The Instigator
jessamariee
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ccerrillo4381
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

IVF Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
ccerrillo4381
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 197 times Debate No: 90329
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

jessamariee

Pro

Some of the benefits of undergoing IVF treatments would include being able to help women who are unable to conceive on their own, whether it is due to the blockage or damage of their fallopian tubes or low egg count. This allows for the possibility of the production of a fetus to increase and for a specific outcome of the fetus to be achieved. People undergo IVF in order to still be able to conceive a fetus through fertility drugs due to disabilities whether within the male sperm or female eggs. Also this would be helpful if either parent were to have a disease that prevents the production of a fetus. This treatment is known to be one of the only ways and most effective way to help infertile couples conceive.
ccerrillo4381

Con

Of course it would be a great thing for couples that are having problems conceiving naturally to still have the chance to produce offspring. That it not the problem here. What is the problem is the potential troubles that come with infertile couples attempting the IVF procedure. One issue for this can be cost. IVF can get quite pricey, and this price tag increases quite a bit if the couple is found to be completely infertile (Neuman). Each cycle costs around $12,400, and many patients do require more than. In addition, there is a chance of ovarian hyper stimulation and pelvic infection after each cycle (Infertility: Miracle Babies).
Debate Round No. 1
jessamariee

Pro

The price of IVF treatments is known to be high, but what treatment isn't? It is possible to undergo this treatment without becoming buried in debt by applying for health insurance to give patients leeway with payments. IVF gives couples a choice to use certain fertility drugs to increase their chances and also includes certain procedures to prevent complications. For example Diathermy is a heat source used to destroy some of the tiny cysts that develop within the ovaries, increasing chances of fertility while also protecting the mother. A team of researchers from National Tsing Hua University and the National Health Research Institutes in Taiwan have developed a technique to more effectively grow and screen embryos prior to implantation, causing the detection of any genetic mutations to be able to be seen and treated . The main goal of this procedure is to give a couple a chance that they would never have on their own. Although there are dangers within this treatment, there are also many devices and treatments that can help along the way to improve chances while not endangering the health of the mother or the fetus.
ccerrillo4381

Con

I do agree with your first statement. What treatment is not expensive? Luckily, we do have health insurance, which you have also mentioned. The problem however, is that very few insurance companies actually cover these treatments, as they are not required to! (Advancedfertility.com). Moving on from that topic, however, is the question of scientific advancement of the technology. Who knows what new possibilities the advancement of IVF treatments may bring? Currently you are able to pick the gender of the future child. What will the advancements to the science change? Some may argue that the line is currently very gray between designing every aspect of a baby and "Playing God". Another recent advancement is three way In Vitro Fertilization, or the creation of offspring using the DNA of three people. It may be the key to solving particular disease disorders, but this involves the sacrifice of a healthy embryo. As BBC health puts it, "You haven't cured a disease if you've eliminated someone." Who has the authority to make the call to alter dramatically, or even fully eliminate the life of a developing embryo?
Debate Round No. 2
jessamariee

Pro

Although there are cases where health insurance doesn't fully cover procedures such as IVF, there are possible loans that are given to couples that are involved. There is always a way around the system that can make the overall process easier and lessen the stress levels for couples. The suffering caused by possible genetic diseases can be decreased by the use of technology through screening the embryos before placing them in the uterus. The new possibilities would do exactly that, advance our knowledge of IVF treatments, developing ways to improve the likelihood for the positive outcome and to be able to decrease the chances of any harmful genetic mutations. Coming from a scientific stand point, the main goal of this procedure is to give couples a life they want, not to play the role of God. The 'sacrifice' of the healthy embryo is not being put to waste, this advancement is actually increasing the chances of healthy implantation within the uterus of the mother. Advancements in this case are a positive thing working towards the main goal of reaching 100% chance of fertility through IVF treatments in the future through technology and new developments.
ccerrillo4381

Con

Though you do address the fact that a sacrifice for IVF is involved, it is massively understated. According to CTFertility.com, when excess embryos are produced you can either use them in the future, store them at a high cost, or just plain discard them. IVF News states that between 1991 and 2005, over 2 million embryonic lives were lost. 109,469 children were born through this procedure. One might question if one live child birth is worth the 18 embryonic lives that were given for this (1:18 ratio for surviving embryos). According to the same source, only 5.1% of all embryos resulted in a live birth. Are you arguing that is it worth creating and subsequently destroying all of these potential human lives just for the chance at producing a child for infertile couples in a world already burdened by overpopulation?
Debate Round No. 3
jessamariee

