Talk:In vitro fertilisation/Archive 1

Ethical issues discussion
Why are many of the unfounded ethical issues still present in this article when they are based strictly on personal or organized bias? Misallocation of medical resources? What they heck is that suppose to mean? Medical resources should only be allocated to professions given the stamp of approval by the RCC? And why is the RCC in this section at all? Shall we include every religion in the list of opinions on this topic?

Why is the church mentioned in this article and allowed to bring up unchallenged ethical concerns? The birth of Jesus was not natural conception. Either ditch their biased, meddling and irrelevant concerns or allow IVF patients to express their concerns about the ethics of the church on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabvab (talk • contribs) 06:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the mention of stupid catholics is totally irrelevant to the subject of the article. IMO such stupidity doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia at all, and certainly it should be at least moved to more obscure article.

Two times to LOL
Towards the end of the article there is a line about "some men with Klinefelter's syndrome occasionally achieveing pregnancy" ... oh really! The other chance to laugh out loud is "The first transfer of an embryo from one human to another resulting in pregnancy was reported in July 1983 and subsequently led to the announcement of the first human birth February 3, 1984." So what species were all those people born before 1984, if the first human birth was not until February of 1984?Shrommer (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from old /todo page

 * Tighten up wording of some sentences.
 * Explain some of terms used in 'technique' section ('sperm penetration assays')
 * Selection section: The use of blastocyst transfer is increasingly more popular in Europe. I am in the process of finding reliable academic resources [that are open access] to verify, but in the UK's National Health Care system, the practice of transferring a single blastocyst is encouraged for women who are under 38 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.141.235 (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Page location change
Just writing to let you know that our website ivf-infertility.co.uk which you kindly link to has actually moved ivf-infertility.com.

Spelling
We need to settle on either the British or American spellings. Currently we have "fertilize" sitting alongside "fertilization". Unless I'm mistaken and this is correct in the British spelling (don't have a British dictionary handy, and m-w doesn't recognize any of the British spellings.) Dachshund

Figures on births
45,000 seems awfully low for total number of IVF babies in the USA. Is this number current and accurate? Ntk 00:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm going to answer myself and say that it is way too low. IVF has exploded in recent years and one source says that about 1% of all births in the U.S.A. are in-vitro, with 40,000 in 2001 alone.  I'm going to use these stats but hopefully someone less lazy than me can find authoritative statistics for world-wide and current numbers. Ntk 00:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Redirect issues
The article Georgeanna Seegar Jones is redirected here, but she isn't even mentioned in the article. Someone please add some info (or remove the redirect.) Alensha 11:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naprotechnology
After looking at naprotechnology.com, I found absolutely no reason naprotechnology (a registered trademark) should be mentioned rather than natural techniques in general. I replaced the references to naprotechnology with a more generic reference. BanditCat 11:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Next generation
Has anyone (especially a woman) born via IVF had children of their own? If anyone knows the answer, it would be worth mentioning in the article. Matchups 16:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? That may be a novelty, but it doesn't seem of interest to a general article on the topic. MamaGeek Joy
 * It seems reasonable to be concerned about fertility issues for people who were themselves conceived in a novel way, and usually from infertile parents. Consider that mules are always sterile.  I can't see a reason why test-tube babies would be also, but there are always surprises. Matchups 02:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * O_o Thanks, now you've given me cause for concern. XD I'm a test-tube baby, conceived in a little plastic dish in March 1986, and so far I'm normal...ish. I have idiopathic epilepsy but I'm sure that's not a result of the IVF, and I do have normal periods, if a little irregular due to my anti-spazz medication. I'm not sexually active so I can't really add much to this rather interesting query (again: O_o) though I'd suggest to keep a non-prying eye on the state of Louise Brown's marriage; who knows, she married in 2004, she and her husband may be thinking about trying for the next generation as we speak. Lady BlahDeBlah 15:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article on Louise Brown now has a link to an article in the Guardian: LB is expecting a baby, due January 2007. The child was conceived without medical intervention. Since there are people in their mid to late 20s who were test tube babies, it's possible some of them have already had children. 86.7.16.120 23:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The first IVF baby to give birth herself was actually Louise Brown's younger sister Natalie, who was conceived the same way and gave birth naturally in 1999. --Metropolitan90 19:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Name misspelled
As 'fertilization' gets 19 million hits on Google, and 'fertilisation' gets only 2 million hits, I'm assuming the spelling with the 'z' is correct. And that's what is in the opening paragraph of this article - but the title has an 's'. Would someone correct this? Lyrl 02:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Spelling with a 'z' is American English and with an 's' is British English. I would assume this issue would be quite common in Wikipedia. E! 16:30, 5 June 2006 (AEST)
 * For further information, refer to National varieties of English E! 20:51, 5 June 2006 (AEST)
 * Actually, the spelling "fertilization" is not the "American spelling", but the universally correct original English spelling, "fertilisation" is a variant popular in Britain and other Commonwealth countries. It would make more sense to have the article at "fertilization", but someone started it at "fertilisation" and per MoS, this is where it should stay. SpNeo 13:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

