Clear example of misleading advertising
According to many advertising brochures from assisted reproduction clinics, women who attend them have 100% chance of achieving a pregnancy. However, this possibility — in our opinion — is very far from the objective medical truth.
Along with this line, an article has just been published in the British Medical Journal, evaluating the likelihood of achieving a live birth after one or more ovarian stimulation cycles.
This is a large study since it includes 113,873 women, with 184,269 complete cycles. A live birth was obtained after the first cycle in 33,154 cases (29.1%) and 48,925 after six complete cycles (43%).
These outcomes are affected by the woman’s age, duration of infertility, the number of eggs collected, and whether or not there are cryopreserved embryos, among other reasons.
When women are aged 30 years or under and have only suffered two years of infertility, the chance of having a live birth after the first cycle is 43%, and after three complete cycles is 79%.
These figures clearly indicate that in the majority of women, the possibility of achieving a live birth after six stimulation cycles is somewhat less than 50%. This circumstance does not always occur, since, in most clinics, couples decide not to continue the process after three cycles.
This likelihood of achieving a live birth contrasts drastically with that offered by most clinics in their brochures, which is unquestionably a clear example of misleading advertising of assisted reproduction clinics brochures.
See Australian case HERE
Photo Fertility Bridge
La entrada Assisted reproduction clinics advertising brochures are very far from the objective medical truth aparece primero en Bioethics Observatory.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.