pam Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I can't even imagine what this couple is going through. After trying for years to have a baby...she finds out she is pregnant through IVF and it's the wrong embryos.Fertility clinic to couple: You got the wrong embryos - CNN.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RachelleDrew Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 For a lack of better words....I would be beyond pissed. But good on them for deciding to carry out the pregnancy to term knowing they would have to give the baby up to the biological parents. Even though this means she won't ever get to carry another child herself. I must admit, i wouldn't be that selfless in that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisyn Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I feel so sorry for them. But really, why does she have to give the child up? Besides ethics lol. Because what will happen is the other couple, the genetic parents, are going to have to adopt their child from the birth parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted September 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I don't think they would have to adopt from the birth parents if it is determined that she is nothing more at this point than a surrogate mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisyn Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 But most states see the surrogate as the mom, and so she has to give up the child to the genetic parents in order for them to raise their kid lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarnished Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 How terrible!! This hits very close to home for me as my husband and I will probably be doing IVF within the next few months. If something like this happened it would be very difficult for us to handle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 In the story I read it mentioned that this has happened before and the courts always rule in favor of the biological parents. The birth parents are looking into having a surrogate parent for a child of their own. Frankly the biological parents ought to offer to do it for them in return for their kindness in how they have handled this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 update on this. The baby boy was reported born today. I am so impressed with this couple giving up the baby. The biological parents were afraid the 'implanted' woman would have an abortion when she found out but the woman said that she had worried that the baby would be the last chance for his parents to have a child. The baby does have a 2 year old sister so that was not the situation but it was impressive she worried about the family even not knowing them. The woman who can not have another child has a lawyer but they are going after the clinic not the biological parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 It appears both women, the involuntary surrogate and the biological mother share a similar name. This may have been part of the reason for the mix-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 (edited) Hmm I cant see the name of the biological parents in the article. Fox news does have it though. If they do like maternity hospitals they dont go so much by name as identifying numbers so I would hope that is not the case. Edited September 26, 2009 by annewandering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 (edited) My surrogate mother's last name is Savage, the biological mother's maiden name is also Savage.toledoblade.com --M. Edited September 27, 2009 by Maureen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 You read it wrong. The biological parents are Shannon and Paul Morell. I can see how easy it was to make the error though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 I have a question on the doctrinal angle of IVF. In LDS, are we "allowed" to fertilize eggs and not implant it inside the womb? I know if a couple in my ward that had IVF, fertilized about 8 eggs with 5 surviving but only 3 was implanted and only 2 of which carried to term. I don't know what happened to the other fertilized eggs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 (edited) Why would we not be 'allowed', anatess? If they cant be implanted then they can't be. I dont really know what would be recommended. I do know it is general practice to have a number fertilzed since the success rate is no where near 100% My guess is that most would come back for another try later, if at all possible. Edited September 27, 2009 by annewandering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elphaba Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 I have a question on the doctrinal angle of IVF. In LDS, are we "allowed" to fertilize eggs and not implant it inside the womb? I know if a couple in my ward that had IVF, fertilized about 8 eggs with 5 surviving but only 3 was implanted and only 2 of which carried to term. I don't know what happened to the other fertilized eggs...It's my understanding these were the guidelines in the official handbook. But they might have changed by now. Someone who knows better . . . will know better.Infertility treatmentMormons accept conventional infertility treatment, including artificial insemination by the husband.Artificial insemination by donor is not banned, but not encouraged.Artificial insemination of single women is not approved.Surrogate motherhood is not approved.In vitro fertilisation using semen from anyone but the husband or an egg from anyone but the wife is strongly discouraged, but not banned.Children conceived by artificial insemination have the same