Do you think that IVF should be legislated?

JOEBunny

So there is a bill in my state that they want to pass that would limit the number of embryos that are allowed to be implanted in women. 

Do you think that it is the governments place to do this or should it be controlled by the AMA or some other way? 

august0605bride

OMG no

BubblyToes

I honestly think it should go along with the Hippocratic Oath.  Any doctor that would knowing implant 6-8 embryos a la Octo Mom is violating that oath and should have their license investigated. 

Rebekah1021

I don't think it's the state's place to govern it, but I think it should be mandated by the AMA or even FDA.

true_norskie

No...why would any educated doctor need to be told by the government that it isn't a good idea to implant 6 (or 8) embryos?  The octomom's doc probably would have done it legal or not.  He is a complete idiot!

The AMA or hippocratic oath should "govern" it.  You do it, you lose your license.  

mommyof4boys

It is not the government's job to legislate my body.  No.  The problem is that RE's are supposed to have guidelines as to how many embies to transfer.  This was discussed on another board I'm on and the person said part of the legislation is to try to overturn Roe Vs Wade and this part was added at the last minute as a backlast to the octo-mom.

JOEBunny

The weird part about the bill is that it doesn't follow AMA guidelines.  It is much more limiting.  In many places in Europe the government does limit it.  I just think when you make a law based on one crazy, you end up with a lot of stupid laws that only impede regular people who are doing the right thing.  It irritates me that the legislature is wasting time with this when there are so many other issues right now that need attention. 

I have pretty strong views on multiple births and think that in the US they are still happening way too often, but I still don't think the government best equipt to manage medical science.

summerbrideDC

No. ?I agree that it's unethical to do what he did, but I don't think it's the gov'ts place to legislate it in the same way I don't believe the gov't has the right to take away my right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

mommyof4boys

I C&P'd this from the board I'm on to highlight additional things with the legislation.

-No more than two or three eggs could ever be fertilized in a cycle; if a woman produced more eggs, they still could not be used.Only 2 embryos could ever be transferred to the uterus, unless the woman is age 40 or over (then a max of 3).

This harms the ability to have a successful cycle.  Not all eggs fertilize well.  We, for example had 11 fertilize out of the 15 we tried to fertilize.  By day 3 we had 5 left and by day 5 (day to freeze any left over) we had none.  Had this legislation come to fruition, we wouldn't have made it to transfer day.  Additionally, PGD, part of the testing to see if there's genetic disorders, etc would warrent more embies to have the ability to test.

-No extra embryos could be cryo-preserved. If they are created, they have to be transferred.

This would make all IVF's "fresh" cycles and up the monatiry amout that is spent OOP of those who have to pay for their cycles.  Also, what would be done with the embies that would survive past the transfer process that couldn't be transfered as per the first part of this law?  Would they be disposed of?  This, IMO, is going down a slippery slope.  Proponents of the bill are also doing this to try to overturn the abortion ruling but isn't killing an embie that could potentially result in a child murder as well?

-No financial relief, such as insurance coverage, is proposed to help with the added financial burden of using less effective treatment. Patients will still have to pay out of pocket for less effective treatment.

IVF can cost upwards of 15-20K and to make such stringant guidelines is like throwing their money away.  I would forsee many women travelling overseas where the guidelines are less stringant.

-Bans all financial compensation for donor gametes, such as egg donor, sperm donor, or embryo donation, which would greatly reduce the pool of available donors in Georgia.

 

marrymemylove

I don't have a problem with it BEING legislated, I just think you need a doctor who is also a good lawyer/drafter to do the wording. I don't have a problem with the govt telling people you can't do stupid shyte. That's what they're for. The only problem is the wording has to be right so that if/when best practice may change in the medical profession the law keeps up. It is too vague to say "you have to follow best practice" and too specific probably to say a numerical limit. But unlike Americans I think government is actually of the people, for the people and by the people, so I don't see why people mind about personal things being the subject of legislation.

marrymemylove

You know you could get to the same end (better even, would cover much more) by just giving disciplinary action the force of law.?

So if a medical standards tribunal (whatever you call them where you are) found you were grossly unprofessional (or some non-entry level stupidity level) you could actually get that enforced as a tortious or even criminal judgment as between the state and the Dr. Would have no damages payout for the patient involved (and usually this is true for standards breaches too). But it would be a much bigger deterrent.?