[longbaygirl]

Just seen this on another board................

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/7/7i.pdf

You may want to read pages 129-132, on International comparisons.
Page 131 "the number of embryos to achieve a live birth ………is commonly used as a parameter of excellence………. We have also heard of the inconsistency of reporting standards and criteria vary across Europe, but the overall picture, particularly in relation to the Nordic countries is undeniable"
You need 2 times as many embryos to get pregnant in the UK, as you do in Iceland.
Page 132 point 197 says "Despite being a pioneer in IVF the UK lags behind many of its European neighbours in the quality of the treatment it offers……

Joy

 

[Rice cake]

Great post,I had a look and its frightening the number of embryo's on average needed to achieve a live birth.In Iceland about 5 and about 10 here and about 9 in the rest of Europe.

They said it may be something  to do with clinics here being smaller and so having less scope to train people up and share experience and knowledge.

It doesn't say anything in in about it but I wonder whether women here leave it till they are older before trying to get pregnant and that could affect the rates

 

[longbaygirl]

I think that is part of the problem, we don't know if we are comparing like with like, particularly as in some European countries women can get unlimited or many IVF cycles on the state.

I also came across a bit of research done in the USA suggesting that IF treatment was less successful for ethnic minorities. Again - it did not say why - it just looked at outcomes and after IF tx EMs were less likely to end up pregnant or with a baby, but it could be because EMs had more severe IF problems, or waited longer before getting treatment, were older, went to clinics that were not so hot - or a combination of all 4. Interesting tho. Certainly not enough research going on in this country.

L

 

[jess p]

How depressing!

You might have a point about women leaving it later but my experience has been that the consultants just don't take things v seriously & get you to jump through too many hoops before moving you on to ivf - by which time you're 3 or 4 years older & being written off! Makes me so mad!

I was quite happy to pay for ivf at 35 but kept being told it wasn't necessary - now I'm 38 it has suddenly become necessary & I'll miss the nhs freebie by 2 weeks as our waiting list is 2 years long & I'll hit 40 2 weeks before getting to the top! Fantastic!

I wish I had been made more aware of the steep decline in fertility from 35 - 40+ - I had to find it out on here, not from a consultant.

Makes me want to slap Jennifer Aniston - fancy turning down the chance of Brad Pitt's babies!! She'll regret it!

Sorry for the rant! Feel bit better now!
Jess x

 

[longbaygirl]

Well Jess - we can send Brad in your direction - I know you would be happy to do honors!

Joy

 

[Plink]

Hi

Yes agree with number of gametes/age question.

There is little info in this data as to what you are comparing. I know for a fact that for example in Canada, women are considered 'old' mothers in their mid-thirties and this is rather old-fashioned in my opinion.
Gillian Lockwood (one of the advisors in that report article) used to do an online Q&A Obs/gynae and when I questioned her about myself a couple of years ago, I found her views to be not very progressive.
Her advice was that I was extremely lucky to have one natural live birth at 42y (my first baby) and that donor egg was the only option. I think this is a very conservative view nowadays.

Good luck to all ttc and keep pushing the frontiers out!
Plink x