family ties as children conceived by the conventional method. Actually, this doesn't address your question about implantation, does it. Well, I'm going to leave it up anyway, just in case a surrogate mother is thinking of using another man's sperm to get pregnant even though she's single. This has nothing to do with the Church's stance, but Utah Senator Orrin Hatch was in favor of using existing embryos for stem cell research because an embryo cannot become a human being if it can't be implanted.That actually made a lot of sense to me, which I would never admit in person because Hatch is just plain embarassing to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Why would we not be 'allowed', anatess? If they cant be implanted then they can't be. I dont really know what would be recommended. I do know it is general practice to have a number fertilzed since the success rate is no where near 100% My guess is that most would come back for another try later, if at all possible.I'm not saying it is not allowed. I'm sure it is. What I'm saying is fertilized eggs that are not implanted. I have the stance that life begins at conception - basically when sperm meets the egg - therefore, that life should gain protection at that very moment and given every opportunity to reach its human potential. I think this stance is in-line with the Church's (of course, there are cases like rape, incest, etc - I won't touch on those here because my stance on it is not popular and may not even be in-line with the church). But, if you purposely let the egg meet the sperm only to not give it a chance to be born... at this moment, I have to say No to this because of my stance on the beginning of life. I was hoping somebody can tell us what the official church stance on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 You read it wrong. The biological parents are Shannon and Paul Morell. I can see how easy it was to make the error though.No, I'm pretty sure I read it correctly. Mr. Savage has suggested that names may have been more than a coincidence in how his wife was implanted with the wrong embryos. Mrs. Savage and Shannon Morell share the same name of Savage. It is Mrs. Morell's maiden name and her Michigan voting records list her as Shannon Savage-Morell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 I'm not saying it is not allowed. I'm sure it is. What I'm saying is fertilized eggs that are not implanted. I have the stance that life begins at conception - basically when sperm meets the egg - therefore, that life should gain protection at that very moment and given every opportunity to reach its human potential. I think this stance is in-line with the Church's (of course, there are cases like rape, incest, etc - I won't touch on those here because my stance on it is not popular and may not even be in-line with the church). But, if you purposely let the egg meet the sperm only to not give it a chance to be born... at this moment, I have to say No to this because of my stance on the beginning of life. I was hoping somebody can tell us what the official church stance on it.In actuality, the Church has not taken the same stance you have. The Church makes no statement about when life begins. It also has taken no stance either for or against embryonic stem cell research. What's interesting to me is that the Church's policies on issues like these (stem cell research, abortion, and the beginning of life) imply that it is not concerned with 'protecting life,' but that it is concerned that we use our procreative abilities within the parameters that the Lord has defined. As for what to do with unused fertilized eggs, I think it would be unreasonable to require that all of them be implanted, or that every effort be made to ensure they have the best chance at conception. When a patient undergoes IVF treatments, several ova are harvested, observed, and the best ova are selected for fertilization. Depending on how many ova are available, they may fertilize anywhere form 5 - 12 of them. After fertilization, they will observe the oocytes for about two days to watch how they develop. Finally, the oocytes that have the best chance of survival are implanted. This is where it gets tricky. Usually, multiple oocytes are implanted. Recall that women receiving IVF are typically women with reproductive problems, and so it is expected that they will lose some of the implanted oocytes during the course of the pregnancy. To increase the probability of a live birth, multiple oocytes are implanted. Unfortunately, when a woman is pregnant with twins, triplets, or more, she runs a significantly greater chance of naturally aborting the fetuses (a fetus runs the best odds of survival when it is alone in the womb). So the goal is to implant as many oocytes as you can without the pregnancy resulting in twins or higher order births.There are essentially four options of what to do with the excess oocytes. Destroy them (cheap option) Freeze them and save them for later (not ideal, becaues these are the oocytes that were not considered good enough for implantation. Why are we saving oocytes that aren't likely to survive?) Donate them to research (The Church has no position on this option) Donate them to another couple (The Church is opposed to this option)You may notice that none of the options can satisfy both the goal of the IVF treatment and the goal of "protecting life." Fortunately for the Church, it's position doesn't really seem to be about protecting life, and so the discussion is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 MOE, thanks for the interesting info on the IVF process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.