For couples experiencing infertility, the desire to have a child can be overwhelming. Every month that passes is another missed opportunity. Depression, grief, sadness, and despair eventually kick in, and at some point, most couples get desperate enough to gamble tens of thousands of dollars on expensive procedures like in vitro fertilization (IVF) without fully understanding what are they getting into. For the vast majority of couples who try IVF, false hopes turn out to be false and things that sound too good to be true turn out to be true.
Before you decide to spend your precious savings on IVF or any of its newer forms, such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), you should find out more about NaProTechnology (NPT), a medically sound and scientifically backed approach to treating the cause. of your infertility. “NaPro” stands for “natural procreator” and, as the name implies, refers to the application of medical and diagnostic technologies to achieve pregnancy “naturally” through intercourse rather than a laboratory procedure.
Here are 10 reasons to choose NPT over IVF:
1. NaProTechnology focuses on disease
If a couple can’t get pregnant, it makes sense that the first thing the doctor should do is find out why. This is THE goal of the entire NPT program. With IVF, the cause of the infertility is not important and the underlying problem is completely ignored.
2. Success rates are better with NaProTechnology
Recent data from the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha, NE shows that success rates for NaProTechnology are 1.5 to 3 times better than IVF (23.5% vs. 38.4%-81.8%) . In a 4-year study of 95 NPT couples who had been trying to conceive for an average of 6.1 years and had 176 failed attempts at a Boyle artificial reproductive technique (ART)[1] reported that there were 123 designs. Life table analysis showed increasing success the longer couples stayed in the TPN program, with 26.2% pregnant at 12-17 months and 32.6% at 18-25 months .
3. Destruction of Embryos
An analysis of the ART data[2] from 1983 to 1986 showed that the transfer of 1,372 embryos (3.2 per woman) resulted in 81 live births. From these data, it is necessary to create 16.9 live embryos to produce a live birth. Higher success rates reported for IVF procedures generally mean that more embryos are being transferred, increasing the risk of multiple births.
4. Infanticide: “Selective Reduction”
One of the most objectionable things about IVF is that it can result in a situation where a woman is forced to deal with a dangerously high multiple pregnancy rate. The risk of pregnancy increases dramatically with the number of babies in the womb. Women are often forced to selectively “reduce” (ie kill) additional babies in the womb due to the unacceptably high risk of pregnancy.
5. Natural sex versus laboratory procedure
In IVF, sperm and egg cells (gametes) are collected through masturbation (male) and harvested (female) where they are brought together in a laboratory to form embryos which are then reintroduced into the woman’s body. TPN, on the other hand, relies on a natural sexual act to achieve pregnancy.
6. NaPro technology is more cost effective
According to Collins[3], the average cost of an IVF cycle in the United States in 2001 is $9,226. However, expenses of $20-30,000 are not unheard of, because IVF clinics prefer to sell discount packages (multiple cycles) to increase success rates and allow for “shared” risk. By comparison, at a medical center in Duarte, CA (Santa Teresita), TPN has been quoted at an approximate cost of $9,290 which includes a medical evaluation, hormone and ultrasound evaluation, and outpatient surgical infertility treatment.
7. Pregnancy results
There is growing concern that IVF may have significant adverse effects on children conceived through this procedure. In a study of birth defects after ICSI and IVF procedures, Hansen et al.[4] reported that ICSI and IVF babies were more than twice as likely to have been diagnosed with a major birth defect by the end of the year of life (8.6% and 9.0%) compared to naturally conceived babies (4.2 %).
8. You could get pregnant again!
Because natural fertility is restored with TPN, these couples are often able to get pregnant again. In Boyle’s study[1] of 89 births in women who had failed ART, there were 14 women with 2 live births and 1 woman with 3 live births. Since IVF does nothing to correct the cause of the infertility, there is no benefit to subsequent pregnancies.
9. What will you have to show for it?
Ironically, in some cases IVF procedures cause additional damage to the female reproductive system in the course of treatment. For example, some IVF clinics will perform surgical removal of a blocked and swollen fallopian tube to increase success rates.[5]. In these cases, when IVF fails, fallopian tube repair is no longer an option. This approach is contrary to the natural and restorative orientation of the NPT physician and surgeon.[6]. TPN is designed to restore (not destroy) reproductive function. At the very least, NPT couples have addressed the underlying cause of the problem, often resulting in better overall health.
10. What happens after I get pregnant?
This is perhaps the most important question. Couples seeking IVF often haven’t thought about what happens next. Success equals pregnancy. Unfortunately, ignoring the underlying problem that leads to infertility in the first place can negatively affect the pregnancy and even lead to miscarriage. With TPN, the restoration of health and fertility begins before conception and continues throughout pregnancy with the goal of preventing miscarriage and promoting optimal health of the newborn and mother.
References
1. Boyle, P., NaProTechnology (NPT) – After previously unsuccessful artificial reproductive technology (ART). 2004.
2. Cvetkovich, LL, Reproductive Technologies: A Scientific Overview, in The Gift of Life: Proceedings of a National Conference on Vatican Instruction on Reproductive Technology and Ethics, M. Wallace and T. Hilgers, Eds. 1990, Pope Paul VI Institute Press: Omaha, NE.
3. Collins, J., Profitability of in vitro fertilization. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, 2001. 19: p. 279-289.
4. Hansen, M., et al., The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization. New England Journal of Medicine, 2002. 346: p. 725-730.
5. Nackley, AC and SJ Muasher, The importance of the hydrosalpinx in in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility, 1998. 69: p. 373-384.
6. Hilgers, TW, The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTechnology. 2004, Omaha, NE: Pope Paul VI Institute Press.
Copyright 2006 Majella.us
