The Dark Side of Infertility Treatments Essay Example

visits (Moses 2011).

The aim of this process is to protect children's lives by preventing unsuitable parents from adopting. In 2004, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine published guidelines that allow fertility clinics to refuse services to potential patients based on well-supported assessments of their ability to adequately raise a child. However, these guidelines lack regulatory force and offer no incentives for doctors to comply. Additionally, the guidelines do not require regular screening or home studies, resulting in cases where unfit parents receive infertility treatment in the United States. For instance, a two-month-old baby conceived through infertility treatments was brought to a pediatrician because she frequently experienced breathlessness while being fed. Upon examination, it was discovered that the child had been fed while lying on her back, which can cause choking in infants.

During the examination, the doctor found fractures and hemorrhages as injuries. Further investigation revealed that both parents had mental disabilities, and it was the father who harmed the baby (Cobb, 36). It is evident that this couple was unfit to be parents and required infertility treatments to become parents. Several people involved in the case believed that "before receiving infertility treatment, there should have been a more comprehensive screening process to assess their ability to care for a child" (Cobb, 36).

Nadya Suleman, also known as "Octamom," is an example of in-vitro fertilization leading to the birth of octuplets. Before this, Suleman was already a mother to sextuplets, some with mental and physical disabilities. Initially seen as a tale of doctors saving these children's lives, it later turned into a media scandal. The public believed that Suleman should not have received treatment for conceiving these

babies because she was unemployed and unable to support them financially (Cobb, 37). Moreover, the children had health problems that required an extended stay in the NICU, which Suleman couldn't afford.

These examples raise numerous inquiries for healthcare providers. Is procreation a right? Should patients seeking infertility treatments undergo screening, and how would that process operate? Many doctors support employing a home study, resembling the screening process for adoption, while others argue that the optimal approach would involve healthcare providers deciding on a case-by-case basis if further assessment of parental fitness is necessary (Cobb, 37). Irrespective of the solution, it is evident that infertility treatments do not serve as a panacea for all couples seeking assistance. Imposing additional regulations and potentially adopting a more personalized approach to treatment will be crucial in safeguarding the well-being of children conceived through alternative reproductive methods. Parental fitness is not the sole factor impeding alternative reproductive treatments from serving as a universal solution for couples experiencing infertility.

Cost is a significant obstacle to successful treatment of infertility. Many couples encounter high expenses for necessary services and drugs, with minimal or no insurance coverage available (Perry, 34). In the current economic climate, finances are crucial, and numerous couples cannot afford the essential treatments for infertility. Simple solutions for identified causes can range from $50 to $3000, while In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) for the 20% of couples with unexplained infertility can have an average cost of $12,400 per cycle (Ordovensky Staniec & Webb, 974). Considering that most couples require multiple cycles of IVF, the costs can surpass $50,000.

Due to the high costs of in-vitro fertilization, many families cannot afford it. Couples without insurance often

opt for more aggressive rounds of in-vitro fertilization, increasing their chances of getting pregnant by transferring a higher number of embryos. However, this also raises the risk of multiple births and high-risk pregnancies, resulting in significant expenses later on.

The delivery of twins can cost approximately $30,000, while triplets can exceed $133,000. Additionally, there may be additional financial burdens associated with health issues related to multiple births and high-risk pregnancies. Research has demonstrated that income and insurance factors play a substantial role in the decision to pursue infertility treatments (Ordovensky Staniec & Webb, 978).

The text indicates that despite a couple's desire to conceive, numerous individuals facing infertility struggle to afford the costly treatment. This emphasizes gender's impact on power dynamics, as insurance companies hold the authority to decide which medical problems they will cover. While conditions affecting both genders usually receive complete coverage, this does not apply to infertility, which predominantly affects women. Studies reveal that the lack of insurance coverage dissuades women from seeking treatment for their infertility. Consequently, these costs burden women and their families solely because of their gender.

The absence of regulation in the medical sector empowers doctors to establish their own charges for treatment, posing financial difficulties for women. To address this problem, certain states are contemplating proposals that would require insurance coverage for fertility treatments. Simultaneously, doctors and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine are collaborating on implementing measures aimed at regulating and decreasing the expenses associated with these treatments. Nevertheless, in numerous instances, doctors and insurance companies still retain complete authority over pricing.

