Could It Be Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS)?
If I had to say which two causes of infertility get the most press, I'd say it was age related infertility and polycystic ovarian syndrome, also known as PCOS. PCOS is a common endocrine disorder in women, affecting up to 8% of women.
There are a lot of misconceptions about polycystic ovarian syndrome. For one, some women (and even doctors!) seem to assume if a woman is having trouble with ovulation, and age isn't the cause, then PCOS is an obvious answer. But that's simply not true! There are a range of causes of anovulation, and while polycystic ovarian syndrome is a common cause, it's important to rule out other causes before diagnosis.
Another misconception about PCOS is that only women who are overweight have PCOS. This is one I've run into personally. I had just switched my gynecologist, and had a polycystic ovarian syndrome diagnosis from my previous doctor, based on blood work, ultrasound confirmation of polycystic ovaries, and symptoms.
But when giving over my history to my new doctor, when I said I have PCOS, she said, "No you don't." I didn't even know how to respond to that! I felt like a four year old when I said, "Yes, I do."
My new doctor was looking at me - at a healthy weight - and assuming I could not possibly have PCOS. I eventually had to "prove" it with my old records, but it was an uncomfortable situation.
Learn more about what you need to know about polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) in this article.
Could Reflexology Help with Infertility?
Could reflexology become the next alternative medicine option for infertility? According to a news article at the UK DailyMail website, the IVF unit at Derriford Hospital in Plymouth, England will be starting a two year clinical trial to find out.
The article says that some women feel reflexology has helped them become pregnant, but as of today, no research has looked into the claims. This will be the first study on reflexology and infertility.
Reflexology is an alternative treatment method that believes certain "reflex" points on the feet and hands correspond to particular organs and systems in the body.
For the trial, 150 women will be offered reflexology treatment instead of treatment with the fertility drug Clomid.
The study sounds interesting, and I'm curious of what the results will be. It's good to see researchers looking into more alternative treatment methods.
Right now, acupuncture is one of the few research studied alternative treatment methods for infertility, but there are quite a few alternative treatment methods claiming their "way" works. My hope is that researchers will take the time to look into these different techniques and claims, so women will not only have more options, but also, so that money, time, and effort isn't wasted on methods that just do not really work.
Have you ever tried reflexology, or any other alternative treatment method? Share your experiences in the comment section below. I'd love to hear from you!
More information:
More Thorough Screening of Sperm Donors Needed
A new article at MSNBC.com reported that a sperm donor from San Francisco passed on a genetic heart condition to 9 out of 24 of his biological children. One of those children died from heart failure at age 2.
The genetic heart condition, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, is apparently not that uncommon of a genetic condition, affecting 1 in 500. The donor bank where the condition was passed on has now started screening all potential donors for this condition (which does not always express symptoms) by giving the men an ECG.
The article also mentioned that most banks screen for genetic disorders via blood test, but this particular disorder has been pretty much ignored. The genetic disorders that have been included in regular screening are actually less common than this heart condition.
The story highlights the need for careful screening of all donors - sperm and egg donors. Of course, when a couple has a baby (without using a sperm donor), there is the potential to pass on whatever health conditions may exist in their families. But they have the benefit of having good access to their family history.
For children of sperm or egg donors, they only have the information made available through the sperm bank, which may or may not be enough if medical problems arise later.
Plus, when choosing a donor, you want the best you can get, healthwise. Why choose a donor who may pass on a serious medical condition, when you can choose a donor with a healthier track record?
What are your thoughts? Please share in the comments below, I'd love to hear from you!
The Cost of Twins
There's an interesting article at the New York Times online titled "The Gift of Life, and Its Price." The article talks about IVF treatment and the rate at which twin pregnancies result. It goes on to explain that while many people think of twins as not a "big deal" risk wise, the fact of the matter is that twins are riskier than a singleton pregnancy.
Twins are conceived from IVF treatment often because couples choose to have two or more embryos transferred, rather than one, to increase the odds of success. The hope is that at least one baby will "stick", but often, both babies stick, leading to twins.
