Last night 60 Minutes aired a controversial report into selective reduction.
Selective reduction is the practice of aborting one or more fetuses in a multiple pregnancy for medical or ‘lifestyle’ reasons, if the parents do not wish to have more than one or two babies.
The reduction procedure is generally carried out during the first trimester of pregnancy and the most common method used is to inject potassium choloride into the fetus’s heart; the heart stops and the fetus dies as a result.
With IVF becoming increasingly common, the number of multiple pregnancies is increasing and the practice of selective reduction is becoming more widespread.
60 Minutes interviewed one mother with triplets who chose not to selectively reduce and another mother who was pregnant with triplets via IVF and decided to reduce down to one foetus because she only wanted one child.
There was also a mother who reduced for health reasons. Kass Hall writes:
The discussions around the water cooler across Australia today will be firey, no doubt, after the story on “selective reduction” on Sixty Minutes. Twitter and Facebook are in meltdown, with a range of views from ‘murder’ right through to ‘it’s a woman’s right to choose’, and everything in between.
The story by Michael Usher looked at women who have chosen to take this course of action due to lifestyle or financial choices, as opposed to reasons of impaired health for either mother or child. Many (but not all) of the women have used IVF and other reproductive technology to get pregnant.
I’m 34 years old and have survived cancer four times in 21 years. It has not only ravaged my body through surgery and treatments, it has also left me unable to conceive my own child. Given the long term nature of my diagnosis, I also don’t meet the criteria for adopting or fostering.
Despite my inability to have a child, I am strongly pro-choice – in fact I believe both men and women should have complete control over their bodies and what they do with them. But it’s hard to get my head around the women in the Sixty Minutes story on Sunday night.
My problem with selective reduction is two-fold: first, the way it occurs. A needle containing poison being injected into the heart of the fetus, until it stops beating. I don’t think it matters whether you support or oppose the ethics or morality of selective reduction. Watching that needle being inserted on the sonogram was horrific. (Ed’s Note: One Mamamia reader has had to make this heartbreaking decision before – you can read about that story in full here)
However, the more pressing issue (to me) is that people assert their rights without following through on their responsibilities.
There are many theories on when life begins. Whether it’s upon conception, within the first three months of the fetal development or whether you believe a baby is not alive until its born, is really not the issue at hand. The issue is whether a mother has the right to abort that child for lifestyle reasons. When you choose to get pregnant through IVF, when you choose to implant more than one egg – do you then get to choose if that fetus continues to birth? At what stage do the rights of that baby kick in?
The two concepts cannot be mutually exclusive – you cannot have the freedom to make a decision without also being responsibility for the consequences of that decision.
Frankly, this is where I get really frustrated with the use of IVF and other reproductive technology in general. It’s a fabulous use of science to help people who can’t get pregnant naturally. But when it is used by people because of their lifestyle choices – this is where I believe it crosses into unsavory ground.
Having more than one baby doesn’t suit your lifestyle? Waiting until you can’t conceive naturally because you got busy career wise? Implanting three eggs with intention of terminating two – choosing the healthiest one or the gender your prefer this time around? Where do we draw the line? When do the corresponding responsibilities of being a parent kick in?
CNN, The Washington Post and other media outlets have reported on what the fertility world calls its “dirty little secret”. But there seems no-one in a position of leadership is willing to confront the issue head on and really open it up to public debate. This isn’t a pro-abortion vs anti-abortion debate. This is about using technological advances in a responsible way.
None of these women are responsible for my situation or the situation of other reproductively challenged women. But they do have a responsibility – as do doctors – to use the technology in an ethical, responsible way. It’s much like the development of nuclear and chemical weapons. We know how to, but does that mean we should?
Calling a fetus “tissue in my body” (as one of the American women in the Sixty Minutes story did) says to me that there is a serious gap in the way we monitor and regulate IVF use, and the hoops adoptive and foster parents have to go through. I just can’t get my head around it. I can’t be a mother through no fault of my own. Yet these women have access to wonderful technology and use it in a way that makes a mockery of what IVF is there for in the first place. IVF is not about choosing your child so they fit the mould you want them to. A natural conception doesn’t grant you this privilege and neither should IVF. IVF is about giving you an opportunity you would otherwise not have. Children are not shoes – you can’t just shop around until you find the pair that suits you best.
These women should take their responsibilities as parents a lot more seriously, or consider getting a pet rock instead.