The control of costs and insurance coverage by the medical establishment suggests that women lack autonomy in making

treatment decisions. These decisions are instead influenced by financial considerations. The media may praise alternative reproductive technologies, but their benefits are not universally applicable. In reality, these technologies can discriminate against families unable to afford expensive treatments. Families unaffected by high costs face a different issue: an abundance of babies. TV shows such as Kate Plus 8, Quints by Surprise, and various specials glamorize the idea of having a large family.

The children in all of these cases suffer from different medical problems, and the family experiences various financial problems. The ethical debate surrounding whether parents should choose to reduce their pregnancy when faced with a multiple birth arises due to concerns about how many babies are too many. Multiple births come with significant medical and societal risks, as babies born from such pregnancies are more likely to have low birth weights and experience developmental or physical delays. According to studies, 57% of twins conceived through alternative reproductive technology (ART) have low birth weights, while an astonishing 95% of higher order multiples conceived through ART also have low birth weights.

According to Sivinski (900), in 2005, 66% of twins born through assisted reproductive technology (ART) were preterm, while 97% of higher-order multiple births through ART were also preterm. However, these statistics only partially depict the consequences of multiple births. Babies with low birth weight and premature deliveries can lead to physical impairments like blindness, deafness, mental retardation, and cerebral palsy. These disabilities significantly impact the quality of life and lifespan of affected children. Many argue that these impairments occur more frequently due to infertility treatments.

In addition to affecting children's health, multiple births also pose risks for mothers.

Doctors caution that pregnancies with four or more fetuses carry substantial dangers for mothers, including a greater than 60% chance of developing preeclampsia.

O'Reilly asserts that gestational diabetes mellitus impacts around 10% of pregnancies, affecting the well-being of mothers, babies, and society as a whole. According to Sivinski's research, the cost of neonatal care for prematurely born or low birth weight children reaches approximately $10.2 billion annually. These statistics provide scientific evidence supporting the idea that infertility treatments may not be a comprehensive solution for all women struggling with fertility issues.

In addition to financial and health concerns, ethical dilemmas arise regarding large families and reducing multifetal pregnancies in society. Lee defines multifetal pregnancy reduction as selectively terminating one or more fetuses in order to increase the chances of a successful pregnancy.

Many couples facing multifetal pregnancies may consider selective reduction as a viable option. While it may be appealing in terms of the child's overall health and financial considerations, this procedure can be deeply emotional for parents, particularly for those struggling with infertility (Lee, 137). The decision to choose one child's life over another is often one that parents are unwilling to make. These treatments not only enable infertile couples to become pregnant but also burden them with the responsibility of deciding on pregnancy reduction, something no parent would willingly want to go through. Apart from the emotional challenges presented by selective reduction, society is also confronted with the contentious abortion debate.

Many people consider choosing death over life for an unborn child to be morally wrong. While society criticized Nadya Suleman, also known as the "octamom," for carrying and delivering octuplets, others would have been outraged if

she had reduced the pregnancy to a socially acceptable number of embryos. Although selective reproduction and abortion have different legal definitions, it is difficult for society to ignore their similarities (Lee, 140). The issue of multifetal reduction raises broader questions about whether women should have the right to choose the number of children they have. Some argue that infertility treatments enable women to do just that, while others question whether doctors are effectively deciding the number of children women can have.

The concept that the reproductive choices of one woman have an impact on society highlights the notion that personal decisions are inherently political. In other words, individual choices have the potential to influence the overall political climate. Examining the case of Suleman again, we observe that her decision to carry a multifetal pregnancy to term faced significant criticism. The discourse and political debate surrounding in-vitro fertilization has evolved from being perceived as a positive development to being potentially detrimental to society. Amongst the media coverage of the Suleman case, there were persistent demands for more stringent legislation and legal consequences for medical professionals who exceeded the recommended number of implanted embryos (Cobb, 38).

“The guidelines are not legally mandatory for clinics, but they can be punished for not following them,” (Sivinski, 900). For instance, Suleman’s doctor was no longer recognized by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (Cobb, 38). Instead of focusing on stricter legal consequences, some advocate for a change in insurance coverage and the privatization of infertility treatments. It is evident that Suleman’s case has sparked this ongoing legal and political debate, highlighting the political nature of her personal choices.

