Issue 44 / 21 November 2011

IT’S more than 30 years since the first baby was born by in-vitro fertilisation in Australia — only the third such baby in the world.

Now, with more than four million children having been conceived by assisted reproductive technology (ART) worldwide, including almost one child in every Australian classroom, IVF is an accepted and common treatment option for infertility.

In 1981, Justice Michael Kirby wrote a leading article in the MJA entitled “Test-tube man” (MJA 1981; 2: 1-2). In it, he wrote about the moral dilemmas raised by the technology, including what to do with unused frozen eggs. He said: “If ever there was an issue upon which there is a need for a profound and thoughtful community debate, this is it. Neither legal imperialism nor medical paternalism, nor even scientific inevitability, should carry the day”.

Kirby’s hopes for comprehensive community discussion were never fully realised, but IVF medicine has become clinically successful and important for many Australians.

Other issues with IVF also remain to be addressed, particularly the business model of treatment delivery, costs and equity of access. The problem of multiple births was one such issue, because of the associated medical risks and consequent high health care costs. But both new technology and altered funding rules have helped to reduce this problem in Australia.

In the latest issue of the MJA, leading fertility specialist Professor Robert Norman describes as an “international blight” the high multiple birth rate that resulted from economic pressures to maximise the chance of a pregnancy with each embryo transfer procedure and, in poorer nations, from more primitive technology.

As the perinatal mortality rate for IVF multiple births is double that of singleton IVF births and triple the rate for all births in Australia, he reasons that we must invest in making single embryo transfer (SET) — the only reasonable method of reducing multiple pregnancy — available and affordable.

In the same issue of the MJA, researchers make a convincing economic case for SET. They present a strong theoretical argument that 55% of the growth in ART use since 2002 has been funded by the savings gained through the greater use of SET and the resultant reduction in multiple births.

During this period, the number of live births from ART has nearly doubled, while the multiple birth rate has fallen by more than half to 8.6%. All the while, clinical pregnancy rates have remained stable at just over one in every five cycles.

To see just how far we have come with IVF, another study published in the MJA reports on the first Australian assisted reproduction program for HIV serodiscordant couples. As the researchers describe, there are now about 33 million people worldwide with HIV, most of whom are of reproductive age and, in Australia at least, likely to achieve a reasonable lifespan through the use of effective antiretroviral drugs.

The researchers describe the program’s methodology for attaining live births without horizontal transmission to the HIV-negative partner, and present data on the outcomes.

Kirby concluded his article with the words of the distinguished judge and physician, Sir Roger Ormrod: “we should not be frightened or disturbed by the dilemmas inherent in such issues. Rather, they signal … the privilege of choice which represents one of the greatest achievements of humanity”.

Dr Annette Katelaris is the editor of the MJA.

This article is reproduced from the MJA with permission.

Posted 21 November 2011

Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.

2 thoughts on “Annette Katelaris: We’ve come a long way baby

  1. Interested Party says:

    I am all for assisted reproduction, but not at the expense of the public purse beyond a set amount for each non-paying patient. Those that bleat the loudest are often those whose previous lifestyle rendered them infertile or subfertile in the first place. Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, obesity, alcohol, smoking, illegal drugs spring to mind without even drawing breath.

  2. Dianna Kenny says:

    Why withdraw discretion from reproductive experts by making SET mandatory? Each case needs to be assessed on its merits with a consideration of all the factors impeding natural reproduction. SET for some couples will greatly reduce the probability of a live birth via ART, and greatly increase the number of attempted cycles and the attendant psychological distress of repeated failures to conceive. SET should be the norm but multiple embryo transfer should still be possible for the very small minority of cases that warrant it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.