount of bureaucracy, to what clinics do, pushing up costs, and unnecessarily making the UK the most expensive place in Europe to do IVF.  And then there is the 103 pounds the HFEA charges you to “monitor” your cycle.  What’s that for?

I understand your desperate yearning for another child, but part of the reason, we have so many problems in the UK, is that there are so unnecessary many restrictions.  We have deregulated everything else, why not infertility treatment?  If you want to be able to chose how many embryos you transfer, 1, 2…right up to 5 for women over 40, if you want to chose the manner of your donation, anonymous/completely open, if you don’t want to comply with Welfare of The Child requirements, or anything else, then, IMO, you also have to allow sex selection.

When it comes to my reproductive choices, I want freedom.  I want to able to make my own decisions.  So it feels to me, to put it mildly, illogical to prevent others from making choices.  I may not agree with your choice of choosing the sex of your child, but I want to have freedom, over my reproductive choices, so why shouldn’t you?

So I am favour of lifting of all controls.  It is either that, or have the HFEA, make *ALL* my decisions!

Lorna


----------



## weeza82 (Dec 14, 2007)

Hi, 

I saw this article too but I took it completely different to you. I thought perhaps they had mused that a boy would be nice and that they recognised that IVF would be a possibility following her previous fertility Tx, but I don't think that they had made that connection of using IVF for gender selection. TBH, I thought the journalist had twisted the words to make it sound more sensationalist and considering it was the Daily Mail, it is not entirely implausable   . 

All in all I thought it just another biased view of infertility from the media which does nothing at all to help raise the awareness that we would prefer. 

Weeza


----------



## Suzie (Jan 22, 2004)

I have to disagree with a couple of your points Lorna. I don't think that all the restrictions on tx we have in the UK are senseless. I am not saying that I agree with them all but as with all things there needs to be some restrictions. As fertility treatment as with other things would be exposed to people not using it in the way it was intended.

I personally don't believe in sex selection just for want of a certain sex , I do believe in it for genetic/medical reasons. 
You make comments about having larger families than people intended to just to get a certain sex , well if the couple wanted 3 children and end up with more because they wanted either a boy or girl then thats their choice and they have to deal with the consequences of a larger family and for that I have no sympathy. 

There is so much more involved with sex selection and the reasonings behind it being or not being allowed. Once the restriction was lifted it would open up the gates for it to be severely mistreated by some people. 
I am a believer that IVF is there for people to achieve their long for families ( and I am sure that they do not care what sex of child they have) and not for people to disregard embryos if they aren't the sex they required! 
I may not agree with all the HFEA do but I do think there needs to be something of some sort to regulate fertility tx and if that has to be the HFEA then so be it.


----------



## Jane D (Apr 16, 2007)

I am grateful for you all posting your different takes on this story.  It gives it real balance, unlike the blasted newspapers!! Thanks to you all.  

Jane


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

> Once the restriction was lifted it would open up the gates for it to be severely
> mistreated by some people.

Suzie,

Whatever you do, you will end up with someone abusing the rules.  But, IMO, at the moment we have a system, that prevents many people, from doing some straight forward things, that should be really easy to do.  Like choosing whether to meet your donor/recipient or not.

By preventing donors and recipients from choosing their method of donation, we put off some donors, and so reduce the pool of available donors, and ultimately that affects the child.

So what we need to do, is balance the risks.  It is impossible to create a prefect system, just one that is better or worse.  And in the UK, when it comes to infertility, we use the precautionary principle, ie if someone believes something might cause problems, then they implement controls.  That someone doesn’t to have any proof, just a feeling.  And, IMO, that approach causes huge numbers of problems for the infertile, far more than if we just let patients get on with it.

What is worse, is that we don’t apply the precautionary principle to the rest of society.  50 years ago we did, but then it started crumbling away.  IMO we stopped applying the precautionary principle to most things, 20 years ago.  We deregulated just about everything else, but not infertility treatment.

Back in the 50’s, 60, and 70’s, the precautionary principle applied to many things.  You couldn’t do many of the things that we consider normal now.  The attitude was “What if let the general population do something.  They might get it wrong!  No much better, to apply rigorous controls.”

Up till the 80’s money was fairly tightly restricted.  Mum tells me stories of trying to buy a house in the 1950s.  Dad, just turned 30, with a very secure, well paying job, had to plead with the bank to be allowed to borrow money for a mortgage.  Imagine that happening now!
In the 1970’s my mum decided to apply for a credit card.  Mum was a housewife, and therefore considered unemployed, so even though dad acted as a guarantor, she had terrible trouble getting one.