External Link
I am not sure if this is the place to put this text but I am trying to add a link to my website www.ivfsecrets.com and the link is removed by the editors. Can you please explain why?


 * Sure. See the words "my website" in your question.  Now read Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest.  Notice how it doesn't say, "even if it's a really great site". (And generally, new posts go at the bottom of a section.) -- Mwanner | Talk 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also wikipedia is not for the promotion of websites, see Spam policy & External links policy. The site is only a few months old and from just a little research, currently promoting it note the added date(12/12/2006).--Hu12 17:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK so can I submit my site for review and consideration to be added to the links? Thanks.

Technostorks
Editors, please resolve an issue I have with Icarus3 who keeps removing Technostorks from the External Links section of the article on IVF (it was also removed form articles on Infertility and Fertility. Technostorks is a unique documentary. It offers unbiased educational coverage on issues of infertility anf IVF. I received many comments from the infertility community that they need to be aware of this resource. It is not spam as Icarus3 keeps assuming. Perhaps I should write a separate article on it and include it in the See Also. I would really appreciate your comments. Thank you very much  in advance. --Technostorks 19:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In composing additional background for this issue, I discovered that the problem went far, far deeper than I was aware of:

Technostorks (recently under this name and previously under at least three anonymous IP addresses has added or attempted to add this external link to at least 42 articles (up to five times in the same article), in violation of WP:SPAM:

Fertility Infertility In vitro fertilisation Embryo transfer Intracytoplasmic sperm injection Third party reproduction Surrogacy Gestational carrier Sperm donation Preimplantation genetic diagnosis Pregnancy Ovarian follicle Candice Reed Louise Brown Pergonal Gonadotropin Clomifene Fertility medication Follicle-stimulating hormone Leuprolide Assisted reproductive technology Insemination Fertilisation Oligospermia Human chorionic gonadotropin Robert Edwards (physiologist) Progesterone Endometriosis Obstetrics Twin Multiple birth Subfertility Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome Repronex Snowflake children Reproductive endocrinology Embryo adoption Anovulation Egg donor Fertility awareness Luteinizing hormone Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist

This external link has a few links to other websites, but exists primarily to sell a DVD. For this reason, it is in violation of WP:EL guidelines. Technostorks has adapted his/her spamming technique to try to sneak it in as a "reference", on the surface appearing to comply with the request to add content instead of links, but I believe that this still breaks the spirit of anti-spam guidelines because of all of the other problems stated.

Technostorks was notified many times by myself, User:Jfdwolff, User:Lyrl, User:Mwanner, and User:Alphachimp that this kind of linkspam is not in line with Wikipedia standards. Technostorks was even blocked once, under an anonymous IP, for this behavior.

If the documentary has a reasonable claim to notability, it can of course have an article about it as Technostorks mentioned. Technostorks's clear conflict of interest (as evidenced by username and spamming alike), however, is a strong argument for abiding by the vanity guideline stating that "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." --Icarus (Hi!) 00:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The post and actions of Icarus3 appear to be driven by a spam bias. First, in response to the addition of the link, please note that the link was added ONLY to those articles (yes, the issues of infertility and IVF are covered in as many as 42 of them) that have a direct connection to the issues of fertility/infertility and IVF and are discussed in the documentary. If this were spam, the link would've also been added to articles on pregnancy, OB/GYN, women's health etc. which it was not. Second, there are many other sites in the articles on infertility and IVF, which are not being removed from the external links, that exist to primarily sell memberships, attract donations or sell products and services. They might be better disguised, but their corporate affiliation is quite apparent, while Technostorks is an independent company that helps educate patients about infertility and IVF and being punished for being open about it. Third, by explicitly follwing actions suggested by Icarus3 - add content with a reference - Technostorks is now being accused by Icarus3 of being "sneaky." Is it sneaky to explicitly register under the name of Technostorks and openly participate in this discussion? No. What would be sneaky is to register under some other name and pretend to not be affiliated with this educational project, so to qualify under the vanity guidelines.


