Vitro Fertilization Vs. Sterile Parents

The first child born through in vitro fertilization was born in 1978. Despite the amount of time that has passed from then to now, in vitro is still very much experimental. Although there has been improvement in the probability that the patient will bear a child since the end of 1980 where in a study only 5.4% of cases were successful (Bernholz, 1984), going through the process of in vitro fertilization still does not guarantee a child. In the beginning stages where in vitro fertilization was fairly new, there was some push back, especially morally. Many thought that it was wrong for scientists to “play God” and create life. As with anything else, the times have changes and so have many people’s opinions. Although nearly impossible for all people to agree on one topic, the use of in vitro fertilization has become more widely accepted for patients who deal with infertility issues.

Assisted reproductive technologies is “any fertilization consisting of tampering with of gametes/ embryos outside the female body and then putting the gametes/embryos into the female body.” (Donchin 11) These procedures offers a way for several of families who have spent countless time attempting to have a child of their own, but have drained all other possibilities, to do so. The new advancement in reproductive technologies give significant aid to couples who are unable to reproduce, and make many new reproductive arrangements possible. The different options available for adults considering childrearing in unusual ways under new reproductive methods are two-party and third-party assisted reproduction. Assisted reproduction can raise some ethical

Some scientists also fail to see any benefits of this technology and believe that germ-line engineering fails to be necessary. They “are adamant that germ-line engineering is being pushed ahead with ‘false arguments’” (Regalado). Through in vitro fertilization, people fertilize several embryos in order to choose a healthy embryo that lacks the disease-causing gene. This process eliminates disease from the offspring without altering the genes of all future generations, and this form of fertilization is understood and accepted with no chance of unknown, negative effects. Many scientists agree that germ-line engineering, in which this technology is used to alter embryos and pass changes to offspring and all future generations, is unethical

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) marks a great step forward in medical technology, and Australia is a leader in the field. IVF is now a popular procedure for couples who are infertile or are having trouble conceiving. However, it raises ethical, moral and legal issues including the rights of an individual, property rights, the definition of human life, scientific experimentation versus a potential human life, religion, costs, and community, medical and taxpayer’s rights.

Regulation on IVF and other fertility services is necessary. The procedures being done are medical, psychological, and controversial enough to receive federal attention. When a human being is made in a lab, laws need to exist in case a couple divorces, changes their mind, or to prevent immoral decisions in the future. Becoming a parent is an understandable human right, nonetheless the desire of conceiving a child of one’s own can get out of hand. Yearning can lead to selfish decision making. Customers in the fertility clinics are desperate and will do anything they can to have a

The use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis, used during in vitro fertilization, for medical screening and sex pre-selection is ethical so as long as it is done for the child’s best interest and not for superficial desires of the parents. Every year, around 3,945,875 babies are born in the United States (NIH, 2017). Unfortunately, 12.1% of women ages 15-44 and 8% of men ages 25 to 44 struggle with infertility issues (CDC, 2016). It is also challenging for gay and lesbian couples to become parents in which one is biologically related by using their gametes (Wittenstein, 2016). Luckily, there are several medical advancements that help individuals become pregnant. A controversial medical advancement that is commonly used is known as In-Vitro

Striving to find that common ground must incorporate patient’s rights and that the pursuit of future technologies in the reproduction area, as with all areas of medicine must calculate patient safety above all else; especially before profitability. For years, procedures such as In Vitro Fertilization has been marketed as a safe viable alternative method for reproduction, but at what cost ethically? According to the article In Vitro Fertilization: The Human

In 2015 genetic testing has advanced so much that the ability to make specific changes in our babies is now a reality. Is it right to choose science over nature? Could life be better for our future if we “enhanced ourselves,” by genetic testing during pre-birth? Eight years ago, Singer (2007) asked the same question: “Is the use of reproductive technology acceptable?” (Choosing babies, p. 86). For more than ten years now scientists have been using enhanced fertility methods for reproductive challenged families called in vitro fertilization (IVF). IVF is a procedure that allows for an egg from the female and sperm from the male to be combined in a laboratory, and once the two successfully combine producing an embryo it is then transferred into the females’ uterus.

For years parents have struggled with the one thing that many of them dream of their entire lifetime; conceiving a child and having a family. Coming to the realization that you are unable to bare children can be devastating for some and in the past there was nothing one could do about it other than adoption. There are many reasons for which parents are unable to conceive such as health issues, same sex marriages or even choosing to go about parenting alone. Fortunately for these individuals today there are many alternatives opposed to conceiving children naturally. With the worlds first “test tube” baby being born in 1978 (Katz) options for those who wish to conceive their own children are now here. Rather than adoption options now include in vitro fertilization as well as sperm and egg donation and lastly surrogate mothers all of which are forms of assisted reproductive technology. Due to the extreme costs of these procedures one would believe that there should be no consequences other than

With technological advances of today, parents who are unable to substantially procreate are now given the opportunity to bear children. New techniques for procreation include Artificial Insemination, Surrogacy and In-Vitro Fertilization, all which have brought about happiness to families. Unfortunately, at the same time many of these new reproductive techniques may bring about ethical considerations and debates, causing pain and legal arguments. All of these ethical considerations warrant governmental and contractual regulation as a way of guidance in handling these situations.

In-Vitro Fertilization is a hot topic and brings about many ethical considerations and questions from many. Quebec is experiencing a very tough dilemma of having to scale back their IVF program in which it is being claimed that the funded treatments may have been overused and need to be cut back. My first question when reading this article has to do with the word “overuse”, and wondering how that is defined? I think this would help to better evaluate ways the government could implement a program like this. I feel as though I am torn as to what I think with regards to if IVF should be a fully government funded treatment. Although I think that IVF procedures are extremely important and currently far to expensive, I am unsure as to if I think it should

In vitro is a helpful way for parents who themselves, cannot conceive, which is a good resource of the technology that in vitro fertilization portrays. A negative impact would be using in vitro in order to create a savior sibling. Doctors can now create ways to save their patients through science, which can affect the lives of many.

toward the future child who will live without his father” (Ethical Dilemmas of Intra-vitro Fertilization, Retrieved November 5, 2015 http://journal.managementinhealth. Com /index. php/rms/article/view/109/262).

Courtney Cox Arquette, actress on the hit 1990’s sitcom Friends, used In Vitro Fertilization or I.V.F., in late 2003 to conceive her daughter after struggling with infertility. Many couples all over the world are struggling with infertility or genetic diseases, and like Arquette, are turning to I.V.F. for help. Recently with the help of new genetic engineering, scientists have found a way for parents to choose the gender of their unborn child using I.V.F. Couples around the world are either delighted or disgusted by this rather controversial topic. Preselection of gender could cause a gender bias, designs children to desired specifications, and poses a higher risk to the child and the mother. Parents should not be able to select the gender of their unborn children without a logical medical reason.

Many individuals are looking to alternatives in child bearing, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) being one of the most popular. IVF in the United States is a costly procedure. It can cost up to $12,000 for one attempt and that is not adding the cost of additional attempts should the first one fail. There are individuals who are in debt for $60,000 in attempting to get pregnant through IVF. Fertility treatments are now a hot commodity, especially in the global marketplace. Many women are looking to oversea options in having IVF done. One major factor in women going overseas is the price tag. IVF overseas is about ¼ of the price it is in the US.