Hacker News Reader

Comment by JacobAldridge | Hacker News Reader

We (my beautiful wife and I) are currently going through the baby-making limbo, and it looks as though IVF will be the necessary next step. When you start actively trying to have children, there's loads of literature preparing you for the pregnancy swelling and the sleepless life of parenthood etc - less so preparing you for the anxiety, uncertainty, and just general feeling of not being in control of your life which comes from things not working for you.

I couldn't imagine the additional emotional turmoil that would come from repeated miscarriages, terminations etc. I'm really holding myself back from thinking about the ecstasy that a confirmed pregnancy will provide after our time and struggles - to have complications and loss after that would be devastating.

So bravo to the scientists working on this, to the parliament for 'permitting' it, and of course to those struggling wannabe parents having to fight for their family dream.

View on HN

We did IVF and got pregnant on our first try. We now have a beautiful 2 year old boy :)

Good luck.

We did it four times, and now have four beautiful sons aged 4 - 15 (some requiring a couple of attempts). Not saying IVF will be easy for you, but that it's perfectly fine and - for some people - more efficient way of making babies. We never did find out why making babies the old-fashioned way doesn't work for us.

Very good luck!

Just adding to the data, we did it once and got twin girls on the first go. Instant family. We then got a "surprise" (my wife says I'm not allowed to use the word "accident") three years later with a naturally conceived girl.

Chaps - when the docs tell you you're infertile and need IVF, don't assume you'll be infertile forever. Have a vasectomy and "make it so".

Good luck with your IVF, if it works, it'll totally be worth it. Probably.

I have some friends who struggled with infertility, went through the whole IVF thing (big medical bills, without success) but ultimately had repeat success with the help of modern NFP methods such as NaPro and Billings:

http://www.thebillingsovulationmethod.org/

http://www.naprotechnology.com/

IVF involves all the same hormonal and ovulation monitoring that NFP would, so I'm a bit baffled by the apparent belief that this anecdote is anything other than raw probability in action.

I simply offered the anecdote for consideration.

I had three couples in mind. One went through IVF three times, the others two times each. In none of the cases were there successful results, though in all three cases there were significant financial costs. All three couples had a child (two of them more than one, so far) after they began using a modern NFP method to track the female partner's fertility; and the financial costs involved were a tiny fraction of the costs of IVF.

The anecdote certainly does not prove IVF does not work, nor was that my intention in relating it.

So what is the point? Well, many couples are oblivious to the existence of modern NFP and its effectiveness at helping couples both avoid and achieve pregnancy, without recourse to surgery and/or pharmaceuticals. I simply want/ed to help raise awareness of these methods.

...many couples are oblivious to the existence of modern NFP...

Gosh, why wouldn't their fertility doctors have told them about it? b^)

Because they can't charge as much.

That's the same argument made by conspiracy theorists claiming pharmaceutical companies suppress cancer cures, and it's just as bullshit.

My infertility treatment involved a cheapest-first approach, and that's entirely standard. We were told about charting cycles for best chances, analyses were done, some drugs were tried, and we were able to get pregnant via IUI for about $300 total. IVF is pretty much the final option, tried after everything else fails.

Just because idiots use an argument doesn't mean the argument is stupid.

30 seconds of Googling brings up this article [1] (a secondary source, primary sources are Bloomberg and Washington Post), discussing the impression that doctors are performing/suggesting unnecessary, yet expensive surgeries/treatments. Even if it turns out not to be true (after proper research), it's an argument worth considering in any situation that involves financial incentives not aligned with the desired outcome.

[1]: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/unneces...

Uh oh - stealth religious content on HN! Downvote! Downvote! Downvote! Even if it's backed up by legitimate science... The Catholic Church is behind it! Abort! Abort!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com