 * It is really disconcerning that the "anti-spam spirit" advocated by Icarus3 - which is really more like a spam bias - might really drive some contributors to become sneaky, e.g. register under some other name. Technostorks is not sneaky. The film won an award as the Best Health Documentary. The creator of the first IVF baby in the US highly recommends it. Is this enough to have a claim to notoriety?


 * Please resolve this. --Technostorks 1:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, go read the "How not to be a spammer" section of WP:SPAM and points 3 and 4 of Links to normally be avoided. Unless you understand how and why spam isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, there's no point trying to debate this with you. A lot of other spam has been added and removed from those articles as well, and any that remains will hopefully be caught and removed by editors who have those articles on their watchlists. --Icarus (Hi!) 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Too human-centric
For anyone with the inclination: there's nothing inherent about in vitro fertilization that makes it human-centric and so I suggest a minor rephrasing. Stuff like "female" instead of "woman". Cburnett 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

EXCUSE me? is there something wrong with it being centered around YOUR species? 98.226.79.168 (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue of how many actually know anything about what the laboratories do?
They ahve been collecting eggs and sperm for years. The fertilization of the egg process is completed in a laboartory. This I have had explained to myself, they took out the eggs and spermatazoa under the flourescent light fixtures. Indicated it would be then placed under a microsocpe to ensure fertilization to create the zygote, which is then implanted in a host female. Of your own knowledge, what about light exposure occurs during conception of a child in uterus? Is it deliberate exposure and mutation? Crimes against humanity included such experimentations. What differs, which group is conducting it? Light exposure is mentioned in multiple sciences such as biochemistry, electrical chemistry, etc...xray, ultraviolet light wavelengths, along with sound and vibration ..... a human egg and spermatazoa are not normally exposed to such. Why would this not be a crime against humanity? Deliberate, calculated.. Then there are the excesses, the excess sperm and eggs, fertilized or not, more genetic mutation probabilities. Oh no, the mindset of all of them matters vastly. The attitude of they can do no wrong better be looked at again, just because they have costumes on.......lots have costumes on. What would preclude this from being a crime against humanity? They surely don't intend to implant them in themselves and to see what happens to themselves.........take a good look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.68.67 (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of Truth. As such, all addition to articles must be verifiable via reliable sources. If you have citations which meet these criteria, please list them before re-adding this to the page. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did the "issues" come from?
It's ridiculous to see "Insult in god's eyes" listed as the number one issue. What does that even mean? Who says that? Who's "god" are we talking about?

I'm not sure how that whole section is even there, given that there is not a single source for it and it is far from NPOV. But, if nothing else, at least remove that first point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.119.7 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2006


 * I just feel that a lot of these 'issues' should be counted as hearsay without direct citations or references, given that the tone suggests these 'issues' are taken from stem cell controversy and not IVF. Eurolymius 23:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The issues of the Catholic Church mainly can be read in the document Donum Vitae from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I would suggest to insert a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonolf (talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 May 2007


 * I think these issues are just as relevant to IVF as the stem cell controversy. The basic moral objections are the same: destruction of embryos, etc. There should be citations for that section, and maybe tightened up a bit (there is some redundancy), but I think it's important to at least mention these concerns that many people have. Though I admit I'm biased, being one of those people (though I'm not Catholic or religious at all). -kotra 22:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Motivations for the edits

 * I removed the "fact" from for that no studies showing positive results of alternative medicine have been without criticism, because each such statement in the article is followed by a criticism.
 * I also removed "fact" from that there is no definitive postitive effect of any complementary or alternative medicine on IVF. I can agree on that there are studies that have indicated such a positive effect, but I can't consider any of them definitive. However, fell free to add to the article, if you've found sources on that it has definitive effects.
 * I replaced this text,

Summarizing five trials of acupuncture when used as an adjunct to embryo transfer, involving a total of over 1000 women, the results clearly show a pregnancy twice as likely to occur in the acupuncture group compared to the control group

, with the following text:

''Researchers in Adelaide have evaluated the effect of acupuncture on women undergoing IVF, and couldn't exclude a smaller treatment effect. However, there was no significant difference compared to a control group of women not getting acupuncture.''

