According to a recent article in the Daily Mail (Daily Fail, if you ask me), "an average of 80 abortions are carried out in England and Wales every year on IVF babies." The author, Mohamed Menabawey, is a consultant infertility specialist at the London Bridge Fertility Centre and he is apparently appalled that women who have IVF abort the foetuses that they do not want to carry. According to Menabawey, if you are desperate enough to go through the pain and effort to conceive through IVF you should be thankful that you have any foetuses at all. 'Aborting' , according to this fertility doctor, is wrong and 'social abortion' (his term, not mine) is much different to 'medical abortion' (where physical abnormality is involved).
OMG this makes me so angry!
If Menabawey is a medical doctor, I find it extremely troubling that he would moralise about the personal choices of his patients in a national newspaper. I have no problem with doctors not agreeing with abortion but I do have a problem with forcing their own beliefs on patients. Under the Hippocratic Oath, doctors agree to do no harm to their patients. Encouraging women to keep foetuses that they do not wish to carry through into a full-term pregnancy or moralising about how these women are 'bad' is harmful and frankly, if a woman chooses to go through IVF and then changes her mind in the end, THAT IS HER CHOICE.
It is stunning that in 2010 we still have highly educated professionals placing limitations on choice. Whether a women chooses to terminate a pregnancy for 'social' or 'medical' reasons is NOT the doctor's concern. Menabawey seems to suggest that his IVF patients are 'bad' women for not consulting him before choosing to terminate an IVF pregnancy!
Thumbs down, no hugs.
Showing posts with label infertility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infertility. Show all posts
Keep the egg timers in the kitchen
As if there aren't enough women in their mid-late 30s with a biological clock the size of Big Ben....
And now we have something called the 'egg timer', a simple blood test provided by IVF Australia that will allow women to know just how fast their biological clocks are ticking....for $65 you can find out how many eggs you have left...
"I think this is a big step forward," medical director of IVF Australia, Assistant Professor Peter Illingworth, told The Sunday Mail.
Researchers say that this test relieves women of the 'anguish' of 'uncertainty'. Yet, isn't this what reproduction is fundamentally about? Lots of social commentators have been banging on about how this tests gives women 'choices'. Well, as you all know, 'choice' for me, is a big yay. But, on the other hand, what kind of 'choice' is this really? You either get pregnant because you are 'running out of time' or you have to live with the knowledge that your clock is ticking sooner than you may be ready to shut it off. I think it's a loaded 'choice' and puts a lot of pressure on women who are already feeling it without having a test tell them they are getting older.
And now we have something called the 'egg timer', a simple blood test provided by IVF Australia that will allow women to know just how fast their biological clocks are ticking....for $65 you can find out how many eggs you have left...
"I think this is a big step forward," medical director of IVF Australia, Assistant Professor Peter Illingworth, told The Sunday Mail.
"For a woman who is facing decisions about how active they should get about chasing her fertility in one way or another, it's information about what the future may hold for her.
"For a 30-year-old woman, it gives her an idea of whether she's at risk of having an early menopause or she's got plenty of time to carry on and have a baby."
I'm not impressed..or at least I'm of two minds about this. For women who have been struggling with infertility, knowing exactly what kind of situation you are facing in trying to get pregnant can be extremely useful. What worries me is that this sort of 'fertility alarm' only contributes to the cautionary tales fed to women at increasingly earlier ages about having children (which perhaps coincidentally comes at a time when more women are being educated and are working in the paid workforce than any other time in history).Researchers say that this test relieves women of the 'anguish' of 'uncertainty'. Yet, isn't this what reproduction is fundamentally about? Lots of social commentators have been banging on about how this tests gives women 'choices'. Well, as you all know, 'choice' for me, is a big yay. But, on the other hand, what kind of 'choice' is this really? You either get pregnant because you are 'running out of time' or you have to live with the knowledge that your clock is ticking sooner than you may be ready to shut it off. I think it's a loaded 'choice' and puts a lot of pressure on women who are already feeling it without having a test tell them they are getting older.
