# Women having abortions after being successful through IVF...



## Miranda7

Very dodgy article, by the... oh, hang on... can it possibly be the Daily Mail? Again?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1284384/IVF-babies-aborted-women-change-minds.html


----------



## joeyrella

i find it hard to believe the number of women doing this runs to 'dozens' a year, but why should women who've undergone IVF be any different to anyone else? i bet there are very few women who got pregnant the usual way who didn't realise babies were made by having sex.


----------



## Blu

_Aaaaahhhhhhh!! Note to self - never read the comments on a Daily Hate Mail article, just makes blood boil _     

I bet that of these 'dozens' of abortions, the majority would have been medical terminations and absolutely devastating for those involved.

Also the Daily Mail tends to include treatments like clomid in the term IVF when it suits them to boost numbers for a 'scandal'

_Aaahhh, must think about other things before brain explodes._


----------



## MillyBoo

Worse the Sunday times had it on its front page and managed to dig out 3 people who claimed to have had abortions after IVF treatment for non-medical reasons. They came up with a figure of 80 a year but stated that they did not have information on the reasons for the abortions and so were just speculating. I suspect it is only a tiny minority that were "change of heart" abortions. 

Makes me so angry that they talk about IVF as though it is a walk in the park

Milly x


----------



## roze

I speak from a bit of personal experience which I won't go into here but needless to say I am not shocked to read something like this. Personally I think the impact of continuous tx for years and years can affect people  in different ways. It probably is  a minority but I am convinced that it may be a sizeable one. I'm not therefore surprised that some women choose this path nor am I surprised to see this article shocking although it is.  It may not make sense to some but I think the impact of infertility and continous tx on mental health and mental balance is underestimated. People may try for children long after their relationship is over or is in decline. They may also have changed their minds about having children at all but were unable to realise that and get off that rollercoaster. External events such as illness, major upheavals in their lives, redundancies and lack of confidence about providing for children can also have an impact. I don't think its selfish, its just that life can work in odd ways.

I remember going for my first IVF in this country and having to sign a form saying that I understood that one of the potential outcomes of IVF was pregnancy. I found this funny at first but then after discussing it with the medical staff appreciated that many people found it a real shock to be successful. As in natural pregnancies, the realisation that one is having a baby can cause a number of reactions.

I do hope there is more research into the long term effects of fertility treatment psychologically as I think its a minefield. I also think that many of those women who do termintate ivf pregnancies may not be 100% psychologically healthy or doing it for rational reasons. I suspect that many really really regret it every day of their lives.


roze


----------



## JW3

There is also an article about this on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10254133.stm

States the figures include those for medical reasons and selective reduction of multiple pregnancy.

It must be extremely distressing to have to terminate a baby due to medical reasons or selective reduction after having IVF.


----------



## ☼♥ Minxy ♥☼ ©

I think there is alot more to this....the Daily Hate's is renowned as writing very anti-IVF articles and I kick myself everytime I'm drawn into reading one.

I mean.....where exactly are they getting these "facts" (I use the term loosely!). "*Many are in their teens*, twenties and early thirties, *implying* that numerous abortions were carried out for social reasons, rather than on health grounds" That very first part of the sentence says it all about this article for me......what teens are having IVF ? Where are they getting this information from that teens are having IVF and then aborting ? It's my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) but the minimum age for IVF is 23 on NHS and private, although in exceptional circumstances this may be lowered on a case by case basis....and they use the word "implying" meaning they don't know for sure, they're just grabbing "facts" and "figures" out of the air and making 2+2 = 5 

Whilst I'm not disputing that I'm sure there are some women who do go through IVF only to then abort, I would personally say that the majority of those were due to some heartbreaking decision because of medical health of the child, the mother or multiple pg reduction.....I honestly can't believe that the majority of women who've successfully conceived through IVF would then choose to abort.

I really wish that this newspaper would one day get it's facts right and put together a well thought out and non judgemental article when it comes to IVF.....

