When it comes to private companies receiving state funding, surely one of the first things the Government should insist on is a cost-benefit analysis. Sadly, the opposite is happening when it comes to assisting couples struggling to conceive.
Last September the Government introduced a state subsidy for IVF for eligible couples. Since then around 500 couples have been referred to private IVF clinics. The question is why has the Government chosen to incentivise one type of fertility treatment over others?
Couples struggling to conceive need to be given a choice and easy to understand data on their chances of success. It is essential that couples have a thorough understanding of the differences in treatment impacts, especially when there are alternatives with greater success rates, at a fraction of the cost.
Reality
Oxford University Professor, Dr Imogen Goold, an expert in medical ethics recently argued that the way in which IVF clinics market their services can often promote a false dream that will never come true. She stressed the importance of offering “unbiased advice, as clinics preying on women who are anxious and getting them to throw money at the problem.”
A huge issue is that the IVF industry in Ireland has no regulatory body overseeing it. That means it’s easy to peddle misleading information. Surely now that they are being State funded, regulation and oversight is needed more than ever. All of the clinics I researched in Ireland when detailing their ‘success rates’ use the metric of ‘pregnancy rates’ – this is vastly different from a live birth rate, meaning a babe in arms at the end of 9 months.
For example, for a woman over 42 the live birth rate per IVF cycle is between 1-3%, yet the ‘pregnancy rate’ these clinics use to tout success is 25%. These clinics shouldn’t be allowed to sell the dream of a baby with misleading statistics, results should be clearly identifiable by age and number of cycles needed.
“Multiple studies show IVF pregnancies are more prone to complications such as pre-term babies and low birth weights”
In the US the CDC has an easy portal where you put in your age, weight and some other criteria to show your actual chance of success. Surely, at a minimum, we should have the same here. What’s stopping the Irish Government from doing this?
That is before we even consider the emotional and physical impact of IVF. A recent survey, from the Fertility Network UK, revealed that 4 in 10 women undergoing IVF have felt suicidal. In contrast, the data on Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) shows an overall improvement in the women’s health, wellbeing, and the couple’s relationship. Furthermore, multiple studies show IVF pregnancies are more prone to complications such as pre-term babies and low birth weights.
The 6 Fertility hubs are a step in the right direction, they need to be places where couples can understand their fertility and be given access to clear, unbiased information. A place where funding and information should be available for different types of fertility treatments that can be accountable with demonstrable success rates.
RRM
One such alternative is Restorative Reproductive Medicine. The big difference between IVF and RRM is that the latter aims to treat the root cause of infertility. It doesn’t bypass the importance of a woman’s reproductive health, it tries to restore it. In many categories it has far superior success rates. In one peer reviewed journal it found one in three couples, with an average age of 37, and two previously failed IVF cycles had a baby with RRM.
Dr Phil Boyle, President of the Restorative Reproductive Medicine Institute has helped thousands of couples to conceive naturally. He explained his attempts to engage with the department of health has “fallen on deaf ears”.
“The Government doesn’t seem to be interested in accountability and transparency; they are not asking basic questions, for example, how much does the treatment cost and what sort of success rate are we getting? In round figures if you’re looking at the cost per baby born, it will cost approximately €20,000, per baby, born through IVF.
“The cost comparable for Restorative Reproductive Medicine is €5,000 per baby. Comparing our peer reviewed data on success rates, they are higher than IVF with an overall birth rate of 40% compared to 24%, we are more than happy to share our extensive data, which shows we will get many more babies for far less cost, and any clinic receiving public funding should have to do the same.
“There are also couples for which, ethically and morally, IVF isn’t an option for them. This funding discriminates against those couples.”
“Within three months we were pregnant. I wish I had known this type of treatment existed before we started IVF”
Of the couples Dr Boyle has helped, many were told they couldn’t conceive at all, or had multiple failed rounds of IVF. He explained:
“Infertility is usually a symptom of multiple underlying health conditions. By solving the underlying issues, not only do we have greater success rates, but we can achieve a healthier pregnancy and birth.”
One of his many success stories is Niamh and David, who after 3 failed IVF rounds, and using donor eggs, had 2 babies with RRM, naturally.
Niamh said that after struggling to conceive: “I was 31 and I was told I had the ovaries of a 46-year-old and it was unlikely I would ever have my own baby. The path we went on using donor eggs involved so much physical, emotional and financial turmoil.”
Niamh and David then went to Dr Boyle and had extensive testing which had never been done before, revealed treatable issues. Niamh explained they were very relieved to be told something they had never heard in the five years they had been trying to conceive: “We will treat the problems not bypass them, and within three months we were pregnant. I wish I had known this type of treatment existed before we started IVF.”
Paul and Jennifer shared a similar story: “After years of trying and many failed IVF cycles, being told we needed donor eggs, we were at a very low point. We felt we had run out of options, then we discovered RRM and within eight weeks we were pregnant.” The couple have had three babies successfully with this method.
Oversight
Robert Winston, Emeritus Professor of Fertility studies at Imperial College London, is critical of what he calls the “IVF gravy train”. He says the evidence would show that more than half of couples referred for IVF could be treated by cheaper alternatives. The tunnel vision focus of the Government on IVF will sideline giving some couples the most appropriate treatment they need to restore optimal health and fertility. Government spending needs to have oversight, allow couples choice, the taxpayer value for money, and help point couples towards the path that will give them the best possible chance at having a baby.
Less popular alternative for infertility treatment outperforms IVF
When it comes to private companies receiving state funding, surely one of the first things the Government should insist on is a cost-benefit analysis. Sadly, the opposite is happening when it comes to assisting couples struggling to conceive.
Last September the Government introduced a state subsidy for IVF for eligible couples. Since then around 500 couples have been referred to private IVF clinics. The question is why has the Government chosen to incentivise one type of fertility treatment over others?