New weight guidelines and preconception care
Oh man. As if woman needed another thing to make pregnancy and birth less than fun. Is it any wonder that just as the Institute of Medicine released its revisions of the 1990 guidelines for pregnancy weight gain (in a nut shell, continue to limit your weight gain and if you are already overweigh try not to gain any weight at all), as if on cue, Heidi Murkoff released her latest tome, What to Expect Before You're Expecting, which in the tradition of the other What to Expect books capitalises on telling women what to eat, how much weight to gain and how not to be a bad mother all BEFORE they even get pregnant.Seriously, if anyone could take the fun out of baby making, it would have to be Murkoff. Sure, while conception is by no means easy for everyone, come on. I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs when women are being told to monitor their weight gain before they are even pregnant and treating pregnancy as though it was a 2year process and not just nine months. As Murkoff writes:
"Before you're expecting--and before you even begin trying to expect--is the best time to get both your bodies into tip-top baby-making shape. And that's why I've written What to Expect Before You're Expecting--a complete, step-by-step preconception plan to help you and your partner prep for pregnancy. Whether you're hoping to fill your nest for the first time or the fourth (or more!), a little conception know-how--which lifestyle adjustments you should make now (cut back on caffeine and cocktails) and which you can hold off on (get your sushi while you can!); which foods are fertility-friendly and which are fertility busters (say yes to yams and oysters, so long to saturated fats); how extra weight can weigh on your fertility and his; how to track fertility and pinpoint ovulation--can help you fill that nest faster. What's more, the right preconception protocol can help ensure a healthier and more comfortable pregnancy (think less morning sickness, a lowered risk of premature delivery and gestational diabetes) and a healthier bundle of baby. And the plan doesn't end when you're finished with the prepping. It covers baby-making how-to's, do's, and don'ts--everything you need to know about conception sex (from timing, to logistics, to positions, and more)."
I think this is so dangerous. Some women do everything 'right'. They follow all of the preconception care, they see the best doctors and they still don't get pregnant. To suggest that eating healthy foods and tracking your ovulation will make you a better mother or even ensure that you will become one is ridiculous.
Infertility moral panics: Bah!
Well, it's 43 degrees Celsius (110 F) in
Anyway, back to business. Nothing irks me more than the current media exhortations to women in their mid-late 30s that if they don't start popping out babies soon, their ovaries will become the next vestigal organ. It seems that the pressure to procreate is now coming even earlier thanks to a new campaign by the American Fertility Association (AFA) to remind women in their 20s that their biological clocks are ticking. The campaign consists of posters like the obnoxious one above and a seminar called 'Manicures and Martinis' at the Dashing Diva Salon in
With the inclusion of Flockhart, the magazine answered its own question: Of course, it is.
Thanks to the sassy gals from Sex and the City, the television show that opened the eyes of women worldwide to frank discussions of sex, love and relationships in 1998, just two years later, Time was asking its readers, ‘Who needs a husband’? Charlotte, Miranda, Carrie and Samantha were deemed ‘the daughters of the women’s movement’. By standing in as spokeswomen for sexual freedom and independence, the single woman, it seemed, ‘had come into her own’. Not only was it acceptable for women to buy their own homes, buy their own drinks and spend $400 on strappy sandals if they wanted to, hell, they could even buy their own diamond rings. By the close of the millenium, the ‘Ah’ ring became the sine qua non of the power of the affluent single woman. Symbolising that a woman is ‘available and happy’ (or is it affluent and hyper-competitive?), the Ah ring was made specifically so that single women could have a diamond ring paid for on their own dime. Feminism, apparently having softened its stance on that whole partiarchy thing, was seemigly allowing middle-class women to crash the engagement party with a ring worn on the right hand as a status symbol and not necessarily one’s status of being ‘owned’ by a man. If women could circumvent the antiquated trappings associated with marriage, single women could certainly invest in solo pregnancies. With the popularity of IVF, surrogacy and adoption, more of those single and fabulous women were saying to themselves, ‘Why buy the cow when you can get the sperm for free?’
In the new millenium, singlehood was described as the ‘logical result’ of a generation of gals empowered by the women’s movement. While ladies were being patted on the back for not settling for anything less than Mr. Right, a perfect baby and a white picket fence, they were simultaneously rewarding themselves with the ‘choice’ to foster their own spirit, to relish in their own company. Yet, not only was the essence of the third-wave deeply embedded in a woman’s right to choose (or should I say shoes?), it was also firmly entrenched in having a hot body to match. Whereas becoming a mother was once the essence of femininity, the next generation of women were finding their empowerment in their tiny-waisted ones, big-breasted bodies. With the rise of television shows like What Not To Wear in which the bodies of everyday women are scrutinised from their saggy boobs to their tree-trunk ankles or the covers of tabloids that act as metaphorical calipers squeezing the flesh of female celebrities.
