TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/031389/03138900.070

Text File | 1990-09-22 | 4KB | 68 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.