BC Sextuplets....

[ZipaDeeDooDah]

I'm going to disagree with this statement. Even with strict guidelines, extremely premature infants rarely avoid blood transfusion. Some hospitals are better than others, but if we are talking 500 gram babies, there is no way they are going to avoid blood transfusions. What is missing from this story is exactly how premature these infants were.

The babies were almost 3 months premature.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I would have thought so too, although we don't know for sure that the woman had IVF - the family has chosen to remain anonymous and no one will confirm that IVF was involved. (Although it is highly likely).

It is possible she just took one of the fertility drugs...The Dilley couple did that. The drug escapes me...I think it was a shot maybe. But they had sextuplets without IVF.

 

[RachelEllen]

The babies were almost 3 months premature.

Then if they were well grown, they'd be about a kilo. Odds are with that many babies they are smaller than average.

 

[Nennie]

Most high order multiples are the result of drugs only or drugs with an IUI (i.e. follistim, Gonal F, etc), not IVF. If this couple concieved with the use of drugs, then they would have been closely monitored. I think it was irresponsible on the part of the doctor to allow conception to occur with that many follicles.

As for the various churches view on whether IUI and IVF are permitted, I think that in most instances religious officials don't have all of the facts when they rule that such practices are immoral, etc.

It's disheartening when a situation such as this arises, which gives the church, naysayers, etc, another reason to put down ART. My hear goes out to these poor little babies, and I hope that they can be properly treated and their lives saved.

 

[MrsKreamer]

Just a reminder to people to donate blood. If you're able, please do so. This just shows that donating blood DOES save a life.

lol, because of this post I had a dream about donating blood!

 

[damo]

Then if they were well grown, they'd be about a kilo. Odds are with that many babies they are smaller than average.

The babies were born at 25 weeks and were all around 750 grams.

Here is an article that outlines what happened and Canadian policy a little better.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...131/sextups_seized_070201/20070201?hub=Canada

 

[ZipaDeeDooDah]

The babies were born at 25 weeks and were all around 750 grams.

So just over 1.5 pounds each.

 

[ZipaDeeDooDah]

It's disheartening when a situation such as this arises, which gives the church, naysayers, etc, another reason to put down ART.

Nennie, please excuse my ignorance - but what is ART?

 

[Mono~rail]

It is my understanding that Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because blood is life and it is sacred. They also mention that incurable diseases can live in blood, therefore, putting those who receive blood transfusions at risk for contracting an incurable bloodborn disease.

My twins were born at 30 weeks, and they received multiple transfusions each. They probably had approx. 10 between the two of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood

http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness5.htm

http://www.ajwrb.org/

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/Blood-Transfusions.htm

 

[Nennie]

Nennie, please excuse my ignorance - but what is ART?

Whoops! ART stands for Assisted Reproductive Technology. I'm so used to posting on my IVF message board, that I forgot where I was posting, and through in some infertility "lingo"! LOL!!

 

[brasswillow]

I fully believe God can heal anyone, but sometimes that healing involves doctors. I think it's so sad that these children will never grow up because of the decisions of others.

 

[autumnbaby9]

I fully believe God can heal anyone, but sometimes that healing involves doctors.

ITA

I feel God gave us the ability to heal ourselves and we need to thank him for it.

 

[helenabear]

I've never heard the reason for opposition to IVF in bold before. It's interesting, because if those numbers are correct, they actually are better than nature does. I think it's estimated that up to 50% of fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus, so for every pregnancy (meaning implantation of a blastocyte) that occurs, there is one death of a blastocyte. So the clinic would actually be losing less life than nature does. (Interestingly, there was a philosopher who published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics recently who looks to the facts about the high rate of death of fertilized eggs to make an argument that, from the perspective of preventing the death of fertilized eggs, NFP is a much inferior method to other birth control methods. He, does, though rely on some controversial assumptions about embyronic death which haven't been established scientifically. The link is here:

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355. Ironically, a similar argument would seem to run in favor of IVF over natural conception based on these numbers.)

I am not 100% sure if those numbers I gave you were 100% accurate or not. The 70% given was what a friend was told by her clinic she is going to. However, if you implant 2 or sometimes even three, you are usually only going to get a singleton birth. So right off the bat, you are doing just as good as nature and when you do the 70% success rate, you are still batting worse than nature. Of course this would be just the idea of nature vs IVF, but I do not think IVF is near as good as nature. Of course you are usually also dealing with women who have other infertility issues (hormones and hte like) so that may bring it down as well. Interesting idea though... especially if on a "healthy woman" the IVF would probably be better.

I think the widespread realization that the pill changes uterine lining must have been rather recent because through years of Catholic school and church as a child, the pill was lumped together with condoms in the "birth control" category while abortion had it's own category. I understand that in more recent years the pill has been moved into the abortion category as well because of the uterine lining issue. (Or maybe it's not that this was a recent realization, but just that most Catholics don't know or believe in the pill-abortion connection so I never heard about it? Even today my whole family is Catholic and while they are generally anti-abortion, they are all fine with birth control. And to them, the pill is birth control, not abortion. They might just not know about the uterine lining thing. Although, that info has been around for awhile regarding IUDs and I think my family has no objection to those either )

When I was taught about BCP, I was told that the pill stopped ovulation. Now it seems that it doesn't really stop ovulation but does change the lining and causes an abortion. Of course this is all I have read and again, no doctor so don't take my word for it
I would imagine most on the BCP find it to be okay because they believe it is just stopping conception from taking place. When I found out that it actually can cause an abortion, I started changing my view on if I find it correct or not. Not sure what others feel about IUD, but as you stated all BC forms other than NFP are not condoned by the church. Only NFP is supported. Which is one of the hypocracies I find in the Catholic Church... either we should be totally welcoming of all children and not trying to stop it at all even with NFP or we should allow at least barrier BC. It doesn't make sense with the arguments I have heard. Of course at the moment it doesn't matter to me, but I think this is one the Church needs to look at again. The ideology of NFP allowing for the welcoming of a child is complete bunk to me.

 

[Nennie]

I am not 100% sure if those numbers I gave you were 100% accurate or not. The 70% given was what a friend was told by her clinic she is going to. However, if you implant 2 or sometimes even three, you are usually only going to get a singleton birth. So right off the bat, you are doing just as good as nature and when you do the 70% success rate, you are still batting worse than nature. Of course this would be just the idea of nature vs IVF, but I do not think IVF is near as good as nature. Of course you are usually also dealing with women who have other infertility issues (hormones and hte like) so that may bring it down as well. Interesting idea though... especially if on a "healthy woman" the IVF would probably be better.

Yeah 70% is a bit high! If there were a clinic with that kind of results, I would be running there! LOL!! It's closer to 35-45% depending on age, diagnosis, etc. Also the doctor doesn't "implant" the embryos, but rather "transfers" them into the uterus using a cathedar. Then you cross your fingers and hope that one of them actually implants.

Not to turn this into an IVF class, but I love educating people about it, and it truly is fascinating how far technology has come!