So who is fit to mother? Whereas in earlier generations, mothers seemed to be (un)happily singing the same tune of domestic drudgery, selfless mothering and settling into long days spent with a child on the hip and dinner in the oven, in these uncertain times (economically, socially and politically), an obsessive attention to being a good mother has posed something of an existential crisis for women who want to ‘have it all’ as sexy, high-achieving, independent women.
The whole industry (and yes, it is an industry) of infertility is reliant upon women who are told that as soon as they hit the age of 35, the egg factory will be invariably shutting up shop. Women must be aware of their fertility from the moment they begin to menstruate and are encouraged to have children early in life so as to circumvent any unforeseen 'problems' later on, as a sort of reproductive 'insurance' policy. The overriding message is that if you wait too long, you can find yourself with a 'barren womb' and it is nobody's fault but your own. Why fault women for finally making themselves happy? I thought we had evolved past the women-as-baby-making-machines.
Source: http://www.newsweek.com/id/181840
Rent-a-womb?
Interesting. In an Australian first, surrogate mothers in NSW will be paid $10,000 for carrying another woman's child in a proposed change to existing laws. Although it is argued the commercial surrogacy will still remain illegal in Australia, the money is supposed to help surrogates cover lost wages while they are pregnant as well as medical costs.
The Opposition's spokeswoman on women, Pru Goward, says the planned changes are a good idea.
"The Opposition supports compensating women for the medical costs in the last couple of months and also the loss of earnings in the last couple of months because most pregnant women don't work in the last couple of months," she said.
"What the Opposition would not encourage is the commercial surrogacy, the hiring out of a woman's uterus."
John Morrissey from the Australian Family Association says "Commercial surrogacy amounts to rent-a-womb, obviously. But our concerns are with surrogacy in itself, that it commodifies a child," he said.I tend to disagree. I think that just because women are helping other women to become mothers does not mean that pregnancy cannot also be a business transaction. I hate that as a result of this long-standing perception of women's bodies as 'natural' and being closer to nature, therefore, anything related to motherhood is automatically pure and uncommodified. If you think about it, everything about pregnancy today is totally commodified. From designer prams, boutique maternity clothing and expensive prenatal care, affluent women spend an enormous amount of money on pregnancy and their bodies during this 9 month period. No one seems to have a problem with this. It seems ridiculous to worry about the commodification of a child through surrogacy when foetuses are commodified through entertainment ultrasounds and through the purchase of baby clothing well before the baby is born. Pregnancy is commodified through IVF when couples pay to have their eggs fertilised and no one seems to have a problem with that!
I think this is a dangerous argument because it is just like saying that women who stay at home to be mothers don't 'work' because they are not being paid to stay at home. The only reason that SAHM are not paid to be mothers and to do housework is because it is too often assumed that women should selflessly do caring work; to ask for or to be offered compensation for nurturing/domestic tasks is antithetical to everything our culture believes to be associated with motherhood. This is the same situation with surrogacy. If a surrogate is being paid, it leaves an icky taste in many a mouth because it suggests that women can sell their wombs, in effect, taking the romance out of pregnancy and motherhood.
Any thoughts?
Fertility police
As if the entire process to undergo IVF wasn't hard enough already, according to new legislation in Victoria, women seeking IVF will have to undergo CRIMINAL CHECKS in order to receive treatment. On top of the already long process of medical examinations and screening women have to undergo to receive treatment, the new bill would 'would deny people access to treatment if a conviction for sexual, serious violent offence had been recorded or if the person had a child protection order made against them.'
I thought it was particularly horrible when lesbians were being denied IVF without medical documentation of infertility. Now, all Australian women are going to be subject to what amounts to a criminal background check when they are already feeling pretty vulnerable. What is really astounding is that Australians with a criminal record are procreating willy nilly and no one seems to care because they can do it 'naturally'.
The Victorian police have no business or right to interfere with Australian wombs.
