Talk:In vitro fertilisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good Job
" I was surprised by the excellent section 'In vitro fertilisation'. It gives a precise, accurate overview of the state of this technology and most of the newer developments in the field.

This would undoubtedly serve as a useful introduction for those with little idea about the subject; this entry would actually be more useful to the average inquirer with its links than would anything in the Encyclopedia Britannica." — Professor Robert Winston in The Independent, Feb. 12, 2006
Peer review This article was externally reviewed on February 12, 2006 by The Independent.

An event mentioned in this article is a July 25 selected anniversary

Moved from old /todo page:

  • Tighten up wording of some sentences.
  • Explain some of terms used in 'technique' section ('sperm penetration assays')

Just writing to let you know that our website ivf-infertility.co.uk which you kindly link to has actually moved ivf-infertility.com.

We need to settle on either the British or American spellings. Currently we have "fertilize" sitting alongside "fertilisation". Unless I'm mistaken and this is correct in the British spelling (don't have a British dictionary handy, and m-w doesn't recognize any of the British spellings.) Dachshund

45,000 seems awfully low for total number of IVF babies in the USA. Is this number current and accurate? Ntk 00:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to answer myself and say that it is way too low. IVF has exploded in recent years and one source says that about 1% of all births in the U.S.A. are in-vitro, with 40,000 in 2001 alone. I'm going to use these stats but hopefully someone less lazy than me can find authoritative statistics for world-wide and current numbers. Ntk 00:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article Georgeanna Seegar Jones is redirected here, but she isn't even mentioned in the article. Someone please add some info (or remove the redirect.) Alensha 11:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After looking at naprotechnology.com, I found absolutely no reason naprotechnology (a registered trademark) should be mentioned rather than natural techniques in general. I replaced the references to naprotechnology with a more generic reference. BanditCat 11:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

== Next generation == ..x

Has anyone (especially a woman) born via IVF had children of their own? If anyone knows the answer, it would be worth mentioning in the article. Matchups 16:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? That may be a novelty, but it doesn't seem of interest to a general article on the topic. MamaGeek Joy
It seems reasonable to be concerned about fertility issues for people who were themselves conceived in a novel way, and usually from infertile parents. Consider that mules are always sterile. I can't see a reason why test-tube babies would be also, but there are always surprises. Matchups 02:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
O_o Thanks, now you've given me cause for concern. XD I'm a test-tube baby, conceived in a little plastic dish in March 1986, and so far I'm normal...ish. I have idiopathic epilepsy but I'm sure that's not a result of the IVF, and I do have normal periods, if a little irregular due to my anti-spazz medication. I'm not sexually active so I can't really add much to this rather interesting query (again: O_o) though I'd suggest to keep a non-prying eye on the state of Louise Brown's marriage; who knows, she married in 2004, she and her husband may be thinking about trying for the next generation as we speak. Lady BlahDeBlah 15:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Louise Brown now has a link to an article in the Guardian: LB is expecting a baby, due January 2007. The child was conceived without medical intervention. Since there are people in their mid to late 20s who were test tube babies, it's possible some of them have already had children. 86.7.16.120 23:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The first IVF baby to give birth herself was actually Louise Brown's younger sister Natalie, who was conceived the same way and gave birth naturally in 1999. --Metropolitan90 19:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Name misspelled

As 'fertilization' gets 19 million hits on Google, and 'fertilisation' gets only 2 million hits, I'm assuming the spelling with the 'z' is correct. And that's what is in the opening paragraph of this article - but the title has an 's'. Would someone correct this? Lyrl 02:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Spelling with a 'z' is American English and with an 's' is British English. I would assume this issue would be quite common in Wikipedia.

E! 16:30, 5 June 2006 (AEST)

Actually, the spelling "fertilization" is not the "American spelling", but the universally correct original English spelling, "fertilisation" is a variant popular in Britain and other Commonwealth countries. It would make more sense to have the article at "fertilization", but someone started it at "fertilisation" and per MoS, this is where it should stay. SpNeo 13:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

I am not sure if this is the place to put this text but I am trying to add a link to my website www.ivfsecrets.com and the link is removed by the editors. Can you please explain why?

Sure. See the words "my website" in your question. Now read Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. Notice how it doesn't say, "even if it's a really great site". (And generally, new posts go at the bottom of a section.) -- Mwanner | Talk 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Also wikipedia is not for the promotion of websites, see Spam policy & External links policy. The site is only a few months old and from just a little research, currently promoting it note the added date(12/12/2006).--Hu12 17:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK so can I submit my site for review and consideration to be added to the links? Thanks.