N xx


----------



## catfan

the daily mail is incredibly anti-abortion. there is no logic to this. if you believe people have the right to choose termination (which i and the majority in this country do) then the argument rests on the fact that they do not want that baby and why should they be forced to have a baby they don't want? therefore why should it amke a difference whether they have had ivf or not the judgement of others should be irrelvant. plus as roze says, people who have ivf are humans who could be in bad relationships, have mental helath problems, have been swept along with the process of infertility, been presurrised etc etc. the daily mail don't have the guts to publish endless articles saying that they simply want massive restrictions or a complete ban on the right to abortion so they publish this emotive nonsense instead. people who have had ivf don't have to have a specially 'good' reason (ie a medical reason) to have a termination because if you no longer wish to be pregnant for any reason then that is your business-only you can know how you feel about pregnancy, no-one else.


----------



## Lorna

My reaction on reading this article was who produced this report, and why. I got the why. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is going for its second reading in the House of Lords.

There are a group of people who talk incessantly about "the sanctity of life", who genuinely believe that the freshly fertilised egg, the dividing embryo and the eight cell embryo, has more right to life than a living, breathing human being, ie the woman who will carry that child. As this bill intends to promote the rights of the freshly fertilised egg, the dividing embryo, and the foetus up to 24 weeks, over the rights of born, men, women, and children, it seems to me, that the supporters of the bill have produced a negative IVF story to sway the undecideds to their side. Perhaps these people are scared they will lose, if they don't do something drastic.

Anyway getting back to the story, I was thinking about the figure of 80 terminations. I notice all the articles use the more emotive term - abortion, not the lesser word termination. Never, ever underestimate the power of a well chosen word, when you are trying to win an argument.

The figure I usually use for the number of couples going through infertility treatment every year is 27,000. You may have a more accurate figure. One of the articles states, that 50% of people undergoing IVF will get pregnant. I am going to use a lower figure of around 30%, and say 8000 couples achieve a pregnancy. So 80 couples terminating a pregnancy would mean that less than 1% of infertile couples terminate a pregnancy. How does that compare with fully fertile couples, terminating pregnancies for disabilities? Don't know the answer to that one.

The other point about IVF pregnancies, is that some of the treatments for male factor infertility *do* have high rates of foetal abnormality. If there were more donors, then men would not be forced to undergo some physically painful, and potentially disabling treatments, and it is those treatments, that have a high risk of creating a pregnancy, where it will be found, at the 18 week scan, that there is a severe foetal abnormality, incompatible with life. But many people oppose fair compensation for donors. Everyone uses the prerogative term "payment", but that is another discussion.

More donors would mean less terminations.

Lets talk about social reasons for terminating a pregnancy. Well IVF is expensive, emotionally exhausting, and so on. I do see posters on BBs like this saying they have borrowed money to fund their treatment. If you are thousands of pounds in debt, your relationship has collapsed, you are in the middle of a messy divorce, and your job is insecure, what would you chose to do? Only someone going through that can answer that question? And if a woman continued with the pregnancy, and ended up being supported by the state, what is the probability, that these same people who are pushing for tougher abortion laws, would be screaming "Welfare Mum!"

If there was more funding for IVF on the NHS, maybe people would not run up such huge debts, and so would not feel the need to terminate a pregnancy when their life falls apart.

I have, in the past, noticed that those who shout about the freshly fertilised egg, the dividing embryo, and the foetus up to 24 weeks, never seem to put their hands in their pocket, and opt for increase in IVF funding, subsidised state funded child care, and so on.

I also find it interesting that the HFEA is collecting statistics on abortions carried out after IVF, but when setting the policy on SET, they presented a whole load of stats that showed that multiple pregnancies had more complications than singleton pregnancies. When asked whether these stats were for all multiple pregnancies or just for IVF pregnancies, they admitted they didn't have any data on IVF pregnancies, so they had to use data for all pregnancies, even ones where a very sick woman, had conceived naturally. Humm!