Source: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24562002-2862,00.html
I thought it was particularly horrible when lesbians were being denied IVF without medical documentation of infertility. Now, all Australian women are going to be subject to what amounts to a criminal background check when they are already feeling pretty vulnerable. What is really astounding is that Australians with a criminal record are procreating willy nilly and no one seems to care because they can do it 'naturally'.
The Victorian police have no business or right to interfere with Australian wombs.
Source: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24562002-2862,00.html
Infertility recognised as a medical condition
It looks as though infertility is finally being recognised as medical condition after a landmark ruling in Chicago. Women in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana will now be able to take time off of work in order to have fertility treatments. They can also draw on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in order to protect themselves at work.
According to the Wall Street Journal:
"The ruling expands a trend toward recognizing infertility as a medical problem; 13 states have laws mandating insurance plans to pay for in vitro fertilization, says the Pacific Research Institute, a think tank. Also, more employees are seeking time off for treatment under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act; this law, which entitles covered workers to up to 12 weeks' unpaid time off, may apply in some cases if a doctor certifies the treatment is for a serious health condition."
I wonder, however, what the implications of such a ruling will have for women if they begin to disclose their 'conditions' at work. Would it be liberating for women to disclose or harmful in the long run? Also, some people are arguing that because fertility treatments are 'elective', that like plastic surgery, women shouldn't be given extra allowances. What do you think?
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121858336262134875.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
According to the Wall Street Journal:
"The ruling expands a trend toward recognizing infertility as a medical problem; 13 states have laws mandating insurance plans to pay for in vitro fertilization, says the Pacific Research Institute, a think tank. Also, more employees are seeking time off for treatment under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act; this law, which entitles covered workers to up to 12 weeks' unpaid time off, may apply in some cases if a doctor certifies the treatment is for a serious health condition."
I wonder, however, what the implications of such a ruling will have for women if they begin to disclose their 'conditions' at work. Would it be liberating for women to disclose or harmful in the long run? Also, some people are arguing that because fertility treatments are 'elective', that like plastic surgery, women shouldn't be given extra allowances. What do you think?
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121858336262134875.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Men: your collective biological clocks are ticking
Finally. According to a French study of 12,000 Parisian couples, male fertility drops significantly after the age of 35. For so long, 'older' women and their supposedly shriveled ovaries have been the primary sources of blame when it comes to conception difficulties. Women who were artificially inseminated with their male partner's semen fell pregnant less often when their partner was over 35. Men, it seems, also have a ticking biological clock. As soon as a man hits 40, his semen becomes more abnormal. Overall sperm count declines as well.It seems that the myth of the eternally virile 'older' man may be put to rest.
Source: www.news-medical.net/?id=39777
Silicon womb more 'natural' than your own
"LONDON: A team of UK researchers will soon be conducting trials of a "silicon womb" inserted into a woman's own womb which incubates embryos to provide a more natural environment"
Right. I am clearly confused as to how a SILICON womb can prove to be MORE NATURAL than a womb inside a woman's body that is NOT SILICON.
Essentially, because scientists think that women's reproductive systems are too complicated and unpredictable it is better to implant embryos in a silicon capsule for women undergoing IVF because the embryos will survive better. It takes the 'guesswork' out of IVF.
Damn us women and our crazy fallopian tubes.
Pregnancies are supposed to be biologically precious. Evolution has made us work that way for a reason.
*Sigh*
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Silicon_womb_for_better_embryos/articleshow/2824683.cms
Right. I am clearly confused as to how a SILICON womb can prove to be MORE NATURAL than a womb inside a woman's body that is NOT SILICON.
Essentially, because scientists think that women's reproductive systems are too complicated and unpredictable it is better to implant embryos in a silicon capsule for women undergoing IVF because the embryos will survive better. It takes the 'guesswork' out of IVF.
Damn us women and our crazy fallopian tubes.
Pregnancies are supposed to be biologically precious. Evolution has made us work that way for a reason.
*Sigh*
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Silicon_womb_for_better_embryos/articleshow/2824683.cms
Marcia Cross bonds with new husband over petri dish
Finally, one celebrity is brave enough to admit that becoming a mother after 40 is a hard slog.Marcia Cross, from Desperate Housewives, admits that dealing with infertility was one of her first tasks as a newlywed. After unsuccessful tries with sperm donation and adoption before her marriage, Cross says she and her new husband skipped their honeymoon to try IVF:
We decided to skip our honeymoon and try in vitro after the wedding. I had already been through infertility treatments. It's very, very difficult to get pregnant in your 40s. It's costly and tough on your body and your relationship."
