Based on the work of Min Chueh Chang’s application of in vitro fertilization to animals, for the first time this technique was developed for humans in the United Kingdom by Patrick Steptoe (a gynecologist) and Robert Edwards (an embryologist). As a result of their trial, the first “test-tube baby”, Louise Brown, was born in England, on July 25, 1978. They did these experiments amid intense controversy over the safety and morality of the procedure (Steptoe and Edwards, 1978). Subhash Mukhopadhyay became the second to perform the procedure and produce the test tube baby “Durga” on October 3, 1978.
Later, after facing social ostracism, bureaucratic negligence, reprimand and insult instead of recognition from the Marxist West Bengal government and refusal of the Government of India to allow him to attend international conferences, Mukhopadhyay committed suicide in his Calcutta residence in 1981. This shows that from the initial stages of development of IVF, the some part society always protested against the new technology. In Australia, major developments in IVF also occurred with the work of Carl Wood, Alan Trounson and Ian Johnston (Cohen et.al, 2005).
The world’s third IVF baby, Candice Reed was born on June 23, 1980 in Melbourne, Australia. IVF in USA took place in 1981 under the direction of Doctors Howard Jones and Georgeanna Seegar Jones in Norfolk, Virginia. Since then IVF has exploded in popularity, with as many as 1% of all births now being conceived in-vitro, with over 115,000 born in the USA to date (Wikipedia, 2007). The psychological pain a childless couple undergoes is tremendous. IVF has come as a blessing for these people.
One of the most evident benefits of in vitro fertilization is that it can allow an infertile couple to have a baby. Additionally, IVF treatment can also reduce the need for surgery on the fallopian tubes. Studies in the recent yeas have shown that almost 1,000 European children who were conceived through in vitro fertilization and monitored from birth until age 5 were shown to be as healthy as children who were conceived naturally. This means to say that there is virtually no difference in children conceived through IVF and through normal conception.
For an IVF to be successful, there are many factors such as the viability of the embryos, the age of the mother, and the quality of the sperm. Studies point out that in the United States, IVF success rates have been comparatively high. By the end of the year 2002, nearly 300,000 babies conceived through assisted reproductive technology had been born. At present, 99 percent of ART pregnancies are the result of IVF treatment. Roughly 37 percent of women under the age of 36 who undergo IVF experience a successful pregnancy. Further, it is said that as the mother’s age increases the success rate also comes down.
For instance, the success rate of IVF treatment for women aged 36 to 39 is 28 percent and in women over the age of 40, IVF treatment is successful approximately 13 percent of the time. In general, scientists claim that the success rates of IVF are almost similar to the success rates of natural means copulation. Besides, the rate of miscarriage after IVF is almost the same as the rate of miscarriage after natural conception. Ectopic pregnancies occur in roughly 3 to 5 percent of IVF cases which is the same as rate as in natural pregnancies (Einstein Medical, 2006).
In vitro fertilization (IVF) and other assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have generated serious social reactions since its inception. Several moral and ethical concerns have been raised because of in-vitro fertilization. Some accuse that the procedure is too much like playing God. There are also fears about the safety of the procedures and the impact their implementation on the institution of marriage. However, many childless couples find this procedure as a blessing for have successfully delivered healthy babies. As a result in-vitro has enjoyed a good success rate.
In come cases in-vitro procedures have resulted with women giving birth to twins, triplets, or even more babies at once. It’s a good idea to try the process with three or fewer eggs, on the chance that all the eggs will become successfully fertilized and produce children. In-vitro is a viable option for women who cannot naturally conceive. While there are advantages of the procedure there are also disadvantages or risks involved in IVF. One of the most common dangers of in-vitro is that though many couples go with hope, the failures of this procedure makes them depressed.