Infertility affects women worldwide, regardless

of their background. The available treatments for this condition vary greatly, ranging from affordable pills (costing around $50) to more invasive surgeries such as in-vitro fertilization (which can cost approximately $12,000). Procedures using Alternative Reproduction Technology have provided hope for couples who previously believed they could never have biological children. As someone who was born through in-vitro fertilization, I am extremely grateful for these infertility treatments and the limitless possibilities they offer. However, it is important to acknowledge a darker side associated with these treatments – one that often goes unnoticed by prospective parents, society as a whole, and even the medical community. Society has failed to address the ethical and medical concerns that arise from utilizing various infertility treatments.

The issue of overlooked unfit mothers with psychological problems in the field of infertility medicine is related to society's belief that all women should be able to be mothers. This raises questions about parental screening and its implications for the future of reproductive health. It also raises concerns about the ability of doctors to set high prices for treatments that are often not covered by insurance, preventing many women and couples with infertility from accessing necessary treatments and fulfilling their parental rights due to financial constraints. However, this problem can be greatly reduced through increased regulation and standardization of practices.

Finally, the concern that doctors and society find most relevant is that of multiple births and multifetal reductions. It is common for multiple births to occur as a result of infertility procedures, which can cause health problems and financial crises in the future. Moreover, parents who decide to reduce their pregnancies to fewer fetuses are faced with

the difficult choice of prioritizing one life over another, and may have to deal with emotional and psychological consequences. The debates surrounding abortion and multifetal reduction have become so intertwined that many couples with a multifetal pregnancy may choose not to reduce their pregnancy, even if it puts the mother and children at risk.

Infertility treatments can be a valuable resource for parents who desire to have a child but may face financial limitations. However, these treatments may not be as favorable for individuals who are not suitable or financially equipped to become parents or those facing a multifetal pregnancy. It is important to recognize the significant benefits and costs associated with treatments like in-vitro fertilization before offering them to couples seeking assistance.
Source: Cobb, T.. (2010). Does every infertile patient have a guaranteed right to treatment? JAAPA : Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants, 23(6), 36, 38-40.

Retrieved from ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source on March 8, 2011, (Document ID: 2084199991), Feldstein, M. (August 6, 2006) discusses how parents-to-be experience the financial burden of infertility treatments.

According to Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, the source for this information is ABI/INFORM Dateline, and it was retrieved on March 8, 2011. The document ID is 1090674531. The authors of the article are Kane-Low and Schuiling, and it was published in 2005 in a book titled "Women's Gynecological Health." The article discusses women's health from a feminist perspective.

Schuiling, K and Likis, F. Eds. Bartlett and Jones Publishers. Lee, Kathleen (2010).

The article titled "In Support of a Gender-Neutral Framework for Resolving Selective Reduction Disputes" discusses the need for a gender-neutral approach in resolving disputes related to selective reduction. This article is published

in the Family Law Quarterly journal and can be found in volume 44, issue 1, pages 135-153. It was retrieved on April 3, 2011, from the ABI/INFORM Global database. The author of this article is Lucia Moses and it also mentions another article titled "Surviving the Home study".

" The Adoption Guide. Adoptive Families, 2011. Web. 2 Apr 2011. ;http://www.

According to the article "Utilization of Infertility Services: How Much Does Money Matter?" by Ordovensky Staniec, J Farley, and Natalie J Webb (2007), money plays a significant role in the utilization of infertility services. The study found that the cost of these services greatly impacts whether or not individuals and couples seek treatment. The adoptionguide.com also provides further information on the homestudy process.

Web. 2 Apr 2011. ;http://www.ncbi.nlm.

The website "nih.gov.proxy.lib.umich.edu/pmc/articles/PMC1955265/?tool=pmcentrez" can be accessed through the "

" and "

".

O'Reilly, K. (2009, February). Octuplets case ignites a controversy over excessive IVF and patient screening in the field of medical ethics. American Medical News, 52(8), 1.

The article titled "Comprehensive infertility coverage can add value to benefit design" by Keith Perry was retrieved on April 2, 2011, from the Research Library. The article is published in the Managed Healthcare Executive journal, volume 16, issue 1 on pages 34 and 38. It is also available in ABI/INFORM Global using the document ID: 970653041.

Sivinski, S.. (2010). "Putting Too Many (Fertilized) Eggs in One Basket: Methods of Reducing Multifetal Pregnancies in the United States*." Texas Law Review, 88(4), 897-916. Retrieved March 8, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global.

(Document ID: 1995143101).