Tuesday, January 8, 2008

What if the fertile myrtle's of the world did ART?

Reference data:

ART = assisted reproductive technology (clomid, ovulation trigger, super ovulation injects, IUI, IVF, and the like)

In any given natural menstrual cycle there is a less than 20% chance of success. That's more than an 80% chance of failure ... for any woman.

There is a society that tracks the national average of success rates for the many fertility clinics nation-wide ... there is a 43% chance that a "fresh IVF" cycle will result in a pregnancy, of those same "fresh cycles" 37% will result in the live birth of a child. (wow, I'm surprised, that statistic shows that there is a low rate of miscarriage - hey, that's good news!)


Ok, now I'm not talking about the super human fertile ... the ones that get pg with each healthy child within three months of trying ... I think these ladies lie on the other end of the spectrum (being stepford wives and all) ... but rather the more average women, who take 6, 8, or 10 months ... Are there any studies out there showing what their ART success rates would be?

If "normal" women have an 80% chance at failure each month (and they do fail) then doesn't that stand to reason that they may fall into the "failure" group for IVF treatments? Might they fail by fluke? or is it that b/c they have everything working for them (hormones, plumbing, the mighty army of hubby's soldiers) then they would have an IVF success rate substantially higher than the infertile who are practicing these techniques?

I guess we'll never know, b/c what right minded fertile myrtle is ganna shell out $20k+ to see if they can fail ... when they can get knocked up on mr sealy posturpedic at home for free rather than inviting the team of doctors to get a better look at them while they are sitting spread eagle for all the world to see, in their womanly appointment stirrups?

I'm asking all of this b/c sometimes I get focused on the failure rate rather than the success rate ... (I know, I should remain positive) ... but I'm really just hoping that our plight isn't as "bad" as we think it is. Perhaps if "normal" women did ART ... not every cycle of theirs would be successful, right? So if ours aren't successful ... well it's not surprising ... we expect a little failure then a little success.

Note: I do think that their success rate in doing ART would be higher ... as first of all, it's just makes sense that it would be that way, but secondly b/c as I mentioned earlier: with each cycle there is a 20% chance of success ... what I didn't say was that if a couple makes it one year without conceiving their monthly success rate DROPS severly to 2-3% chance of success per month ... most women who frequent the doctor's who would do these ART procedures (RE's) these women are finally there b/c they weren't able to successfully conceive on their own after 12 months.

No comments:

Post a Comment