It is extremely disappointing and depressing for a couple who has tried a lot of methods and also fail in in-vitro. Besides, this procedure is also very expensive when compared to other techniques. There is nothing to suggest that in-vitro fertilization will make natural conception easier or harder for the woman in the future. Medically, the procedure is comparatively safe. There is some pain linked with the procedure of removing the woman’s eggs, but, and there is a surgical procedure involved (Lawrence, 2001).
In light of the dramatic advances in technology over the three decades, it is remarkable that the moral status of the human embryo still engenders the most problematic issues in the field. Interestingly, the immense advances in all aspect of IVF technology have led to the restoration of ancient strategies, in particular the use of the natural cycle or the simply stimulated cycle for IVF. Progresses in the biomedical sciences are helping to cure diseases, give children to the infertile, improve the quality of life, and increase longevity.
However, some of these biomedical developments are also causing death and injury, and creating public alarm. Such developments deal with society with new ethical dilemmas especially about reproductive rights, parenthood, medicalization of reproduction, exploitation, consent, and equity in the distribution of scarce medical resources. Some of the other problems are the increasing use of left over embryos for the stem cell research. Today there are several religions and social organizations protesting against this research.
Though there are several controversies around stem cell research this has helped to develop hope in those people who are suffering form various aliments. First and foremost argument made by the scientific community is that human stem cell research is said to promise new life changing treatments and possible cures for many devastating diseases and injuries, such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns and spinal cord injuries (Young, 2003). There are a number of sources for obtaining human stem cells.
The first is IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) treatment, where surplus embryos (and unfertilized eggs for creating embryos) are donated for research with the consent of the donor rather than being destroyed following treatment. The second source is aborted tissues, which are used as stem cells taken from the aborted fetus. Another is umbilical cord blood, rich in stem cells. These cells are harvested following the baby’s birth. There are also several other problems that may be faced due to the development of IVF. For instance, this technology combined with the DNA analysis, may help in the identification of the sex of the embryo.
This may further give the parents to go for selective sex. Besides parents may be able to select the characteristics of the child to be born and there by may play the role of God. The hormone drugs given to women for the purpose of ovulation may in future trigger cancer or may even result in hyper stimulation. According to empirical evidence, risks to women undergoing IVF treatment vary from simple nausea to death. Some studies state that ovulation induction may be a risk factor for certain types of hormone dependent cancers.
These are some of the side effects of this technology. Studies have shown that excessive estrogen secretion with ovarian and breast carcinoma, and gonadotropin secretion with ovarian cancer. A substantial body of experimental, clinical, and epidemiological evidence indicates that hormones play a major role in the development of several human cancers. The ability of hormones to stimulate cell division in certain organs, such as the breast, endometrium, and the ovary, may lead to the build up of random genetic errors that eventually produce cancer.
Studies also point out that hormone-related cancers account for more than 30% of all newly diagnosed female cancer in the United States. Therefore, techniques such as IVF that rely on massive doses of hormones, may be quite dangerous. The ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is one more possible iatrogenic consequence of ovulation induction. Women with the severe form of OHSS may suffer kidney related problems, liver dysfunction, thromboembolic phenomena, shock, and sometimes even death. Studies also say that the frequency of moderate and severe OHSS in IVF treatment ranges from 3-4%.
A frequency of 3-4% is high, considering IVF is a selective procedure that treats a non-life threatening condition. Furthermore, this syndrome is very rare following natural conception (Melo-Martin, 1998). In conclusion, it can be said that IVF technology holes a great deal of importance. The main point here is that IVF has helped childless couples to have children. All of the reports conclude that artificial insemination and IVF are legal medical responses to infertility but that informed consent is a precondition for treatment.
They argue that some forms of embryo research, like cloning, obviously are intolerable. But, others forms of embryo research are allowable within the first fourteen days of development in vitro, provided that ethics committees control and approve them. Today in many countries governments are also agreeing to allow the donation of embryos. Likewise, the reports agree that governments need to standardize the legal status of children conceived through the new reproductive technologies. They also stress the need to set up some form of national accreditation or licensing for assisted-conception clinics.