The article also talks about how much more expensive twins are, in terms of medical costs, and that this is one of many reasons single-embryo transfer should be used for IVF treatment, in women with a high chance of success.
In my opinion, the article spends very little wordage on one of the biggest barriers to single-embryo transfer - and that's the cost to a couple who is going through fertility treatment.
Yes, it's true -- the overall medical costs for twins can be much, much higher. But couples rarely see that expense. Health insurance usually covers the bill. On the other hand, the cost of IVF treatment is often solely paid for by the couple. When looking at their budget, opting for two embryos instead of one embryo looks like the best choice (especially when the risks of twin pregnancies aren't understood, or when they can only afford one treatment cycle).
I know that at least a few fertility clinics have started offering incentives to those opting for a single embryo transfer. The deal is that you pay for the first treatment cycle, and they will freeze any extra embryos and transfer them at a later cycle if the first treatment cycle fails, without added cost. This is an excellent idea.
The question is, how popular will it become? I'd like to see it become standard protocol, and I suspect that would be more likely if insurance companies were paying for treatments. (They seem to have a way of reducing costs when they want to.)
I have a feeling if health insurance had to cover fertility treatment, it'd be good for everyone - even those insurance companies who are now refusing to cover IVF.
It'd be better for the doctors, as they would get more business (from those who could not otherwise afford treatment).
It'd be better for the couples, who wouldn't feel as pressured to transfer more than one embryo at a time.
It'd be better for the insurance companies, who could spend a little now to increase a couple's odd at having one baby, instead of paying high costs when multiples result instead.
And it'd be better for the babies, who might have a better chance at being born at the right time.
What are your thoughts? Please share in the comments below, I want to hear from you!
More about twins and fertility treatment risks:
Will The Future Fertility Drugs Not Require Injections?
For those of us that have gone through fertility treatment beyond Clomid, injections were often inevitable. But that may not be true soon.
Apparently, researchers have developed a new way to transfer fertility drugs, besides injection, through a patch you wear on your arm. It's still in testing, and not available for wide use. But if the patch turns out to be a reliable, safe alternative to self-injection, it may mean less stress during fertility treatment. (I don't know about you, but giving myself the injections was one of the more stressful aspects of treatment.)
On the other hand, wearing a patch on your arm (with what looks to be from the pictures a tiny box) may not be preferred by all women. It might not be a great feeling to be reminded all day that you're going through fertility treatment.
What do you think? Would you prefer the patch to injections? Or maybe not? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Wrong Embryos Transferred – A Sad and Heartrending Story
Imagine thinking that you’re having your own embryos transferred during an IVF treatment. This is also your last chance at being pregnant, for health reasons. Then, imagine getting a phone call saying you’re pregnant -- but not with your embryos. They are someone else’s. Your options are either to terminate the pregnancy, or carry the baby to term, and hand over the baby to the rightful biological parents after the birth.
You’d hope this wouldn’t, and couldn’t, happen, but it does happen. The Today Show interviewed a couple who is experiencing the imagined scenario above. For religious reasons, they choose not to abort the baby, but to carry the child to term.
The biological parents are obvious thrilled that they choose to not abort the baby, but for the couple now pregnant, they face the future delivery and the requirement to hand over the baby to the parents after the birth.
When I saw the video interview online, at MSNBC.com, I cried. So I warn you, you may get teary watching.
I just cannot imagine having to make a choice like this. Being on either side of a situation like this must be frightening and upsetting.
I keep asking myself if something like this did happen, what would I do? I can’t imagine aborting the baby, especially since the baby wasn’t really “mine”. On the other hand, the idea of bonding and carrying the baby for nine months, only to hand the baby over at the end... Just, wow.
This is not the first time a mistake like this was made. In other stories, couples have chosen the other path -- aborting the baby. This must be extremely hard on the biological parents, but I can’t fault the couple who was given the wrong embryos either. They didn’t choose to carry another couple’s child, and while the embryo may not be theirs, it is their body that carries that child.
