Perspectives

Embryo adoption was on the front page of the New York Times this week! Like much of the recent coverage, it discussed a Tennessee family who may have connected in an unorthodox way, but it works well for them. Overall, the article did a great job explaining the concept and talking about options. I always tell myself to not read new article comment sections because they tend to be ignorant- no matter the topic. But it's like a train wreck, and I just can't help myself.

So much of the misunderstanding, I think, stems from the fact that people don't understand how IVF works. No one sets out to create remaining/extra embryos. People who are at the point of IVF have exhausted every other means to create a family. There is no way to predict how the body will respond to the medication. You may retrieve no eggs, three eggs, or twenty eggs. There is no way to predict how the eggs will fertilize. You may have three eggs that all fertilize into embryos, or you may have twenty eggs none of which fertilize into embryos. IVF is almost exclusively paid for out of pocket, too. It's an imperfect situation, and embryo adoption allows grace for every party involved- donors, recipients, and the child.

It really aggravates me when people judge someone for using embryo adoption because they "should" be adopting a child that already exists. Like the child that hiccups and kicks in my stomach isn't real. He didn't have a right to exist beyond the freezer? And like there is an adoption store on the corner where you "just" adopt. We couldn't adopt from most countries due to medical restrictions. We tried foster care and domestic infant adoption. Guess what- no child came to our home. And really, none of this "should" matter, anyway. For all the people who are so concerned with kids around the world without a family, why aren't they stepping in? Why is it only the responsibility of people with infertility to care for them?

Then, a New York Times selected comment talks out of their butt, with no research at all, about how could the kids possibly be healthy if they were frozen for so long... "how long--let's get real--do frozen embryos remain 'fresh' enough to make healthy, normal kids"? Them comment ends with a flippant statement that the babies born, or "survivors" of a "medical experiment" must do so at a "great expense" with "negative long term health effects".

Many more of the comments are pro life vs. pro choice. Understandable given the topic, and everyone has their own opinion on that. The most "liked" comment for the entire article starts with, "These embryos are no more "children" than an acorn tossed on a compost heap is giant oak tree". Whatever. Agree to fundamentally disagree. I am surprised, though, how many comments talk about overpopulation of the world. I guess people who can conceive naturally have a right to do so, but not those who need some extra help.

I try my hardest to remember that huge media coverage like this normalizes something near and dear to me. It is a positive thing. And I try not to fixate on ignorance. I wish I could educate everyone, but I can't. I know embryo adoption is a blessing. I wish more people who could see it the same way.