Quite frankly, I can't see what business it is of the HFEA when a women/couple chose a termination after getting pregnant through IVF. Can someone show me the piece of legislation that says that they should be collecting these statistics. Your 100 pound "supervision" fee for IVF, or your 50 pound FET fee is being used to collect these statistics. How do you, as the patient who pays for this data, feel?

And if they shouldn't be collecting this data, isn't it an abuse of public funds, and now when the government is introducing austerity measures, maybe it is time to abolish a committee that wastes public money in this way.

Directly or indirectly patients fund a significant proportion of the HFEA costs, and that money is being used to collect data on abortions after IVF. Why isn't patients' money being used to collect data on the number of women admitted to hospital with OHSS, or on the number of men or women who become disabled through IVF, or on the deaths of women as a result of IVF and so on. I think those stats are far more relevant, but it is so telling that the HFEA only collects stats on unborn, newborns and babies. I might be left thinking that the HFEA committee is stuffed full of people who think the unborn child (the freshly fertilised egg, the dividing embryo, and the foetus up to 24 weeks) has greater importance than the woman who carries the child, the man who fathered the child, or the siblings with whom that potential child will grow up with!

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is intended to tighten up what you can do with the freshly fertilised egg, the dividing embryo, and the foetus up to 24 weeks, and will probably make IVF harder to do. When I went to the USA for treatment, I was amazed at just how easy infertility treatment was. Straight IVF included. And the quality of care, and service was stunningly good. It seems to me that the less restrictions, there are on corner cases, for instance creating saviour children, the less restrictions there are on doing the regular things the infertile need, like doing IVF using eggs from mum and sperm from dad. No, I don't like some of the things some people want to do with eggs, sperm, and embryos, but because in the UK, we don't allow these things to happen, we also stop the things that should be happening, like letting donors chose how they donate - anonymously or openly.

I could just go on and on about this article. It seems to me that it is unduly slanted towards those who think the freshly fertilised egg, the dividing embryo, and the foetus up to 24 weeks, need to be protected at all costs, and those who think IVF is wrong. But then maybe that is just my reading of that article.



roze said:


> I do hope there is more research into the long term effects of fertility treatment psychologically as I think its a minefield. I also think that many of those women who do termintate ivf pregnancies may not be 100% psychologically healthy or doing it for rational reasons. I suspect that many really really regret it every day of their lives.


As to studies - there are two I would like to see. The first is, I would like someone to take a large number of couples starting out on the road of trying for a child. Divide them into two groups - the fully fertile, and the infertile. I suspect some of the fully fertile, would find themselves in the infertile category by the end of the study, and vice versa, but that is why you need large numbers of couples, so the ones that swap category, are statically insignificant. I want someone to look at the quality of lives of the fully fertile versus those going through infertility treatment. It is not just about the emotional health, but about financial health, the ability to plan your future, the way people live their lives, and so on. A zillion and one things that make up the "life of a family"

The second study I would like to see, is the long term effects on women/couples/families going through 8 or more cycles of IVF. Things like SET, are increasing the number of cycles women must do in order to achieve that much wanted child, so I want to know that IVF is "safe" for women who are exposed to high doses of female hormones again and again and again. Some couples will eventually achieve their dream of having a child and others wont. Is there any difference?

I don't see either of these studies happening, because they are too expensive. It is cheap, and easy to study unborn children / newborns, as these babies turn up at the hospital for antenatal or well baby checks. Women / couples / families change jobs, move, and generally don't stay still, and so are harder to track. It costs more to monitor these groups. Also long term studies of 20/30 years, do cost huge sums of money. So if a researcher gets the same credit for doing a study on unborn children, as for doing a study on families, and it is easier to find funding for studies on unborn children, and quicker to do that study, which sort of study do think a researcher will opt for? One on unborn children, or one on families? It might explain why there is a wealth of data on children in the womb, newborns, and babies, and a dearth of data on women / couples / families.