Kass Hall is an artist and writer from Melbourne. You can follow her blog here or on Twitter here.
What do you think of selective reduction?
Top Comments
If you only support a woman's reproductive rights for health reasons, I would re-think your self-identification as pro-choice. You say you support men and women's right to total control over their own bodies, but then berate some of them for the decisions they have made.
A 'lifestyle' choice comes down to a huge number of factors such as maternity leave and work arrangements, financial ability, the stress of a multiple pregnancy, and so on. It's not really up to you to decide if those reasons are good enough. Not if you're pro-choice, anyway.
The argument that women and doctors are sex selecting babies is also inflammatory and not based on fact. It is widely considered inappropriate in the medical community to base the decision on sex, so I'm not sure why you're suggesting it's a common problem.
It is standard practice due to the cost and effectiveness of pregnancy via IVF to implant multiple embryos in each round; it's not like women are asking to be implanted with several for fun. If by chance all those embryos survive, then we shouldn't punish women by saying "well unless you're going to do a twin or triplet pregnancy, you're not allowed to try and have babies at all". That's not a requirement which fertile women need to contend with.
You are frankly misrepresenting the circumstances of women who have had selective reduction immensely. Based apparently on one interview by one woman.
I have just read your opinion and it appears you have never been a mother or have any idea of what it involves to be one. Your ability to comment on these mothers situation is really inappropriate when you have no idea on what can happen in pregnancy or the challenges of mothering a multiple pregnancy. The challenges of any pregnancy
Firstly people dont choose a multiple pregnancy whether it be natural or otherwise. Most of the time it happens by chance and people do not ask for it or have the intention for it. So do not judge them they are faced with it. So you do not have right to say if someone has one 'you did IVF just live with the consequences as you knew it was a chance of multiples" What right do you have to tell women to live with what they did not choose for themselves.
Also their are legitimate reasons people do not want a mutiple pregnancy which someone who has never made the sacrifice to have children could not possibly understand at all. Most women dont make this decision on lifetsyle choices but rather their own mental and physical wellbeing of mum and child and their future ahead. They have to live with it everyday not you who pass your fancy judgements on them.
There are high risks to mum and babies in the pregnancy.to ALL women who have multiple births. How dare you judge these women. Some women have long term complications and can even die in a multiple birth. Some have severe depression their whole lives when one of the children has a disability ans they have to raise one child who is normal and one who is challenged.The risk of cerebral palsy and disability is much higher in twin rather than single pregnancy? Cerebral palsy 1 in 100 in twins did you that? This is why they choose to reduce not because they cant afford their extra latte
. Dont you think these women have thought of this and been faced with this when having to contimplate their reductions. Risks are real risks whether you have been told on a scan or not. They can really happen even though you dont know if they will or not.
Perhaps you live in a dream world where you only see mums with healthy kids around or think people who have a mutilple birth deserve these risks. No one deserves and theri are plenty of women who went through a mutiple pregnancy thinking everything would be okay by doctors and the birth went fine only to find a year later one of the children has major developmental delays and they cant do anything about it. Dont judge women have had IVF as mutilple pregnancies with complications happen to women who dont have IVF so why is the IVF even important. Both women with or without IVF are facing the same risks?
People also reduce children to save the life and maximise the health of the one they have and there is nothing wrong in making this decision.
I have had a problem first pregnancy and a child with disability through no choice of my own. I have invested a lot of hard work in him. Im now facing a mutilple pregnancy with a real possibility of having a child with the same disability and maybe two children with it. It is RISK not soemthing you see on scans which you dont get.How dare you judge me if I want to reduce to one child to reduce disability and improve the quality of life on one child. How dare you judge any of these women when you have no idea of the costs and sacrifice it takes to raise any child
Read my article again Sarita. I said my comments were not about selective reduction for health reasons. I was (7 years ago) talking about selective reduction by women implant 3 eggs with the INTENTION of aborting two. That is not responsible use of the technology.
When there are health issues for Mum or bub, that is an entirely different discussion to the one in the 60 Minutes story. I make the assumption that, 7 years later, you haven't seen the story to which I was responding. Perhaps do so before ranting.
As a person with a disability, please don't lecture me about living with one. I have not judged you or any woman making health related choices.
And if you had read my article, you'd see I am UNABLE to get pregnant due to 4 cancers.
Peace.