The text above takes is sourced to what a journalist wrote at abc.net.au

However, the original article, written by the researchers performing it, is found here, at NCBI. Here are some main differences to what the journalist wrote, and what the researchers wrote:

-The journalist says that the study showed that acupuncture to IVF patients can substantially increase pregnancy rates. The researchers, however, says that the difference did not reach statistical significance.

-In the former article, it was emphasised how one of the patients finally succeeded in becoming pregnant when she had acupuncture. This, is not denied in the original article, so I can congratulate her. On the other hand, many others who received acupuncture didn't succeed - one patient doesn't say it all.

-In the former article, the journalist says that the profesor says that there were more than one thousand patients. In the original article, however, the number is 228.

I agree however on that the article is very atractive to readers, and sounds very convincing as well. In other words, there is nothing wrong with the professionalism of the journalist. However, Wikipedia is a place where many infertile people go and read, and sometimes these people are really desperate. The more desperate they are, the more wrong it is to give them false hopes in acupuncture.


 * I removed the facts on that many scientific and methodologic issues are unclear, because the sources are found in the end of that very section.


 * For the Dieterle S, Ying G, Hatzmann W and Neuer A.-article, I removed the "by one scientist" on the ones who had critisized it, because there are several ones. I added another source to emphasis this.

I do not, however, critisize acupuncture itself - it might have positive effects on other issues. Still, until no definitive positive effect on IVF with acupuncture is proven, such claims do not belong here. Nevertheless, I do not exclude that scientific research finds mechanisms of acupuncture that benefits IVF in the future. Still, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:Crystal Ball) - there's no use speculating.Mikael Häggström 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article states (emphasis added):

Spontaneous splitting of embryos in the womb after transfer does occur, but is rare (<100%) and would lead to identical twins. Recent evidence suggest that singleton offspring after IVF is at higher risk for lower birth weight for unknown reasons.

I'm wondering if a different figure was intended instead of "< 100%". Spontaneous splitting occurring less <100% of the time doesn't illustrate the power that's rare (something that occurred 99% of the time is definitely not rare!) -- I'm wondering if the editor who added this originally meant "< 1.00%". Can someone with more knowledge of the subject area take a look at this? Kuribosshoe 23:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Turner Syndrome
I think there should be mention of this syndrome since these women have no ovaries but are able to carry a baby they either need a procedure such as this or need to adopt.Bronayur 05:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious phrase
From the article: 'The IVF process requires sperm, eggs, a uterus and a bed.' Yes... I guess so, but it doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Unfortunately I'm not really familiar with the process, could someone who knows more about it than me please change this to something more appropriate? Cheers. THE KING (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal
I have removed the section 'Famous people born through IVF' as it only contains Madelaine McCann, who is only well known in the UK and Portugal and contributes nothing worthwhile to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaneite (talk • contribs) 11:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Microfabricated Human Incubators
The Micro Intensive Care Unit (Micro ICU) Project is developing incubators for human embryos and hatchlings using microfabrication technologies such as microfluidics. I was wondering if anyone thought an external link should be added under in vitro fertilization to the official homepage of the Micro ICU Project. Since it is my project, someone else needs to add the link due to Wikipedia rules.

http://www.ficu.org

Micro ICU Project Microfabricated human incubators.

I was also wondering if someone would review the literature at the Micro ICU Project research page (U.S. patents, articles, etc.) and add sections on thermoregulation and ventilation at the Wikipedia in vitro fertilization page accordingly.

Stockpotato (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"-ize"
This article uses "-ize" many times. ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was an edit by 72.67.137.244 on 4th June. I have reverted it, following WP:ENGVAR. Such changes are unlikely to be appropriate, but should in any case be discussed first. Sam (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Acupuncture and IVF
Whilst acupuncture has become increasingly common as an adjunct to IVF, it is not really a part of the process. I suggest a link to acupunture.
 * If it is "increasingly common" then it seems worth having accurate information about it. I tidied this up a bit and made the text accurately reflect the results in the references.  However, I'm not an expert and I didn't go out and read any literature beyond what was already referenced, so it's possible that there are better resources to cite.   Joelphillips (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

