Octuplet case a gross aberration in medical field
- |
MY HEART sank when I saw Ellen Goodman's Feb. 6 op-ed "The ethical failures of fertility treatment." The medical community agrees with Goodman's appraisal - "it's nuts" - to describe the birth of octuplets following treatment with in vitro fertilization, especially to a mother with six other children. This case is sad for the patient and for the children, and, it would seem, a sad reflection on medical care in this isolated instance. But this is a gross aberration in our field.
Unfortunately, those with a bias against the reproductive medicine community jump at these sorts of medical disasters to make unsubstantiated claims. Goodman cites the "unregulated wild west of fertility technology" and quotes a bioethicist who says that doctors do a "wallet biopsy" when treating infertile couples.
I have been practicing reproductive medicine for more than 25 years. Our field is regulated by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other regulatory bodies. Professional societies set practice guidelines, and IVF centers are audited if certain practices, such as transferring too many embryos, occur. At our center we meet regularly with professionals from many disciplines as we struggle with the right recommendations for medical care.
The media were irresponsible to initially hail the octuplet case as a "medical miracle" when we in the field knew it was IVF gone wild. Millions of families have been built by the efforts of so many in the field of reproductive medicine. Sensationalism and unfounded criticisms fall on deaf ears of educated patients and physicians alike.
Dr. Michael Alper
Waltham
The writer is medical director of Boston IVF and associate clinical professor of OB-GYN at Harvard Medical School.
I AGREE with Ellen Goodman about Nadya Suleman and her octuplets: This case is nuts. But this case is an anomaly. Patients undergoing fertility treatments do undergo psychological evaluation. Ask one of the many well-respected fertility centers in Massachusetts what their protocols are and talk to them about their desired outcome: one healthy baby per pregnancy.
Assisted reproductive technology is already (unnecessarily) controversial enough, and pieces like Goodman's Feb. 6 op-ed only further the lack of understanding about the process and the patients who use the technology to overcome bona fide medical issues. There is no need for laws "limiting the number of embryos that can be planted in one womb," for the same reason that there are no laws governing which patients can receive organ transplants, artificial heart valves, or prosthetic limbs. These are decisions made jointly between an experienced doctor and an educated patient.
And for the record, Louise Brown came out of her mother, not a petri dish.
Nancy Swallow
Framingham
The writer is the mother of three children born through in vitro fertilization.
Oh, so now a woman's choice is in question
WITH SOME degree of confusion I just completed Ellen Goodman's Feb. 6 column regarding Nadya Suleman's octuplets. Goodman has long purported to be a prochoice advocate, and has stated that a woman has the right to do with her body what she chooses. So, it seems odd that she wonders why there are "no laws in this country limiting the number of embryos that can be implanted in one womb." Does a woman not have the right to choose what she puts in her body? Does she not have the right to choose how many babies she is willing to carry?Goodman mentions that there is a high risk of endangering mothers and babies of multiple pregnancies. She is correct, but, again, doesn't a woman have the right to choose? There are also inherent risks related to abortions, even the so-called safe ones, for mothers and most certainly for the babies. If Goodman suggests that "anyone who endangers patients ought to lose their license," then perhaps we should revoke the licenses of physicians whose abortion patients experience complications.
The hypocrisy of many in the media who attack Suleman over her choice is incredible, yet predictable. Don't misunderstand. I, too, agree that Suleman's actions were irresponsible, and she has created a difficult situation for her children that will only become more difficult. However, if we don't have the right to tell a woman that she cannot kill an unborn child, then we certainly don't have the right to publicly pass judgment on this misguided woman's actions.
Sharon Parker
Shreveport, La. 