When she finally got pregnant with twins, serious complications arose in the form of preeclampsia which required an emergency caesar at 35 weeks as soon as she was diagnosed:
"I started having contractions at 28 weeks and had to go on bed rest for two months. I was constantly worried that the babies would be born premature," she said. "Then, in January, my eyesight started going, and I gained 12 lbs. in one week."
I find this to be so refreshing considering 1) it's pretty bizarre that so many celebrities are popping out twins...hello IVF! and 2) more famous women are having babies over 40. It's nice to have an explanation because it's not easy to have a baby past 40 and at least when celebrities admit that they've poured endless amounts of money into fertility treatments, there is less pressure on the average women to feel like a failure because she's 45 and still not pregnant. After all, celebrities are in many ways, the models for social life. The truth is that science is playing a significant role in the production of all of these babies of 'older' mothers and to pretend that it's risk-free and easy is not good for anyone. Did you hear that J.Lo?
Source: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20177921,00.html
Older mums a 'risky' trend: a problem of biology or society?
Seriously (how many posts have I started with a *sigh* and a 'seriously' lately?) why do American obstetricians make it so difficult for women to be pregnant and give birth safely these days?
Women who are 'young' (in teens/20s) are consistently represented as welfare queens and 'bad' mothers. Celebrities are increasingly the only representation of motherhood accessible to everyday women in popular culture. And now, as always, 'older' mothers are copping flak for selfishly wanting to fall pregnant and actual give birth vaginally when they are over 40. I find this particular issue incredibly disturbing. According to the Los Angeles Times, pregnancies to women over 40 has increased threefold in California as a result of middle-class women's access to fertility treatments. In the words of one fertility specialist:
"Women begin to have fertility problems about 10 to 15 years before they experience menopause, Rodi said. The average age of menopause is 50 to 52, but it can range from 40 to 60. Women have no way of knowing for sure at what point in the spectrum they'll fall"
I'm not denying the statistical risks associated with later childbearing. A range of studies have shown that certain complications are more likely to arise when women give birth later in life. However, I find it particularly offensive that all of these articles being fired off in the media about 'older' mothers are generally not related to the welfare or well-being of 'older' mothers pre and postnatally. Rather, these articles position women over 40 as taking a gamble on bodies that, according to biomedicine, are no longer reproductively valuable. The whole industry (and yes, it is an industry) of infertility is reliant upon women who are told that as soon as they hit the age of 35, the egg factory will be invariably shutting up shop. As the quote above suggests, women must be aware of their fertility from the moment they begin to menstruate and are encouraged to have children early in life so as to circumvent any unforeseen 'problems' later on, as a sort of reproductive 'insurance' policy. The overriding message is that if you wait too long, you can find yourself with a 'barren womb' and it is nobody's fault but your own.
I think it's interesting that nowhere in the LA Times article does anyone specifically address (as I have said many times before) the specific cultural/economic/historical shifts that have provided women with positive opportunities to be active in the public, to have fulfilling careers and to not be resigned to the domestic if they don't want to be. As I have found in my own research with pregnant women over 40, these women have spent half of their lifetimes establishing their own identities, independence and a career. By the time they are 40, having a child seems right despite the associated 'risks'. Why fault women for finally making themselves happy? I thought we had evolved past the women-as-baby-making-machines metaphor that has so deeply embedded itself in American biomedical directives. In fact, the reason why women are 'waiting' so much longer as the media suggests is implicitly tied to working. New Canadian research shows women over 40 are often more likely to forego maternity leave because they have made huge investments in their professional lives; many of these women do not even take the majority of the materity leave to which they are entitled because they are so fearful of the real consequences of taking time off and losing a corporate edge.
Adrienne ten Cate, a senior researcher with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, has found that the more educated, well-compensated and high-ranking the woman, the less maternity leave she takes. "There's a U-curve, where women in low-level positions can't afford to take time off," she says, "and women at the high end return early for fear of forgoing promotions, wage increases and other opportunities."