IVF is applicable to both human medicine and animal breeding and research, how about sub categories, human IVF and animal IVF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadworths 6x (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

1974 article on IVF births in Europe in 1973
Today while looking through archives of The Dallas Morning News for another topic, I found an July 16, 1974, article that begins, "HULL, England (UPI) &mdash; A British gynecologist disclosed Monday that the world's first test-tube babies were born in Europe in the last 18 months and that all are still alive and appear to be normal." The article names a Dr. Douglas Bevis, an OB/GYN professor at Leeds University, who said one of the babies was born in Britain and two on the continent. I don't see any mention of him or of this story. Was it discredited? Is he talking about a different technique? It appears to be the same: "taking the eggs from a woman, placing them in a nutrient solution with sperm for 7 to 10 days to become fertilized and then returning them to the womb." It's on the front page of the paper. Anyone know about this? Did I miss it in the WP article? Lawikitejana (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Success Rates"
Why does the 'Success Rate' section contain no actual information on success rates of this procedure, but instead contains drivel about psychological stress? Is success rate information being intentionally suppressed? -70.251.88.27 (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The CDC has lots of statistics on success rate, so it shouldn't be hard to add. I'd do it right now, but editing Wikipedia on an iPhone while in a moving vehicle is ... interesting.  SDY (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Effects of Stress should be it's own section. There is more current US data available from SART with numbers from 2007. If there are no objections I would like to add it. --Rtzee (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to edit the page to link into various publications that provide patient-specific models of ivf success rates, and link to a site that provides calculations of this free online, but the edit was removed as advertising (though it appears to be a free site). I think this sort of calculator is helpful (certainly to me) but if people don't want direct links to such things that's cool as well - just my 5c 212.44.38.77 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple donors
Would the first embryo to have resulted from the fertilization of eggs from multiple donors be considered notable enough to be included in this article? It's nothing really ground breaking, but it did make it on the news.

I will need to find a citation for it regardless, but I do know the person. He happens to be me. Tngl0101 (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a standard process, though I've heard of it used by same-sex couples who want the uncertainty of the source of the egg to make it more of a "from both of us" gesture. The products of it are probably not notable to the point of having a separate article on the individual (note that I'm the person who proposed deleting Ms. Brown as not notable under WP:BLP1E, so consider me not an inclusionist).  To nutshell that policy, people who are notable for only one event are covered solely under the article on that event.  The "multiple donors to one pregnancy version" of egg donation is probably best covered under the egg donation article, and mentioning the name there (and the date) doesn't seem excessive.  SDY (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move proposal
I propose the page be moved to the most common spelling, fertilization. This has been addressed before without any conclusion. Google gives 7.2 million hits for 'fertilization' yet only 1.8 million for 'fertilisation.' Fertilization is the most commonly used spelling, on the internet, in other encyclopedias in dictionaries, unless CLEAR wikipedia rules can be cited as to why the less popular spelling variation is to be used over the most common then I'll be moving this article to the new spelling. — raeky ( talk 04:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was started with the s, so per WP:ENGVAR, specifically WP:RETAIN that's where it stays. Plus, the Brits beat us to the punch on making it work in humans, so I think it's appropriate that they get to keep their spelling.  Blame Drs. Steptoe and Edwards if you must.  SDY (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Discarded and unused embryos etc.
Despite the apparent attempt to discuss moral and ethical issues involved with IVF, this page virtually ignores what is, in my humble opinion, far and away the most alarming issue in relation to IVF, which is the production of hundreds of thousands of unused human embryos that will most likely be destroyed. Perhaps it may be objected that there are other pages more appropriate to the discussion of the beginning of human life debate, and indeed there is one such link on this page, but surely this fact deserves some mention, and rather preferably before the comparatively trivial issue of the very occasional lab mix-up that may result in a woman carrying to term the wrong fetus. The various quotations in regard to the official dogma of the Catholic Church in relation to IVF are all well and good, but again they rather bizarrely minimize this issue - bizarrely since it is certainly one of the justifications for the Catholic Church's opposition to IVF, although, as the quotations well demonstrate, this opposition is already grounded independently by the Church in principle. All the same, I remember hearing the issue of what to do with all the discarded embryos produced by IVF referred to, by a representative of the Church, memorably and rather unusually, as a grave moral problem that "cannot in fact be resolved." Of course, the existence of these embryos is also importantly related to the debates surrounding stem-cell research, and would deserve a mention here for that reason alone. (189.141.55.63 (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Government funding
Has anyone ever inquired into how much government funding in vitro fertilization gets ? In the context of Canada's national health care system, where there are relatively few private hospitals, the State has announced that it would fund a great deal of local IVF treatments. This government funding could be controversial in pro-life circles since it clearly ignores the ethical objections of those who are opposed to IVF because of routine embryonic terminations. In any event, the Canadian government also actively funds controversial abortion procedures in ways that are comparable to current IVF legislation. ADM (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious objections - non Catholic
The section currently discusses only Catholic objections. What about Protestant and Orthodox? What about non-Christian - Judaism, Islam, Buddhist/Hindu attitudes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Subhash Mukhopadhyay (physician)
Knowledgable editors here may be able to improve the Subhash Mukhopadhyay (physician) article, which is currently claiming as fact that he produced the second test tube baby. Paul B (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not added anything to Subhash Mukhopadhyay's page but mentioned him in introduction of this article. --Suchakra (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple births
"Studies show that the risk of death before birth, or within the first week of life, is more than four times greater for twins than for a single baby. For triplets, the risk is seven times greater than for a single baby.

