Uncovering the truth about IVF myths | Opinion

As a physician in the field of reproductive medicine, I treat patients with infertility, an issue that affects approximately 1 in 5 couples in the United States. Infertility refers to couples who dream of having a child of their own, but are unable to conceive or sustain a pregnancy for a variety of reasons, including male infertility, low sperm count, women who have conceived multiple times but have had repeated miscarriages, and women over the age of 35. We offer a variety of treatments for infertility, but approximately 70 percent of couples undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF), which is the only way for them to successfully conceive.

That’s why I’m concerned about the widespread misinformation about IVF — I hear it from my patients and see it online — spread by special interests who are working to pass restrictive IVF laws and ultimately deny couples access to the treatment they need. As a result, their path to building a family is medically more difficult, longer and more expensive.

The most common lie I hear is the idea that genetic testing is being used to create “designer” babies. That is, parents are trying to produce the best, smartest, tallest, and most athletic children. This is simply not true. Traits such as hair color and adult height cannot be tested, but some people believe so. Current embryo testing technology guarantees that there are 23 normal chromosome pairs. Embryo testing increases the chances of a live birth, because missing or extra chromosomes are the cause of more than 50 percent of miscarriages. It also tests for genetic abnormalities that lead to miscarriage and stillbirth. In fact, 40 to 60 percent of natural pregnancies do not implant in the uterus or end in miscarriage.

Another common misconception is that as IVF physicians, we typically implant three or four embryos in a woman. This may have been the norm 20 years ago, but now, thanks to genetic testing that helps us select healthy embryos, it is common to implant one embryo at a time. Our goal is not for a woman to have a triplet pregnancy, but rather a healthy singleton pregnancy.

Some have suggested limiting the number of oocytes (eggs) fertilized, based on the belief that fertility doctors are creating too many embryos, but this is based on the misconception that every embryo will lead to a human life. In reality, human reproduction is grossly inefficient, and live birth rates for both natural conception and IVF are very similar, at around 50%. This probability decreases as a woman ages. By age 40, it is common for only two in 10 fertilized eggs to pass genetic testing and be healthy enough to implant. Limiting the number of embryos created would decrease the success rate of IVF, and patients would have to endure many more months of treatment. This is especially tough for women over 35, whose window of opportunity to have a baby narrows every month.

Because I practice in Houston, Texas, I already see the impact of IVF restrictions. In our neighboring state of Louisiana, such restrictions are the law, and I see a lot of couples from Louisiana in my clinic. Not everyone can afford to go out for fertility treatments. IVF restrictions limit access for everyone, disproportionately impacting women over 35, women who have had multiple miscarriages, and women of lower socioeconomic status the most.

The special interests that are working so hard to restrict IVF claim to be pro-family. And so do my colleagues. The advances in IVF that reproductive medicine has made in recent years have opened up possibilities for couples who might not have been able to have children a generation ago. At the end of the day, all we want is for these couples to realize their dream of having a family.

Katherine McKnight, MD, is a Houston-based reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.