h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Of course, there is the added complication that she is not (according to something I heard on CBC radio this morning) the genetic mother. I'm not sure if her husband is the genetic father.

Well in the cases where kids get raised by their grandparents, there likely aren´t any better options. That doesn´t mean that this woman will not give problems, both for being likely to die soon and for probably having given their children more genetic defects than a younger mother would.

OK then...

How do we set an age limit?

Sure, menopause does it for us, so we don't usually have to. So why not set the IVF limit to the average age of menopause? That way, there's less chance that women will be giving birth to children they're too decrepit to look after.

So...by the same logic...should we also screen women for diseases likely to result in early mortality before allowing IVF?

And by that logic...should we do the same for natural conception?

(Note that I'm not arguing for 60 year old mothers here. I'm just trying to work through the ethical principles)

The difference is with natural conception you can´t make a screening or age limit compulsory. Seeing as you can with IVF, you probably should.

Ah...so what you're saying is that if it's difficult, you shouldn't bother, but if it's simple you can do any damned thing you please?

(inna 's avocado sylee)

I think that there's something to be said for using science where it makes sense and having limits where you're forcing nature when the circumstances are less than ideal.

Out of interest, do heavy smokers, drinkers or junkies get IVF? I wonder what restrictions there already are is all...

A friend of mine was told to lose weight before being considered for any sort of fertility treatment. I suspect that health is taken into consideration for prospective adoptive/foster parents too.

Just because we don't set limits on the size of families created naturally doesn't mean we shouldn't monitor those created with medical assistance. In this case of the octuplets, I'd have thought it was going against all medical guidelines, putting both her own life and that of the embryos at risk.

In the news story they talk about frozen embryos being implanted. I wonder if they mean fertilized eggs or something further along. If something further along, I would have assumed there was no reason to implant eight of them.

>>I would have assumed there was no reason to implant eight of them.

My understanding was that the mother insisted that the embryos were not disposed of.

I would disagree with her choice. But I think I'd agree that, in the legal context, it was her choice to make.

Although...I also agree with the UK law which limits the number of implantations. Why? Certainly it limits the availability of IVF to those who would not agree to having spare embryos disposed of. On the other hand - if they're not comfortable with the idea of an embryo being disposed of, they needn't have any created for them in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of moral pragmatism. Maybe that's the key to the IVF to 60 year olds/ addicts issue. Maybe there's no better guiding principle than 'Do we feel comfortable with this?' And we'll just have to accept that some people will disagree and may act differently.

Hi.
i live in south africa, and here doctors advise not to keep more than 4 embryos.

for the record, more information about the mother of 14:

pre-partum depression therapy?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,488627,00.html

<>



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3677162.stm