What would you do, if God forbid, you were put in a situation like this? Would you abort the baby? Carry the baby to term? Share your thoughts below; I’d love to hear from you.
New Technology May Improve IVF Success Rates
A new technology may help improve IVF success rates -- though some experts are cautioning that it's too early to really say whether or not the new test will make a difference.
The new technology is Array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation, or Array CGH for short. Essentially, it's a genetic test, that allows an egg or embryo to be screened for chromosomal abnormalities. In women older than 35, chromosomal abnormalities may be the key reason for lower success rates. If doctors could pre-screen eggs and embryos, before transferring them to the uterus, they may be able to improve success and lower miscarriage rates.
This isn't the first time that a genetic based test has been developed for IVF, and previous genetic screening tests have not shown to make a big difference in success rates. Still, there is hope that this new test will help. You can read more about the test, and the first child born with the help of this pre-screening test, here.
While the new test may or may not be the key to improved success, you can't help but smile at the test's first success story. The baby's name is Oliver, born to a 41-year old mother, who had gone through 13 previous IVF attempts. Congrats to the new mom and baby!
More about IVF:
Criminal Background Checks Required Before IVF in Australia
Want to have a baby using IVF? Well, first you’ll have to pass a criminal check...
Sound crazy? This is the new reality for couples dealing with infertility in Melbourne and the state of Victoria, Australia. According to news reports, the Victorian Law Reform Commission has required that all couples wanting to go through IVF first have a background police check.
Should the background check find any convictions for serious sex or violent crimes, past incidents of having children taken out of their care, or any other crime that is considered a potential risk to children – IVF should be forbidden to the couple.
Now, I agree that someone with serious sex or violent crime in their past shouldn’t be raising kids. However, are they now going to force everyone else in Victoria to use birth control? And only allow people to have children if they pass background checks?
Of course, that will never happen. This law is unfairly targeting couples with infertility. It’s discrimination. And I think it’s blatantly wrong.
What are your thoughts? Leave a comment below. I want to hear from you!
Visit Our Fertility Forums!
If you haven't checked out our fertility forums, you should. It's a great place to find people that get what you're going through.
Have something to ask? Maybe you're having a bad day? (Or a great day!) Come share!
Or, maybe you don't have something in particular on your mind, but you're looking for a little connection. Come by and read posts from others trying to conceive. Offer your support or experiences, and brighten someone's day.
Celebrity Look-Alike Sperm Donors?
According to a CNN.com news report, a sperm bank in California has a unique marketing spin. You can search their sperm donor database for which celebrity the sperm donor looks like. In other words, you can look for a sperm donor who they label as looking similar to Ben Affleck (apparently the most commonly searched for celebrity).
I think this is a bit... well, odd.
On the one hand, I see some potential good sides. You can already search for sperm donor by eye color, body build, hair color, and even intelligence. This helps couples try to pick someone who will look like their other children or their boy friend or husband.
However, you can’t usually see photos of the actual sperm donor. Being able to say that a sperm donor looks like someone recognizable (maybe Jon Stewart), enables the couple to better visualize who their potential donor looks like, and maybe have a better hint at what a child would look like.
But there is no guarantee that a Jon Stewart look-alike sperm donor will have a child that looks anything like Jon Stewart. (And one would hope not, if for example, that child turned out to be a girl!)
Where I have issues with the idea is if this is used as some sort of “baby designing” concept. What if a couple actually picks out a donor, just because they want a child with celebrity looks? And what if the baby born ends up looking nothing like that celebrity? Will the parents be disappointed? Could that possibility affect how they feel about the child?
It just seems to me like a unique marketing idea, which has the potential to go very wrong for some. But those are my thoughts. (My husband says I’m way too conservative – he sees no problem with wanting a celebrity look-alike child.)
What do you think? Do you see anything wrong with choosing a sperm donor, solely based on celebrity look-alikeness? Would you do it? Take our poll, and leave your thoughts in the comments!