blatant propaganda article:

IN-VITRO FERTILISATION (IVF) - A SCIENTIFIC SHAM?

IVF has a 90% failure rate.

The propaganda with which the IVF program is sold to the general public relies on its alleged usefulness in the treatment of infertility. However, IVF has only an approximate 10% success rate. In other words, it has a 90% failure rate. (1)

Moreover, IVF is only of potential benefit to a small percentage of all infertile women; those who are unable to conceive due to faulty fallopian tubes. Very few women, however, are born with faulty fallopian tubes. The main cause of this condition is Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) which is totally preventable (2).

"PID has several causes, some well understood, others less so. Infection is the basic problem- mostly venereal infections, such as gonorrhea and chlamydia." (3)

In his book "Mal(e)practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women", Robert Mendelsohn reports that one of the major causes of PID is the use of Intrauterine Devices (IUDs), a type of contraception (4 ).

If scientists really want to solve the problem of infertility, which the propaganda for reproductive technologies implies, then surely the priority should be to prevent infertility through research and community education about PID.

Why are resources directed to IVF, rather than to prevention?

Perhaps this is because of the fame, glamour and financial profit which emanates from whizz-bang reproductive technologies for the pharmaceutical-medical establishment. They gain none of these through preventing infertility.

Who Benefits Most from IVF?

As is the case with most biotechnologies, the greatest beneficiaries in IVF are not the patients. They may endure great discomfort, false hope, depression, degrading and humiliating invasive procedures, financial burden, and the short and long-term adverse effects of the various drugs and procedures involved. The real beneficiaries in IVF are the IVF scientists and the pharmaceutical companies. Their prestige and financial profits are proportionate to the number of women they coax into the program.

IVF = Experimentation on People:

the Vivisector's Dream? One might also consider the sexual politics of (mostly male) scientists taking control of women's bodies and reproductive powers. In IVF scientists are also trying to master the fertilisation of the human egg and the growth of the human embryo without the use of a women's body.

A disproportionate amount of public discussion about IVF is given to the 'ethics of embryo experimentation." While not disregarding this as a matter of concern, this debate actually serves as a smokecloud for the medical establishment to hide the fact that IVF is not a success and that it is the high-tech equivalent of shutting the stable gate after the horse has bolted; of trying to treat infertility after it has been caused by preventable disease. Furthermore, it omits from consideration the ethics of experimentation on women which is first and foremost what IVF is. The IVF procedures constitute real vivisectionist experimentation on women.

IVF is yet another instance in the history of medicine where the vivisectionists have achieved their ultimate goal of experimentation upon living human beings. This ideal was put forward by Claude Bernard, the father of modern vivisectionist-medical-research, when he stated,

A Brave New World?

Why would anyone idealise such an inhuman, alienating world? Yet there are some IVF scientists who do! Perhaps this callous mentality towards humanity is a result of countless desensitising experiments on non-human animals during a physicians training. In the words of Robert Mendelsohn,

"By getting the students used to the shedding of innocent animal blood, they can later become tolerant of the shedding of innocent human blood." (7)

Where is the money best spent?

Which seems to be the more constructive and humanitarian use of resources? To spend large sums of money experimenting on women who have unfortunately become infertile through preventable disease? Or to redirect those resources to the prevention of infertility in the first place? And when one considers that hundreds of thousands of children die each year from starvation and diseases which could easily be prevented with basic sanitation and nutrition, one wonders, what should the priorities of our health dollars be?

Composed 1994

Reader's response to the above article in May 2000 and our response to them. The article contains rambles about health attitudes, prejudice, sexism, smoking, AIDS & IVF.

References:

(1) Robyn Rowland, (1992) LIVING LABORATORIES-Women and Reproductive Technologies, Sun, Australia.
(2) Bill Williams & Gisela Gardener, (1989) MEN: Sex, Power and Survival , p. 152, Greenhouse Publications, Australia.
(3) Bill Williams & Gisela Gardener, (1989) MEN: Sex, Power and Survival , p. 152, Greenhouse Publications, Australia.
(4) Robert Mendelsohn, (1982 ) Mal(e)practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women. p. 125-128 Chicago: Contemporary Books Inc.
(5) Claude Bernard, cited in Hans Ruesch, (1991)Slaughter of the Innocent, p.358 CIVITAS, New York.
(6) Robyn Rowland, (1992) LIVING LABORATORIES-Women and Reproductive Technologies, Sun, Australia.
(7) Robert Mendelsohn, (1986), in the film Hidden Crimes. SUPRESS, Pasadena, CA.

Authored by J. Citizen in 1994 for
Blatant Propaganda - PO Box 1327 Woden ACT 2606 Australia
E-mail: [email protected]