We have deregulated the financial industry  Yes some people abuse the easy availability of money, and run up huge debts, but the vast majority of us, have benefited from being able to having access to easy credit.  In the 1950s, borrowing money was almost considered a sin, so you would not have been allowed to borrow any money, for anything as trivial, 1950s view point, as IVF.

Back in the 60s there were many restrictions, that prevented people from leaving the UK.  You couldn’t just hop on a ferry and travel at will to Europe.  That was considered far to irresponsible.  Tropical diseases were rare.  Fewer tourists, meant consulates, rarely saw anyone, with any problems.

Foreign travel has been deregulated.  Millions of people travel abroad every year, and have a great time.  Few come to harm, and we deal with those that do.

In the rest of society, we have thrown the precautionary principle to the wind.  Yes it does create problems, which we deal with, but it also has freed many people to live the kind of lives they need to, to chase their dreams, to be who they want to be.

IMO, we should either abolish the precautionary principle for laws that affect, or are perceived to affect women, or we should apply the same precautionary principle to all laws.  In which case we would ban easy credit, ban travel abroad, ban under 25s from driving cars, make sure alcohol is only sold in government shops, and only sold for a few hours a day, and so on.

Silly?  Why is there one rule for the infertile, and one rule for the rest of society?

Deregulation has brought many benefits for many people.  But it has caused problems for the less responsible elements of our society.

Should we tighten up all the rules, that affect every aspect of our lives, to protect those people?  Or should we deregulate, and live with consequences?

So what sort of rules would I like to see?

Firstly, I want laws based on 5 things.  I want:
1) rules based on papers published in peer reviewed internationally acclaimed journals.  Based on hard fact, not on anecdotal evidence.  I want people to stop implementing their feelings, what they believe is right, and find the scientific evidence that supports their position.
2) rules that users really need, not what people think we need.
3) rules that work, with the many vagaries of human nature.
4) rules that don’t discriminate.
5) and rules that allow users to make up their own minds on what to do.

And from point 1, if we look at the scientific evidence, sex selection should be allowed.

Secondly, I have been to the USA, where it feels to me, such rules have been sorta implemented, in a handful of states.  OK they could do with some updating, as new research has become available.

In the USA, where people are free to chose what sort of treatment they want, including sex selection, it is, IMO, very, very easy to do things.  In the USA, it is so easy to do the bog standard version of IVF.  If you go through a fresh cycle , and 3 days later only 3 embryos are dividing, in the US, you get to transfer all 3 embryos.  With just 3 embryos, you probably won’t get pregnant, never mind carry triplets.

And people are refreshingly open about treatment, whether that is straight IVF, donor conception, or surrogacy.  Complete strangers congratulate you on having a child, not look at you sideways for having a child through surrogacy.

Secondly, there is no regulator in the USA, and, IMO, things work just fine.  In the US, the supposed home of anything goes, they have incredibly strong laws governing infertility, and very, very clear laws.  The UK has a such a muddled set of laws, that even trained barristers have a hard time interpreting them.  Heaven help a patient who has a problem with their clinic, and wants to sue!

In the US, in states that have what you might consider, free and easy infertility laws, they have incredibility strong laws, protecting the unborn child.  I just wish UK laws were as good.  It is a disgrace they aren’t.

And incidentally, they also have very good laws protecting patients.

And if you have problems, then there are special courts, which fast track infertility cases, to sort things out.  And because the laws are so clear, it is not that difficult, to reach a binding verdict.

And just to comment on how badly we do at patient protection in the UK, in the USA, there are Federal laws (ie USA wide, valid in all 52 states) that prevent an employer from discriminating against someone who is doing IVF.  You can’t be fired, you can’t be demoted, and so on.  Lots of people on all infertility boards want those kind of laws, here.  And they just don’t exist in the UK.  Why not?  The US has had those laws for years.

And lastly, I haven’t yet worked out what the HFEA committee is for.  I have looked at sites for regulators, like OFWAT or OFCOM, and I can understand what they are trying to achieve.  But the HFEA isn’t a regulator like those, and I have no idea, what useful purpose the HFEA serves.  Maybe you could enlighten me.

So Suzie, I think people should be allowed to make their own decisions.  Yes some will mess up, but deregulation, is most likely to bring huge benefits to the vast majority of patients.

Lorna


----------



## emms (Feb 6, 2006)

Going back to the beginning of the story, I am presuming this is the article on the 'Olivers', i was under the impresion that they conceived their first two children with the help of clomid, but the article led you to believe that they had IVF. Do we know which it was?


----------



## verity c (Oct 23, 2006)

Hi,

Jules and jamie had a course of clomid and conceived poppy on their 3rd round and then daisy was a happy accident while jules was breast feeding. Yes i have read the book!! A few times actually!!

Luv V xx


----------