Couples struggling to conceive need to be given a choice and easy to understand data on their chances of success. It is essential that couples have a thorough understanding of the differences in treatment impacts, especially when there are alternatives with greater success rates, at a fraction of the cost.
Reality
Oxford University Professor, Dr Imogen Goold, an expert in medical ethics recently argued that the way in which IVF clinics market their services can often promote a false dream that will never come true. She stressed the importance of offering “unbiased advice, as clinics preying on women who are anxious and getting them to throw money at the problem.”
A huge issue is that the IVF industry in Ireland has no regulatory body overseeing it. That means it’s easy to peddle misleading information. Surely now that they are being State funded, regulation and oversight is needed more than ever. All of the clinics I researched in Ireland when detailing their ‘success rates’ use the metric of ‘pregnancy rates’ – this is vastly different from a live birth rate, meaning a babe in arms at the end of 9 months.
For example, for a woman over 42 the live birth rate per IVF cycle is between 1-3%, yet the ‘pregnancy rate’ these clinics use to tout success is 25%. These clinics shouldn’t be allowed to sell the dream of a baby with misleading statistics, results should be clearly identifiable by age and number of cycles needed.
“Multiple studies show IVF pregnancies are more prone to complications such as pre-term babies and low birth weights”
In the US the CDC has an easy portal where you put in your age, weight and some other criteria to show your actual chance of success. Surely, at a minimum, we should have the same here. What’s stopping the Irish Government from doing this?
That is before we even consider the emotional and physical impact of IVF. A recent survey, from the Fertility Network UK, revealed that 4 in 10 women undergoing IVF have felt suicidal. In contrast, the data on Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) shows an overall improvement in the women’s health, wellbeing, and the couple’s relationship. Furthermore, multiple studies show IVF pregnancies are more prone to complications such as pre-term babies and low birth weights.
The 6 Fertility hubs are a step in the right direction, they need to be places where couples can understand their fertility and be given access to clear, unbiased information. A place where funding and information should be available for different types of fertility treatments that can be accountable with demonstrable success rates.
RRM
One such alternative is Restorative Reproductive Medicine. The big difference between IVF and RRM is that the latter aims to treat the root cause of infertility. It doesn’t bypass the importance of a woman’s reproductive health, it tries to restore it. In many categories it has far superior success rates. In one peer reviewed journal it found one in three couples, with an average age of 37, and two previously failed IVF cycles had a baby with RRM.
Dr Phil Boyle, President of the Restorative Reproductive Medicine Institute has helped thousands of couples to conceive naturally. He explained his attempts to engage with the department of health has “fallen on deaf ears”.
“The Government doesn’t seem to be interested in accountability and transparency; they are not asking basic questions, for example, how much does the treatment cost and what sort of success rate are we getting? In round figures if you’re looking at the cost per baby born, it will cost approximately €20,000, per baby, born through IVF.
“The cost comparable for Restorative Reproductive Medicine is €5,000 per baby. Comparing our peer reviewed data on success rates, they are higher than IVF with an overall birth rate of 40% compared to 24%, we are more than happy to share our extensive data, which shows we will get many more babies for far less cost, and any clinic receiving public funding should have to do the same.
“There are also couples for which, ethically and morally, IVF isn’t an option for them. This funding discriminates against those couples.”
“Within three months we were pregnant. I wish I had known this type of treatment existed before we started IVF”
Of the couples Dr Boyle has helped, many were told they couldn’t conceive at all, or had multiple failed rounds of IVF. He explained:
“Infertility is usually a symptom of multiple underlying health conditions. By solving the underlying issues, not only do we have greater success rates, but we can achieve a healthier pregnancy and birth.”
One of his many success stories is Niamh and David, who after 3 failed IVF rounds, and using donor eggs, had 2 babies with RRM, naturally.
Niamh said that after struggling to conceive: “I was 31 and I was told I had the ovaries of a 46-year-old and it was unlikely I would ever have my own baby. The path we went on using donor eggs involved so much physical, emotional and financial turmoil.”
Niamh and David then went to Dr Boyle and had extensive testing which had never been done before, revealed treatable issues. Niamh explained they were very relieved to be told something they had never heard in the five years they had been trying to conceive: “We will treat the problems not bypass them, and within three months we were pregnant. I wish I had known this type of treatment existed before we started IVF.”
Paul and Jennifer shared a similar story: “After years of trying and many failed IVF cycles, being told we needed donor eggs, we were at a very low point. We felt we had run out of options, then we discovered RRM and within eight weeks we were pregnant.” The couple have had three babies successfully with this method.
Oversight
Robert Winston, Emeritus Professor of Fertility studies at Imperial College London, is critical of what he calls the “IVF gravy train”. He says the evidence would show that more than half of couples referred for IVF could be treated by cheaper alternatives. The tunnel vision focus of the Government on IVF will sideline giving some couples the most appropriate treatment they need to restore optimal health and fertility. Government spending needs to have oversight, allow couples choice, the taxpayer value for money, and help point couples towards the path that will give them the best possible chance at having a baby.
New Bishop Chairman: No special path for Germany in reforms
Bishop Coll: young Catholics seek ‘doctrinal solidity, not adaptability’
Late Bishop Willie Walsh honoured with plaza on first anniversary
Dr Slim urges humanitarian shift as Trócaire warns of climate impact
Top TOPICS
Unsurprisingly, quite a few Lent related items featured in the media last week. The News
When I was in college, back in the days when the earth’s crust was still
Dear Editor, Garry O’Sullivan makes valuable points concerning the accountability of deceased clerical sexual abusers
Bishop Niall Coll’s recent remarks mark a significant moment in the lead-up to the upcoming