The risk of cerebral palsy is five times higher for twins and 18 times higher for triplets than for a single baby."

http://www.hfea.gov.uk/fertility-treatment-risks.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.47.66.49 (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

External links and clinic lists
Since we are not a directory, I'm thinking that it's probably a bad idea to include lists of IVF clinics as external links as well. I'm hesitant to delete the CDC link since it also has summary statistics, but I've been trimming out the clinic lists as, essentially, advertising. If anyone feels that there's a reason to include these directories, feel free to revert. SDY (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Same sex couples, single, and unmarried parents
I whole-heartedly reject the statement by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine claiming that there is "no persuasive evidence that children are harmed or disadvantaged solely by being raised by single parents, unmarried parents, or gay and lesbian parents." My foible is mostly with the idea that unmarried parent or single parent homes don't generally produce disadvantaged children. Lets have a little more research from broad sources before jumping to that kind of conclusion. What would the society of reproductive medicine know about what happens after the birth? Sounds like their just looking for a broader market. I submit that there should be research from a group that specializes in families and what exactly produces well-adjusted children and teenagers. Try these articles and see if there isn't more research out there on this subject:

http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/swlt2.pdf

http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/print_whitehead_testimonial.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetalldudeontv (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (Moved, new topics go at the bottom). It's in the "ethical issues" section, so it really should be clear why there are ethical questions about it.  Neither of the linked articles are helpful, as I don't see anything in them on a quick read-through that addresses the issue.  I'm certain that there are political and religious groups that could be cited.  Most of what I can dig up with a few quick google searches is more about parenting than conceiving.  Many of the ethical questions about IVF in same-sex couples are basically the questions of parenting with same sex couples.  How the babies get there isn't usually the big sticking point from what the searches turn up.  The raising of children is largely irrelevant to this article, so you'd have to find something specific to IVF or ART in general.  SDY (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific and moral status"
I have just (again) removed the following text, which User:Mitonet has added a number of times under the above heading over the past few days. It is completely inappropriate pushing of one POV, not to mention misplaced (if it belongs anywhere, it should be in the ethics section), badly written, incomprehensible, and mis-formatted (I have tidied up some of the formatting before posting it here).
 * During the past years more and more of researchers are coming to the point that after recent developments in systems biology, advanced biotechnology and bioinformatics the problem of applying methods of "breeding" to "produce" human ebmbryos cannot be judged only by medical specialists as it was done up to date. The human genome project have empowered scientists with recognition of importance of redefining what an fertilized egg really is, and now it became evident that an indvidual human being can be defined as a "cell with complete human genome that entered the state of embryogenesis" (regardless from what source the genome came, and by what method the embryogenesis was switched on). This single cell is equal to all human body at this stage of development. It is also completely independent organism, and woman's body is not needed for human to develop. This organism is not a property of pregnant woman. Therefore as a human being it has all the human rights. On the basis of that statement the selection, cryopreservation and destruction of human embryonic persons is equal to selection, cryopreservation and destruction of humans. For more information see references: Nature EMBO reports:" Embryonic human persons Talking point on morality and human embryo research" Robert P﻿ George & Patrick Lee EMBO reports (2009), 10, -301 - 306, doi:10.1038/embor.2009.42

