Let’s Set the Record Straight About IVF Misinformation

As a physician in the field of reproductive medicine, I treat patients with infertility—a condition that impacts approximately one in five couples in the U.S. These are couples who dream of having a child of their own, but have been unable to achieve a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to term for various reasons. They include male infertility or low sperm count, women who have achieved pregnancy multiple times but experienced recurrent miscarriages, and women over the age of 35. While we have a variety of treatments we offer in our fertility practice, approximately 70 percent of couples receive in vitro fertilization (IVF), and for them, IVF is the only way they can achieve a successful pregnancy.

That is why I’m concerned with all the circulating false narratives about IVF. I hear it from patients and see it online. This disinformation is being spread by special-interest groups who are working to influence legislation to restrict IVF, and ultimately restricting couples’ access to necessary treatment. This in turn makes their journey to creating a family more medically difficult, time-consuming, and expensive.

The falsehood I hear most often is the idea that genetic testing is being used to make “designer” babies—that parents are trying to get the best, brightest, tallest, most athletic child. That’s just not true. We’re not able to test for hair color, adult height, or similar traits, but that has been the perception of some. The current technology for embryo testing ensures there are 23 normal pairs of chromosomes. Missing or extra chromosomes underlie more than 50 percent of miscarriages, so with embryo testing, we are increasing the chances of a live birth. We can also test for genetic anomalies that result in miscarriages and stillbirths. In fact, 40–60 percent of pregnancies achieved through natural conception either fail to implant in the uterus or end in miscarriage.

Another common myth is that as IVF doctors, we are routinely implanting three or four embryos in women. That may have been commonplace 20 years ago, but now with genetic testing that helps us select a healthy embryo, we routinely implant one embryo at a time. Our goal is not for a woman to become pregnant with triplets; rather, our goal is a healthy singleton pregnancy.

The notion that fertility physicians are creating too many embryos has led some to propose limiting the number of oocytes (eggs) we should fertilize, and that’s driven by the misunderstanding that every embryo will lead to a human life. The fact is, human reproduction is remarkably inefficient, and live birth rates for both natural and IVF conception are very similar, at about 50 percent. The odds decrease as a woman gets older. By age 40, it’s typical that only two out of 10 fertilized eggs pass the genetic testing and are healthy enough to implant. Limiting the number of embryos created will lower the IVF success rate, which means patients will go through additional months of treatment. This is especially hard on women over 35 whose window for having a baby is narrowing every month.

I have already seen the impact of IVF restrictions because I practice in Houston, Texas. Our neighbors in Louisiana have legislated such restrictions, and I see many couples from Louisiana in my practice. Not everyone has the resources to travel for fertility care. Limitations on IVF will reduce access for all, with the greatest and most unfair impacts on women over 35, women who have had multiple miscarriages, and those of lower socioeconomic status.

The special-interest groups that are pushing so hard to restrict IVF say they are pro-family. My colleagues and I are pro-family, too. All of the advances in IVF that those in reproductive medicine have worked toward in recent years are opening possibilities for couples who might have gone childless a generation ago. At the end of the day, all we want is for these couples to realize their dreams of having a family.

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