Pro

Going back to what I said in my previous argument, I am arguing that the IVF procedure is a way for medical advancement, not a way to waste potential human lives. Thinking about it in a sense where scientists are able to learn from past procedures that failed and eventually get to the place where future procedures will eventually be 100% effective. IVF success rates have never mattered more according to the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago. According to the AFCC in 2015, the live birth success rate is about 58% compared to the US average which is 40% due to successful IVF treatments, which are as of this year higher by about 5%. This rate will only just increase as we discover more ways to improve the procedure for couples who are facing infertility. There is a choice for couples who do face excess embryos as you mentioned, you could store them for future use for couples, this would cause the lives to not be lost, and at the same time give couples a baby. By being more open minded to the overall process and the main goal being worked towards, you should be able to see that being pro IVF is the way to go based on the increasing successful rates.
ccerrillo4381

Con

Although you do argue that IVF is a "way for medical advancement" and not "a way to waste potential human lives," the fact of the matter still is that potential human lives are being put to waste. Whether or not that is the end goal is irrelevant at the moment. However, moving on there is a whole other slew of problems that are needing to be addressed regarding IVF. This method of mass implanting embryos and hoping that at least one survives, while at the same time wishing that the rest don't manifest seems a bit hypocritical. But let's ignore that. What happens when not only one embryo lives through the treatment, but two? Three or four, even? According to oneatatime.org, 1 in 6 IVF pregnancies result in multiple births. This is absurdly high when compared to natural birth rates of 1 in 80. Multiple births due to IVF also lead to a multitude of other issues regarding the health of the mother and the children. Risks to the mother include:
-A higher chance of early and late miscarriages
-20% of mothers suffer induced high blood pressure
-The risk of pre-eclampsia is raised to 30%

There are also other issues that affect the babies themselves, such as the fact that 8% or twins need assisted breathing, and how the overall risk of death is higher during the first year of life for twins (6.4 times more likely within 28 days of birth!) All of this isn't even taking into account the increased financial burden. A JAMA Pediatrics study conducted suggests that the hospital bill raises from $2,730 for singletons to $8,993 for twins.
Debate Round No. 4
jessamariee

Pro

Yes there are several risks that may arise from this treatment, but the technology for IVF is continue to improve year after year. PGD or Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is used for genetic testing the embryos before transferring the healthiest one to the woman's uterus. PGD has many benefits prior to IVF. According to the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago, this can clearly benefit the couple who carry a gene that would put their child at risk for having a serious medical condition. For example, if both female and male are carriers of a recessive disease like cystic fibrosis, their child that is conceived naturally would have a 25% chance of having that disease. However, by having IVF and PGD, they can have normal embryos transferred so that there is no chance of being at risk of cystic fibrosis.
Another ethical issue that you stated, is how the babies themselves could be harmed during the process, but this can be processed through genetic screening to detect any abnormalities during the pregnancy. This allows for doctors to do everything in their power to prevent future complications within the pregnancy including if the child needs assisted breathing. With the issue of multiple births, there is always the option of adoption or transferring the embryos safely where they can be stored for research or other future uses.
The parents need to understand the side effects and the risk and become prepared on what can happen, just incase those certain issue arise. It may be a long process and maybe even difficult, but in the end, when the parent has that child in their hands, it will be worth it, and to reiterate are able to give those excess embryos away to help others feel that same way too or help research expand for future generations to come.
ccerrillo4381

Con

Genetic screening may be in place to prevent certain diseases, that is true. However, this genetic screening does not fix my aforementioned issues, as those are actual pregnancy risks and not chronic diseases. In addition, it is easy to chalk all of my evidence up to "It will be fixed in the future," but the fact of the matter is that these are current issues happening NOW. Moving on, there is also a problem involving the legal ownership of the embryos. Oxfordjournals.org says that in many situations there is no legislation in place when it comes to who gets the embryos in a breakup. Currently the procedure involves both the mother and the father signing a document explaining what will become of the embryos in the event of a breakup, but this document is currently in no way enforceable.

In conclusion, there are too many issues surrounding IVF for it to continue as a procedure for the mass markets. You suggest several times that in due time scientists will solve these problems and many more, so I ask: Why not let them? Why must we have our current couples be guinea pigs for a procedure that is not even close to perfection? IVF in its current form is too risky and still quite unregulated. Let's fix these problems before more harm is produced.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by chenacious 7 months ago
chenacious
jessamarieeccerrillo4381Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RIP pro
Vote Placed by crodriguez6711 7 months ago
crodriguez6711
jessamarieeccerrillo4381Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: it was very good
Vote Placed by orutkowski0797 7 months ago
orutkowski0797
jessamarieeccerrillo4381Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Claudio had more details for a better argument.
Vote Placed by relliston7594 7 months ago
relliston7594
jessamarieeccerrillo4381Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: the con side definitely had a stronger argument