Editors, please resolve an issue I have with Icarus3 who keeps removing Technostorks from the External Links section of the article on IVF (it was also removed form articles on Infertility and Fertility. Technostorks is a unique documentary. It offers unbiased educational coverage on issues of infertility anf IVF. I received many comments from the infertility community that they need to be aware of this resource. It is not spam as Icarus3 keeps assuming. Perhaps I should write a separate article on it and include it in the See Also. I would really appreciate your comments. Thank you very much in advance.

--Technostorks 19:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In composing additional background for this issue, I discovered that the problem went far, far deeper than I was aware of:

Technostorks (recently under this name and previously under at least three [1][2][3] anonymous IP addresses has added or attempted to add this external link to at least 42 articles (up to five times in the same article[4]), in violation of WP:SPAM:

Fertility Infertility In vitro fertilisation Embryo transfer Intracytoplasmic sperm injection Third party reproduction Surrogacy Gestational carrier Sperm donation Preimplantation genetic diagnosis Pregnancy Ovarian follicle Candice Reed Louise Brown Pergonal Gonadotropin Clomifene Fertility medication Follicle-stimulating hormone Leuprolide Assisted reproductive technology Insemination Fertilisation Oligospermia Human chorionic gonadotropin Robert Edwards (physiologist) Progesterone Endometriosis Obstetrics Twin Multiple birth Subfertility Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome Repronex Snowflake children Reproductive endocrinology Embryo adoption Anovulation Egg donor Fertility awareness Luteinizing hormone Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist

This external link has a few links to other websites, but exists primarily to sell a DVD. For this reason, it is in violation of WP:EL guidelines. Technostorks has adapted his/her spamming technique to try to sneak it in as a "reference", on the surface appearing to comply with the request to add content instead of links, but I believe that this still breaks the spirit of anti-spam guidelines because of all of the other problems stated.

Technostorks was notified many times [5][6][7] by myself, User:Jfdwolff, User:Lyrl, User:Mwanner, and User:Alphachimp that this kind of linkspam is not in line with Wikipedia standards. Technostorks was even blocked once, under an anonymous IP, for this behavior[8].

If the documentary has a reasonable claim to notability, it can of course have an article about it as Technostorks mentioned. Technostorks's clear conflict of interest (as evidenced by username and spamming alike), however, is a strong argument for abiding by the vanity guideline stating that "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." --Icarus (Hi!) 00:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

The post and actions of Icarus3 appear to be driven by a spam bias. First, in response to the addition of the link, please note that the link was added ONLY to those articles (yes, the issues of infertility and IVF are covered in as many as 42 of them) that have a direct connection to the issues of fertility/infertility and IVF and are discussed in the documentary. If this were spam, the link would've also been added to articles on pregnancy, OB/GYN, women's health etc. which it was not. Second, there are many other sites in the articles on infertility and IVF, which are not being removed from the external links, that exist to primarily sell memberships, attract donations or sell products and services. They might be better disguised, but their corporate affiliation is quite apparent, while Technostorks is an independent company that helps educate patients about infertility and IVF and being punished for being open about it. Third, by explicitly follwing actions suggested by Icarus3 - add content with a reference - Technostorks is now being accused by Icarus3 of being "sneaky." Is it sneaky to explicitly register under the name of Technostorks and openly participate in this discussion? No. What would be sneaky is to register under some other name and pretend to not be affiliated with this educational project, so to qualify under the vanity guidelines.

It is really disconcerning that the "anti-spam spirit" advocated by Icarus3 - which is really more like a spam bias - might really drive some contributors to become sneaky, e.g. register under some other name. Technostorks is not sneaky. The film won an award as the Best Health Documentary. The creator of the first IVF baby in the US highly recommends it. Is this enough to have a claim to notoriety?

Please resolve this. --Technostorks 1:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, go read the "How not to be a spammer" section of WP:SPAM and points 3 and 4 of Links to normally be avoided. Unless you understand how and why spam isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, there's no point trying to debate this with you. A lot of other spam has been added and removed from those articles as well, and any that remains will hopefully be caught and removed by editors who have those articles on their watchlists. --Icarus (Hi!) 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: Too human-centric

For anyone with the inclination: there's nothing inherent about in vitro fertilization that makes it human-centric and so I suggest a minor rephrasing. Stuff like "female" instead of "woman". Cburnett 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where did the "issues" come from?

It's ridiculous to see "Insult in god's eyes" listed as the number one issue. What does that even mean? Who says that? Who's "god" are we talking about?

I'm not sure how that whole section is even there, given that there is not a single source for it and it is far from NPOV. But, if nothing else, at least remove that first point.

I just feel that a lot of these 'issues' should be counted as hearsay without direct citations or references, given that the tone suggests these 'issues' are taken from stem cell controversy and not IVF. Eurolymius 23:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/_/Talk%7EIn_vitro_fertilisation_4bc1.html"