Medicine: Trying To Fool the Infertile

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.