I told Mel in the comments that it's still out there! -- I've seen copies of the latest edition in bookstores recently -- and I remember reading an article not too long ago about it, and how it (like so many other things these days, unfortunately…) has become politicized, much to Weschler's dismay. This link is, unfortunately, behind a paywall (at least it was for me) -- and Pocket, which used to be my first stop in trying to get around paywalls, is now defunct -- but you can still read some paywalled articles via the archive.today website. Try this link from there.
I wrote about TCOYF and how I used it back in 2018. Obviously, it did not work for me! (nor did several subsequent rounds of clomid & IUIs) but I am still glad I read it and gained that better knowledge of my body and how it works. I would still highly recommend the book for all young women, whether or not they want children or are experiencing fertility issues. (Men should read it too!)
I was reminded of these posts and articles when I saw another recent article from the New York Times about a "new" (new??) "natural" approach to infertility called "restorative reproductive medicine" (gift link), which is being promoted by both Christian conservatives and the Make America Healthy Again movement. TCOYF is not mentioned, but its methods would likely be included in such an approach. The concept proposes to address what proponents describe as the “root causes” of infertility, while leaving IVF as a last resort.
"Physicians who specialize in the approach analyze patients’ diet and exercise habits, while helping them “chart” their menstrual cycles, a process that can help expose certain reproductive health conditions, like endometriosis, that may lead to infertility," the article says. "Practitioners treat reproductive health conditions but do not offer I.V.F."
Although President Donald Trump has signalled his support for IVF and making it free of charge, Republicans at both the state and federal levels are now busy promoting measures to fund "restorative reproductive medicine," and to require insurance companies to cover it -- while continuing to downplay and dither over IVF.
Of course, what they're promoting is far from "new" for anyone who has experienced infertility. Most of us who have ventured down the infertility treatment path have been there, done that, bought the T-shirt -- charted, felt for the position of our cervix, noted our "ewcm" (and guzzled gallons of Robitussin cough syrup in an attempt to increase it), lay on our backs with our legs up in the air after sex, sworn off alcohol, changed and watched our diets (ate copious amounts of pineapple), taken extra vitamins, tried to lose weight, tried yoga, meditation, acupuncture, essential oils, "natural supplements," crystals, and goodness knows what else -- and undergone umpteen ultrasounds, endometrial biopsies and sometimes laparoscopies and more invasive surgical procedures, before moving on to trying clomid and IUIs (with and without using fertility drugs) -- and only THEN moving on to more intensive (and costly) interventions like IVF.
Leading medical organizations agree:
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists called restorative reproductive medicine “unproven” and “not a medical term,” stressing that many patients have already tried to chart their cycles, treat underlying conditions and make lifestyle changes by the time they arrive at an infertility clinic. While those methods may work for some, several leading I.V.F. doctors said people experiencing infertility often required more help — and months or years spent on restorative reproductive medicine could delay the I.V.F. they would ultimately need in order to conceive. Because female fertility declines with age, doctors said those delays could jeopardize a woman’s ability to get pregnant.“They’re underestimating how hard we try to avoid I.V.F.,” said Eve Feinberg, a medical director of fertility and reproductive medicine at Northwestern Medicine. “When people walk into my clinic, we don’t do I.V.F. tomorrow. We try to figure out other things.”
Many readers agreed in the comments. "Only someone who has never gone through any fertility treatment would think the techniques described here are something new," the top-rated comment points out. "They are just the first steps in fertility treatment. If they worked for everyone, we wouldn't have IVF."
Another highly rated comment (and there are lots of others in the same vein): "I don't see any "restorative" treatments discussed in this article that focus on the MALE half of infertility..."
Senator Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat from Illinois, is blunt:
“They want to delay and delay and delay and essentially come up with fake science and ways to delay so that people can never actually get to the I.V.F. solution,” said Ms. Duckworth, who has had two children through I.V.F.
I'm all for better educating people about their bodies and how they work, and for more comprehensive fertility investigations at a younger age. (While I adored my longtime family doctor -- who recently passed away -- when I was 36 and expressed concern that I wasn't getting pregnant after more than a year of trying, he basically patted me on the head, and said, "Don't worry it will happen. It actually did happen when I was 37 -- but we all know how that played out...! And I never got pregnant again, with or without assistance.)
However, my suspicion is the powers that be will promote this "new" concept -- which might help some people, but certainly not anyone with serious fertility issues -- while de-funding more effective (albeit more expensive -- and more politically contentious) treatments such as IVF, and making them harder to access.
A "new" approach? I think not.
No comments:
Post a Comment