Perhaps if the culture of working changed and women were not at the nexus of the work/life balance, delayed childbearing would not be such an issue. The truth is most workplaces are still extremely unsupportive of motherhood and women have to constantly negotiate the demands of motherhood and working without an infrastructure for support. Billable hours, long working days and women performing 'like men' are staid features of the American workplace.
Sources: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oldmoms3dec03,0,6600732.story?coll=la-home-local
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks4dec04,1,4364409.column?coll=la-util-news-local&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.financialpost.com/magazine/story.html?id=130063
Women who are 'young' (in teens/20s) are consistently represented as welfare queens and 'bad' mothers. Celebrities are increasingly the only representation of motherhood accessible to everyday women in popular culture. And now, as always, 'older' mothers are copping flak for selfishly wanting to fall pregnant and actual give birth vaginally when they are over 40. I find this particular issue incredibly disturbing. According to the Los Angeles Times, pregnancies to women over 40 has increased threefold in California as a result of middle-class women's access to fertility treatments. In the words of one fertility specialist:
"Women begin to have fertility problems about 10 to 15 years before they experience menopause, Rodi said. The average age of menopause is 50 to 52, but it can range from 40 to 60. Women have no way of knowing for sure at what point in the spectrum they'll fall"
I'm not denying the statistical risks associated with later childbearing. A range of studies have shown that certain complications are more likely to arise when women give birth later in life. However, I find it particularly offensive that all of these articles being fired off in the media about 'older' mothers are generally not related to the welfare or well-being of 'older' mothers pre and postnatally. Rather, these articles position women over 40 as taking a gamble on bodies that, according to biomedicine, are no longer reproductively valuable. The whole industry (and yes, it is an industry) of infertility is reliant upon women who are told that as soon as they hit the age of 35, the egg factory will be invariably shutting up shop. As the quote above suggests, women must be aware of their fertility from the moment they begin to menstruate and are encouraged to have children early in life so as to circumvent any unforeseen 'problems' later on, as a sort of reproductive 'insurance' policy. The overriding message is that if you wait too long, you can find yourself with a 'barren womb' and it is nobody's fault but your own.
I think it's interesting that nowhere in the LA Times article does anyone specifically address (as I have said many times before) the specific cultural/economic/historical shifts that have provided women with positive opportunities to be active in the public, to have fulfilling careers and to not be resigned to the domestic if they don't want to be. As I have found in my own research with pregnant women over 40, these women have spent half of their lifetimes establishing their own identities, independence and a career. By the time they are 40, having a child seems right despite the associated 'risks'. Why fault women for finally making themselves happy? I thought we had evolved past the women-as-baby-making-machines metaphor that has so deeply embedded itself in American biomedical directives. In fact, the reason why women are 'waiting' so much longer as the media suggests is implicitly tied to working. New Canadian research shows women over 40 are often more likely to forego maternity leave because they have made huge investments in their professional lives; many of these women do not even take the majority of the materity leave to which they are entitled because they are so fearful of the real consequences of taking time off and losing a corporate edge.
Adrienne ten Cate, a senior researcher with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, has found that the more educated, well-compensated and high-ranking the woman, the less maternity leave she takes. "There's a U-curve, where women in low-level positions can't afford to take time off," she says, "and women at the high end return early for fear of forgoing promotions, wage increases and other opportunities."
Perhaps if the culture of working changed and women were not at the nexus of the work/life balance, delayed childbearing would not be such an issue. The truth is most workplaces are still extremely unsupportive of motherhood and women have to constantly negotiate the demands of motherhood and working without an infrastructure for support. Billable hours, long working days and women performing 'like men' are staid features of the American workplace.
Sources: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oldmoms3dec03,0,6600732.story?coll=la-home-local
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks4dec04,1,4364409.column?coll=la-util-news-local&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.financialpost.com/magazine/story.html?id=130063
First Response 'rapid' pregnancy test: what is the point?
