TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/031389/03138900.070

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 3.8 KB | 77 lines

                                                                                MEDICINE, Page 53

Trying to Fool the Infertile


Is in-vitro fertilization being oversold?


    It was only eleven years ago that Louise Brown became the
first baby to start life outside a mother's womb. Since then,
the business of in-vitro fertilization -- conception in a test
tube -- has grown even faster than Louise has. Some 200 IVF
clinics have sprung up in the U.S., and they have been
responsible for more than 5,000 births. The surging demand
stems from the high incidence of infertility: about 1 married
couple in 12 has not been able to conceive a child despite a
year of trying. IVF dangles one last shred of hope before some
of these 2.4 million couples.

    But the procedure remains an expensive long shot, which
fails perhaps 85% of the time. This week the House Subcommittee
on Regulation, Business Opportunities and Energy will hold
hearings to investigate growing complaints that many heavily
promoted IVF clinics misrepresent their success rates. The
panel's chairman, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, intends to reveal
an industry survey showing that the performance of IVF
practitioners varies enormously. According to Wyden, half the
IVF clinics have yet to achieve a birth, though they may charge
up to $7,000 for each fertilization attempt. Says the
Congressman: "With millions of couples, many of them desperate,
spending huge sums of money on technology that has been sold
through borderline advertising, you've got a prescription for
disaster."

    The top-rated clinics can honestly boast that up to 17% of
their patients become parents as a result of IVF. But some
lesser operations apparently cite similar potential success
rates in their come-ons, even though their own performance may
be far worse. Says Geoffrey Sher, medical director of San
Francisco's Pacific Fertility Center: "The consumer is in the
dark. A startling number of programs have never had a single
baby born, and they are still quoting statistics." Doctors can
start up clinics even if they have little experience or
specialized training. "It's very easy for the medical
profession to take advantage of infertile couples because they
so desperately want children," observes Carol Peters, chairman
of the Texas-based Advocates for Parenthood, a political-action
group.

    Some couples are bitter about their experience with IVF. One
29-year-old woman in Dallas underwent several unsuccessful IVF
attempts at a total cost of some $17,000. She complains that her
doctor never told her that his success rate had dropped from 25%
to 5% or that the clinic's new embryologist had never helped
produce a birth. Says the woman: "I put trust in people, and
that doesn't work. I have this desire so bad for a baby, I would
do anything to make it work, and I find out I've been ripped off
the whole time."

    The industry insists that most customers are not cheated
because they are told their chances of having a baby are slim.
And many fertility specialists doubt that misleading
advertising is as prevalent as Wyden claims. In fact, his
assertion that half the clinics have never had a birth may be
overstated because at least some of them have not been open long
enough for a patient to complete a pregnancy.

    But there is no denying Wyden's contention that the industry
has "virtually no oversight." He will soon introduce legislation
requiring that IVF labs be certified by the Government. In the
meantime, Wyden will publish his survey, listing clinics, the
qualifications of their personnel and their success rate. The
report could become a much needed consumer's guide to IVF. In
Wyden's view, if a husband and wife put down $7,000, they have
a right to know what chance they have of getting a joyous return
on their investment.