I think there is nothing here that is worth including in the article - but does anyone see anything to extract for inclusion in the ethics section? The reference at the end is in fact to just one of two opposing viewpoints that were published alongside each other in EMBO Reports in April 2009. Details here and here. Maybe there is something there that is worth referring to under Ethics - but clearly to both parts, not just one. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Headaches and silliness
Does anyone actually particularly care strongly about this article retaining British spelling? It seems half the edits in the history are over someone "fixing" the spelling despite very obvious notes. Per WP:RETAIN it "belongs" in the British spelling, but has the time come to admit that the rule isn't helping and move it to the other spelling? SDY (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. If someone actually Americanised (Americanized!) it properly, instead of just "fixing" one or two of the -ise spellings, it wouldn't be so bad! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. Ucucha 15:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In vitro fertilisation → In vitro fertilization — Time to yield to the majority, and stop spending so much time correcting the spelling. Someone has already changed the spelling to -ize within the article. The title now needs to be changed to match. SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - read WP:ENGVAR for a detailed reason of why the community rejected "yielding to the majority" for these questions, and why moves of this type would otherwise be a particularly pernicious waste of time and resources. I've restored the original spelling as per WP:ENGVAR, and will keep the article watchlisted for further spelling variant changes. Knepflerle (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - in fact I also oppose the move I myself suggested! It was a moment of weakness ... I was feeling worn down by the constant need to correct of all those well-meaning (?) "corrections" of the perfectly good –ise spelling ... I'm now feeling stronger again ... I vow to continue the crusade of constant reversion ... <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed new section: legal status
I am unable to locate much information about laws on IVF throughout the world or even here in the United States. This could also include proposed laws. I understand that Tennessee considered a law blocking IVF for unmarried women last year, but have seen no comprehensive treatment of the legal picture. Does anyone know anything about this subject or where to find more information? K. the Surveyor (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the above, I propose a new section for this article called "legal status." It would seek to summarize different laws and proposed laws around the world that place any kind of restrictions on using IVF. I will now start this section by adding China, Costa Rica and Tennessee. K. the Surveyor (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the comments about Tennessee until a better source can be found. The bill in question, here, does not say what the blog says, though it's possible it implies it based on other Tennessee laws and it definitely implies an expectation that IVF occurs within marriage (which is normal but by no means necessary). We need a more authoritative source than a blog for this statement. Quick google searches show some other activist group pages, which are also likely unable to give reasoned or authoritative interpretations. SDY (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. What I think is going on is that during that legislative session there was another bill proposed that would have limited adoption to married couples. Since this bill defines in vitro as adoption, if both bills had passed then the combined effect would have been as these activist groups claimed. I'm a little hesitant to write that out explicitly on the page because it might be WP:SYN. I think what would be better is to list both proposed bills and the claim by the group as to one's effect. That way everything is properly sourced. K. the Surveyor (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Octomom
Regarding the name Octomom, it is used in the Nadya Suleman article. I think it should be included to mirror that article, and also because many people are unfamiliar with "Nadya Suleman" but would instantly recognize "Octomom." It is not intended to be derogatory but is just the most popular name in use. K. the Surveyor (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about her and we don't need to add sensationalist gutter tabloid nicknames to a section that is ostensibly about the doctor and his administration of IVF to her. Mo ainm ~Talk  21:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Human only
This article only discusses the IVF in human reproduction, references to its uses on non-humans should be expanded upon, in particular plant varieties to ensure the development of trees of one particular sex, due to the other sex having undesired commercial characteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.178.114.52 (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

IVF is NOT a treatment for infertility
Think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.133.242 (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Success Rates - Other Factors incorrect
Under Success Rates / Other Factors, this article states "Low alcohol/caffeine intake increases success rate" Upon reading the reference given (20) I find it to be at odds with the conclusion in the article. These two sections are from the reference:

Alcohol
If you are a woman trying to get pregnant you can cut down the risk of harming a developing baby by not drinking to excess and drinking no more than 1 or 2 units of alcohol once or twice a week. A unit of alcohol is about the same as a small glass (125 ml) of wine or a half-pint of beer or lager. If you are a man, your fertility is unlikely to be affected if you drink no more than 3 or 4 units of alcohol a day. Drinking excessive amounts of alcohol can affect the quality of a man’s sperm.

