Post by Georgina on Feb 7, 2009 12:47:54 GMT -5
While in the past week there's been discussion in the US about the birth of the IV implanted octuplets, in Canada, a 60 year-old woman gave birth to twins. When refused treatment by fertility clinics in Canada, the woman went to India and had IVF treatments. She conceived and returned to Canada. There's a whole range of discussion about this, too.
Abuse – and anger
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
February 6, 2009 at 11:22 PM EST
Ranjit Hayer was declined infertility treatments in Canada for good and obvious reasons. The woman is 60 years old. Any resulting pregnancy would be inherently high-risk, both for the mother and children. With so much at stake, it is ethically wrong for physicians to assist in bringing about such a pregnancy.
But the Hayers would not take no for an answer; they would not accept the verdict either of health-care professionals in this country who refused to perform the treatments – or of nature. Instead, the Hayers returned to their native India, where unscrupulous practitioners arranged a pregnancy in a woman who in this country would be considered too old even to adopt. The costs of that pregnancy are not only being borne by Ms. Hayer's health, however, which would be bad enough. They are also borne by Canada's public health-care system.
After the donor-egg IVF treatment, Ms. Hayer returned to Canada. Unsurprisingly, she has had a very difficult pregnancy, with the result that costly medical interventions have been necessary, including the termination of one fetus (Ms. Hayter originally carried triplets), potentially fatal hemorrhaging, and premature births of the remaining twins, who are in neonatal intensive care. While people no doubt understand the Hayers' happiness, there is a great deal of debate – indeed anger – over their actions.
That anger should not be directed at the work of fertility clinics in Canada. Abuse of reproductive technologies by older couples who go to extreme lengths overseas does not reflect negatively on the application of those technologies in this country. Inevitably, some medical ethicists will seize on the Hayers' case to call for more regulations over these procedures in Canada. Those calls should be rejected.
The real question is what, if anything, can be done to prevent older couples from following the Hayers' lead and going offshore to procure such pregnancies. The answer, sadly, is very little. When people such as Ms. Hayer show up at Canadian hospitals and doctors' offices requiring medical attention, they cannot and must not be turned away. The two Hayer babies similarly are not responsible for the age of their mother or the manner of their conception. They are entitled to the best medical care this country can provide.
All that Canada can do, really, is to formalize through diplomatic channels the disapproval felt by many ordinary Canadians at the irresponsibility of India in failing to control its doctors.
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.weMom07/BNStory/specialComment/home
Abuse – and anger
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
February 6, 2009 at 11:22 PM EST
Ranjit Hayer was declined infertility treatments in Canada for good and obvious reasons. The woman is 60 years old. Any resulting pregnancy would be inherently high-risk, both for the mother and children. With so much at stake, it is ethically wrong for physicians to assist in bringing about such a pregnancy.
But the Hayers would not take no for an answer; they would not accept the verdict either of health-care professionals in this country who refused to perform the treatments – or of nature. Instead, the Hayers returned to their native India, where unscrupulous practitioners arranged a pregnancy in a woman who in this country would be considered too old even to adopt. The costs of that pregnancy are not only being borne by Ms. Hayer's health, however, which would be bad enough. They are also borne by Canada's public health-care system.
After the donor-egg IVF treatment, Ms. Hayer returned to Canada. Unsurprisingly, she has had a very difficult pregnancy, with the result that costly medical interventions have been necessary, including the termination of one fetus (Ms. Hayter originally carried triplets), potentially fatal hemorrhaging, and premature births of the remaining twins, who are in neonatal intensive care. While people no doubt understand the Hayers' happiness, there is a great deal of debate – indeed anger – over their actions.
That anger should not be directed at the work of fertility clinics in Canada. Abuse of reproductive technologies by older couples who go to extreme lengths overseas does not reflect negatively on the application of those technologies in this country. Inevitably, some medical ethicists will seize on the Hayers' case to call for more regulations over these procedures in Canada. Those calls should be rejected.
The real question is what, if anything, can be done to prevent older couples from following the Hayers' lead and going offshore to procure such pregnancies. The answer, sadly, is very little. When people such as Ms. Hayer show up at Canadian hospitals and doctors' offices requiring medical attention, they cannot and must not be turned away. The two Hayer babies similarly are not responsible for the age of their mother or the manner of their conception. They are entitled to the best medical care this country can provide.
All that Canada can do, really, is to formalize through diplomatic channels the disapproval felt by many ordinary Canadians at the irresponsibility of India in failing to control its doctors.
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.weMom07/BNStory/specialComment/home