I saw an ad for First Reponse's new 'Early Result' Pregnancy Test the other day on TV. I was intrigued. According to the ad, you can find out if you are pregnant '5 days earlier' than you normally would (i.e. before you are due to have your period). So, intrigued as I was, I decided to go to the manufacturer's website to find out how this test really works. The early detection test is more sensitive to pregnancy hormones in your urine than 'normal' pregnancy test (and most women have enough of the pregnancy hormones at least 4 days before their period is due). However, and this is why I think the 'early detection is totally futile', in the instruction manual online in a section about how to read the results, the manufacturer says this if the result is 'negative':
"You may not be pregnant, or it may be too early to tell. If you do not get your period within 7 days, you should retest with another FIRST RESPONSE® Early Result Pregnancy Test. It is possible that you miscalculated the length of your cycle or your urine may not have had enough pregnancy hormone for the FIRST RESPONSE® Test to give a positive result. If you retest and again no hCG is found, and your period still has not started, you should call your doctor."
Okay. So what is the point of spending money on an 'early detection' test if, logically, there is a good chance it is too early to tell if you are pregnant and you have to spend more money to test at a later time? How is knowing that your pregnant 4-5 days earlier in the month going to change anything?
Just another way to get women to spend more money on products they don't really need. And you know what else really annoys me? First Response also sells ovulation kits so women can test when they are ovulating 'to increase your chance of becoming pregnant'. However, why is it that the onus is always on women to spend money on fertility (and even more on infertility)? Why are women always induced to monitor fertility when 40% of the time infertility is attributed to the male? Where are the over-the-counter sperm tests?
Inconceivable dilemma: Helena Bonham Carter and the myth of the 'older' mother
Actress Helena Bonham Carter discusses her struggles with infertility in the Sydney Morning Herald, a topic of conversation that most celebrity mothers tend to keep under wraps lest they damage their image of 'good' motherhood. Let's face it. Women who are infertile or who have difficulty falling pregnant are positioned culturally as 'failures' and in particular, 'older' women (especially over 40) are constantly represented as being 'selfish' for bringing a child into the world in a uterus nearing its use-by date.For instance, in an article about pre-conception diets for 'older' mothers today, the author uses similarly negative language to explain how women of a certain age can better their chances of becoming mothers:
"Women are most fertile between 17 and 25. Over the age of 35, one woman in three will have trouble getting pregnant. It's not always the woman's fault – in 40 per cent of cases the finger can be pointed at the male. There are various reason why a woman finds it harder to conceive in these later years – there may be a structural problem with the reproductive organs, like blocked fallopian tubes, or a disease of the uterus like fibroids or endometriosis. Most cases, though, are due to a failure of ovulation – eggs just don't ripen and release when they're supposed to. This is usually because of a hormonal imbalance – at an older age, the body isn't producing enough sex hormones at the right time and in the right amounts to ovulate successfully."
As you can see from the words I've highlighted, the language of failure is invoked in talking about certain women's inability to fall pregnant. This is almost always tied to insufficient biology; as a woman ages her reproductive capacities are seen to degenerate. She is no longer valued as a 'producer' as the quote above suggests. This is in spite of the fact that 40% of causes of infertility are due to issues with the woman and 40% of causes are due to issues with a male. Yet, in an article of this nature, men's problematic reproductive capacities are never discussed. The quality of a woman's eggs are always the most important site for criticism.
Helena Bonham Carter,currently 8 months pregnant with her second child, utilised Clomid to jump start her fertility after trying for many months without a pregnancy at the age of 41. She says:
"I had a terrible reaction to it," she says. "Many people think it is the only thing that's going to make them ovulate but as it turned out I was ovulating anyway. It stressed me out beyond belief. Hormonally, I was all over the shop and I got really low emotionally. Lots of people don't have that reaction but on the internet I found a Clomid club, with people who react to the stuff discussing it online."
Fortunately, Carter fell pregnant before she had to take the next excruciating steps into IVF. I find it interesting that a number of countries including the Netherlands are trying to enforce preconception care particularly because so many 'older' women are having babies. This is seen as a way to stem the birth of babies with genetic 'defects'. Although there is good research suggesting a healthy lifestyle is beneficial in pregnancy for a number of reasons, the idea that 'older' women can only produce 'damaged' good lest they eat x number of servings of green vegetables, cut out all caffeine and lose heaps of weight is problematic. As I've said before, government have complained for ages that too many 'young' women in their late teens and early twenties are having babies out of wedlock and are too irresponsible to look after children. Yet, now that women are having babies when they are ready, they are threatened with the prospect of birthing deficient children and for being castigated as selfish for holding off on motherhood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)