Lorna


----------



## Be Lucky

Looking at this article must declare i am a catholic who hav much tgt and money had 3 failed ivfs then conceived naturally.whilst 1st shockin perhaps ppl dont realise ther is the implication of havin a pregnancy at end of ivf which can seem quite unreal at time of treatment.usually u hav sum time 2 think bout outcomes if tryin naturally.this was discussed on wright stuff other day.woman panellist felt they should hav pyscotherapy and matthew felt perhaps issue if ivf nhs funded.but u could say that bout ppl who smoke and drink.agree with u roze women may regret it.bernie


----------



## Nikki2008

My waters broke early at 19 weeks 5 days and was advised by hospital doctor (in an abrupt and uncaring manner) that I need to terminate the pregnancy as baby had no chance of survival and to avoid risk of infection. As it happens I decided to let nature take its course mainly because I was hoping for a miracle. My son Adam was stillborn two days later, exactly the same result as if I had chosen a termination only more risky. 
Point is if I had chosen to terminate as advised I would have appeared in those statistics. So not a social reason at all. Premature rupture of the membrane while more common in older women can happen at any age. Same with genetic abnormalities, so to conclude that younger woman who had terminations must have done so for social reasons is just nonsense.
Just for the record I would not judge a woman who did chose to have a termination for social reasons whether IVF pregnancy or not.


----------



## Be Lucky

I am sorry for ur loss nikki.i found the treatment of sum staff at early preg unit like that when i had a mc 5yrs ago.they treat u like a number not a person.berniex


----------



## ♥JJ1♥

Nikki so sorry for your loss.  I also know 2 ladies not FFers, who had terminations after IVF for chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with life, both were worried the baby was suffering, fortunately both ladies have gone onto to have more IVF and have healthy babies. Neither took their decision lightly, but they would have appeared in such stats as 'a choice'.  Typical of the Daily Mail to swing this just as they want!

L x


----------



## bunny73

I just have to say, I cant believ that sum1 who had comented thinks that working with children or babysitting wil make u overcome ur desire to have ur own children/family!!!! I mean what the hell?? I work with babies every day and do alot of baby sitting, it doesnt make me want my own any less!! in fact it just reminds me if how much i do want my own child that i can love and share with my DH and family!!
Rant over!!
Bunny xx


----------



## Trix100

Nikki - I just want to say how sorry I am for your loss and so happy to see you now have your little man.  I am often baffled by the Daily Mail, they really seem to have it in for people who have IVF or any form of infertility treatment.  xxxx


----------



## Charlies-Mum

Daily Mail article - Nuff said


----------



## Hopeful J

@sshole......it makes me sick to my stomach that i may be 'used' to boost their stupid, crappy, pig-ignorant statistics.

I'm going to go buy a copy of the paper just to burn it out of principle  (if you dont laugh you'll cry, right?)

[email protected]

sorry for the language

x


----------



## Nikki2008

Please do not buy that newspaper even to burn it!


----------



## Hopeful J

lol you're right.......i'll steal one!!!   

x


----------



## Nikki2008

I normally don't condone criminal behaviour however on this occasion...


----------



## Tina xx

Niki, I'm so sorry for your loss hun       

I wish that the stupid paper would go bankrupt so they can't publish any more crap!!! Or failing that, get a decent editor that won't allow it to happen any more. Stupid, stupid, stupid paper and stupid, stupid ignorant muppets that write that crap!!


----------



## Fraggles

I think this was also in Grazia


----------



## Mudpuffin

just general daily mail rant!  I get so worked up at some of the thoughtless comments put on the daily mail website have even cried on occasions.  according to those lovely people i am one of the me me me people obviously very selfishly want my own child.  This is always written by somewhere who has easily had children and have no comprehension of the longing for a child.

have decided to avoid all things daily mail during 2ww!


----------