Caffeine
Caffeine is a stimulant that is found in drinks such as tea, coffee and cola. There has been little research into the effect of caffeine on fertility and there is no clear evidence of a link between caffeine and fertility problems.

Semi-protect?
There has been a lot of partial "correcting" of the spelling recently, from -ise to -ize. Nearly all of it is by anon IP editors. Would semi-protection be a good idea? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 15:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Splitting
The current size of this article makes it very likely that it should be splitted. I think the "Success rates" and the "Ethics"-sections are the main candidates for being split to their own articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with splitting. The article is not that long. The main problem is that both the sections on success rates and ethics are very important - they are an integral part of the subject, IVF cannot be discussed without touching on these matters. I don't think that forking the content is a good idea. If the article really has to be splitted, maybe the history section would be a better candidate.188.25.27.104 (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the sub-section Catholic objections needs to be trimmed- it is too long and it also only focuses on Catholicism and fails to discuss other religions. There is also  an article Religious response to assisted reproductive technology, so maybe a short summary of the positions of different religions with a link to the main article would be more appropriate.188.25.27.104 (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Catholic objections-section should be rewritten to summarize views of different religions as well, but even if we got it down to, for example, a third of what it is now, the overall size of the article would still be relatively unaffected in regard to its size. I can accept waiting with splitting for now. The article is about 90kB for the moment. I may, however, suggest splitting again when it exceeds 100kB. Mikael Häggström (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Outdated external peer review
I moved the following external peer review to here, because it was performed more than six years ago, and the article is very different now compared to what it was back then, so I don't think it really reflects the current state of the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Italics?
Is there any consensus over whether "in vitro" ought to be italicized or not? Throughout the article it is sometimes written in italics, and sometimes not. Tmager (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

religious objections
Changed section 'Catholic objections' to 'religious objections'. Changed 'marital act' to 'marital sex'. Wikipedia is not the place for obscure, antiquated language (WP:CENSOR, WP:NPOV). I would argue that this material should also be removed, as discussion of the RCC's teachings should be in an entirely separate article, as well as references criticising them.

{{quote|

Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church opposes all kinds of assisted reproductive technology and artificial contraception, claiming they separate the procreative goal of marital sex from the goal of uniting married couples. The Roman Catholic Church permits the use of a small number of reproductive technologies and contraceptive methods like Natural family planning, which involves charting ovulation times. The church allows other forms of reproductive technologies that allow conception to take place from normative sexual intercourse, such as a fertility lubricant.

Pope Benedict XVI has publicly re-emphasized the Catholic Church's opposition to in vitro fertilization (IVF), claiming it replaces love between a husband and wife. The Catechism of the Catholic Church claims that Natural law teaches that reproduction has an "inseparable connection" to sexual union of married couples. In addition, the church opposes IVF because it might cause disposal of embryos; in Catholicism, an embryo is viewed as an individual with a soul that must be treated as a person. The Catholic Church maintains that it is not objectively evil to be infertile, and advocates adoption as an option for such couples who still wish to have children.

Gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) is not technically in vitro fertilisation because with GIFT, fertilisation takes place inside the body, not on a Petri dish. The Catholic Church nevertheless is concerned with it because "Some theologians consider this to be a replacement of the marital act, and therefore immoral." }}-- Aronzak (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I moved the GIFT details to the main article Religious response to assisted reproductive technology, and copied back selected parts in order to give a more comprehensive view of religious responses. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted poorly integrated and questionable neutral point of view
I reverted an insertion of a substantial amount of text in this edit for the following main reasons:
 * It is very poorly integrated into the format of the rest of the article. If anything should be reinserted, then it should not just be dumped into the article with a separate reference list that ends up in the middle of the article.
 * The wp:neutral point of view of the edit is very questionable, since it propagated the use of the Comet assay. However, the reference of what seemed to me to be the only actually useful information referred to here, where the declaration of conflict of interest goes: "SEML is the Chief Executive Officer and a shareholder of Lewis Fertility Testing, a spin-out company of Queen’s University Belfast that is now marketing the Comet test." Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

who is Leroy Brown?
... in the third para of the introduction. Louise Brown is mentioned in the next sentence... I think that's who is meant.Stratopastor (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Cleaned up "See also" section
I removed six links from the "See also" section that are already located in the article's body and/or navigation box per WP:NOTSEEALSO. -- momo  ricks  19:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)