The Bitter Truth About Ivf

The evolution of modern medicine over the last 100 years has been phenomenal. Keyhole surgery and some of the diagnostic tools available today have made it possible to identify and deal with some of the health problems in a quick and easy way.

Post accident and trauma treatments are second to none as well as the replacements of worn joints. Thanks to modern technology and procedures we can now have artificial joints, bypasses, donor organs, pace makers and postpone death for longer. But at what price? And what quality of life can we expect if we are dependent on two fistfuls of prescription drugs, one for our condition and the other to counteract the side effects of the first fistful?  And why did we allow our health to deteriorate so far?

Technology can not prevent disease nor enhance ones wellbeing and overall health. Technology can not remove the cause of a disease or a condition. Only you can do that.

Somewhere in the last 100 years we started believing that these amazing advances in medicine will take care of anything that goes wrong in the course of our lives and that we don’t have to do anything on our part to stay healthy and well.

Some 20 years ago tables have turned when we got a healthy dose of reality check. Drugs bring in tow an array of side effects and contraindications of which some can be quite debilitating and can significantly reduce the quality of life.

Infertility treatments are no different;

There is a place for assisted reproduction technology and sometimes that is the only viable option. Having said that even if you choose that option without trying the natural methods first, just remember that you can actually do both to double your chances of success with ART.

 A study by Foresight, the Association for Pre-conceptual healthcare in the United Kingdom shows that couples going through IVF are up to 47% more successful if they used pre-conceptual health care program first.

The same study demonstrated an astounding success rate of 81% of conceptions among couples previously diagnosed as infertile. Among those who conceived there were no miscarriages, no perinatal deaths, no malformations and no newborn admissions to intensive care. Women who participated in the study were between 25 and 45 years old and Men between 25 and 59 years old. (Pract. Midwife)

Those numbers speak for themselves, not to mention the following figures which illustrate the financial implications.

Financial Costs of ART

In the US an average IVF cycle costs between $10,000 and $15,000. Analysts have reported costs of about $35,000 per delivery in younger women, while medical costs per delivery are over $132,000 for women over 40. (Marc Perloe, Your Total Health)

Additional charges apply if you choose a donor, artificial insemination and freezing, ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) and PGD (Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis). You health cover may not even cover the newer procedures as they’ve only been around for a short time and the risk factors as well as generational effects have not yet been established. Besides for women over 40 IVF is up to 4 times less cost effective. (The Medical Journal of Australia)

An Australian study on the costing of ART found that the average health care cost per non-donor ART live birth was $ 32, 903 ($24,809 if under 30 and $97,884 if under 40). The staggering cost of live birth for women aged 42 and over was $182,794! (The Medical Journal of Australia)

Now that is a lot of money, especially if you take the following findings into consideration:

Health Risks of ART

Studies have shown that IVF drugs are dangerous for the health of mothers as well as babies and there is no clear evidence they increase a woman’s chance of conceiving. Multiple studies have documented the high risk of birth deformity and severe health problems associated with IVF births. A study from Finland in 2005 showed 43 babies out of every thousand conceived using IVF techniques suffered from a variety of abnormalities including genetic deformities, brain disorders, developmental delays and genital malformations.(Dr. Geeta Nargund)Dr. Alastair Sutcliffe of the Institute of Child Health at University College London and Dr. Michael Ludwid of the Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecologic Endocrinology in Hamburg, conducted a study where they examined 3,980 articles in medical and scientific journals published between 1980 and 2005. The study results showed that there are significantly higher risks of long