The world's first successful "test-tube" baby was born in Great Britain by in vitro fertilization (IVF) revolutionized medical treatments for infertility. On July 25, 1978, five-pound 12-ounce baby girl was born; her name was Louise Joy Brown. Dr. Patrick Steptoe and Dr. Robert Edwards had been working on finding an alternative solution for conception since 1966. Drs. Steptoe and Edwards had successfully found a way to fertilize an egg outside a woman's body but they were both concerned by problems after replacing the fertilized egg back into the woman's uterus. By the late seventies all of the pregnancies resulting from their procedure (about 80) had lasted only a few, short weeks. Lesley Brown’s (mother of Louise Brown) pregnancy gave hope to hundreds of thousands of couples not able to conceive. But there was many raised questions, whether this baby was going to be healthy, if the baby has medical problems, did the parents and doctors have a right to play with nature and thus bring it into the world? Doctors also worried that if the baby wasn't normal, would the process be blamed whether or not it was the cause? In a few cases, laboratory mix-ups (misidentified gametes, transfer of wrong embryos) have occurred, leading to legal action against the IVF provider and complex paternity suits. An example is the case of a woman in California who received the embryo of another couple and was notified of this mistake after the birth of her son.
The term "in vitro" is Latin for "in glass," because conception takes place in a laboratory dish. Louise Brown's birth caused an international sensation, with some critics denouncing conception outside the body as immoral. Defects Study in the US found that certain birth defects were significantly more common in infants conceived with IVF, notably septal heart defects, cleft lip with or without cleft palate, esophageal atresia, and anorectal atresia; the mechanism of causality is unclear. The major complication of IVF is the risk of multiple births. This is directly related to the practice of transferring multiple embryos at embryo transfer. Multiple births are related to increased risk of pregnancy loss, obstetrical complications, prematurity, and neonatal morbidity with the potential for long term damage. Strict limits on the number of embryos that may be transferred have been enacted in some countries (e.g. England) to reduce the risk of high-order multiples (triplets or more), but are not universally followed or accepted. Spontaneous splitting of embryos in the womb after transfer can occur, but this is rare and would lead to identical twins. Making test tube babies costs the nation's health care system an average of $60,000 to $110,000 for each successful pregnancy. Typically a single attempt at in vitro fertilization costs $8,000. So even if couples have to go through the process several times, they are unlikely to spend as much as $60,000. But most attempts do not produce children. So researchers set out to find the average cost to society when the occasional successes are balanced against the many failures.
Even though test tube babies was a major scientific breakthrough, some still question whether or not it is good to scientifically mess with nature.
528
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that IVF/test tube babies should not be allowed. Nature should be able to take it's course and other options like adoptions should be looked at first.
ReplyDeleteI dont think IVF is morally right. I agree with Joe that adoption should be considered first. IVF creates more problems than good, considering the high risk of abnormalities and complications on childbirth that can occur.
ReplyDeleteEven though it is messing with nature, it is still giving the chance for some people to conceive a baby. It is not the same thing as cloning which is still a controversial topic today. I feel since it is still the mothers baby and the only thing the tubes are doing is helping a mother conceive. I feel it is alright.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joe and Mika. Adoption is an opportunity to give a child a safe life and parents who love him/her. So many orphans just want to be with a family who loves them; somewhere where they feel safe and cared about. If you can't have a baby on your own, adopting one is the next best thing, because it's giving that child a chance to have the best life you can possibly give him/her, one full of love and care.
ReplyDeleteThis was a huge dicovery that has made couples who can't conceive dreams come true. But I would agree with Joe, Mika, and Dani that adoption should be looked at first. There are many children in the world who don't have families.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Nathan because it gives people the oppurtunity to have children plus it opens doors to getting rid of life threatening illnesses that occur in the womb.
ReplyDeleteInvitro is an opportunity for a childless couple to have their own child. It is an opportunity for a woman who has problems carrying a child due to tubal problems. With invitro, the fertilized egg is not placed in the tubes, therefore, a woman who cannot get the egg successfully through her tubes is able to conceive without the life threatening threat of a tubal (ectopic) pregnancy. It is an aid to a successful ending. Adoption is a good alternative for a couple who wishes to alleviate the problem of unwanted children in the world. Children born through the use of invitro fertilization are in no more greater harm than those born of purely natural, unaided pregnancy. It is up to the parent what is the most important to them. Whether a child is adopted or born through IVF, the most important thing is that he or she is born to good, loving and stable parents.
ReplyDeleteIVF is a controversial topic because many people have good cause or reason to go through with the procedure but there are others that go through with it without a good reason or are unable to care for the child. I agree with you Jillian all that matters is that the child is raised in a loving home.
ReplyDeleteI think that even though it is messing with nature, as long as the baby is born and healthy, then there should be no reason to question whether it is right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteAdoption would be key but if a couple want to have their own child and cannot this seems like the next best option. It does sound a little crazy and not appealing but it isn't like they are adding new chemicals to the baby. It just looks and sounds a little strange when actually the baby is just not growing in the mother.
ReplyDeleteEven though adoption is always a safe way to play the parenting card, that child you adopt is not your baby. The baby has no tie to you other than a last name. This idea seems unfair to those children who may be adopted into an abusive family. Those children did not choose to be their mother and father so this seems unfair and unjust to human life. Shouldn't bottled babies be illegal?
ReplyDelete