IVF mistakes that would have confounded King Solomon

 IVF helps many people welcome children into their families, but also makes possible mistakes that would have confounded King Solomon.

Haaretz has the story:

Israeli Court Orders Birth Mother to Give Toddler to Biological Parents After IVF Mix-up by Chen Maanit
"A woman in her third trimester of pregnancy discovered that she had been implanted with the wrong embryo two years ago. An Israeli judge has ruled that the toddler, now two years old, be raised by her biological parents."  

 

HT: Itai Ashlagi 

*******

And another, on this side of the ocean, from the NYT:

An I.V.F. Mix-Up, a Shocking Discovery and an Unbearable Choice
Two couples in California discovered they were raising each other’s genetic children. Should they switch their girls?   By Susan Dominus

"Wolf believes that the public becomes aware of only a fraction of the errors that occur in fertility-clinic labs. In Zoë and May’s cases, as in the case of the twins carried by the Korean American woman in New York, the mistake was apparent because the children were a different race from the birth parents. In most instances, parents who accept and bond with their baby may never suspect something is wrong. Even when discovered, such mistakes rarely make the news. “Most of my cases you never hear about, because we settle them before we file lawsuits,” Wolf said. “And the settlement agreements have confidentiality agreements, because the clinics want to ensure that there will be no negative publicity as a result of its error.”

"I.V.F. procedures are underregulated relative to most medical procedures, says Dov Fox, a law professor at the University of San Diego with a focus on bioethics. States do not mandate that fertility clinics report preventable and damaging mistakes when they happen, as is required of hospitals. Some emblematic problems, Fox told me, included clinics or labs relying on pen-and-paper labeling systems and faulty screening measures; Wolf cited a failure of clinic employees to respond to alarms on the freezers that store embryos. “I sometimes think of our lawsuits as the policing of the fertility industry,” Wolf said, “because nobody else is holding them accountable.”

"Now heavily dominated by private equity, the industry is rife with for-profit, high-volume fertility clinics operating in a regulatory dead zone. Oversight of fertility clinics has been limited, Fox said, because of the challenges it poses politically: Although many conservatives would like to impose restrictions, including limiting the number of embryos a lab can create, they have historically not wanted to jeopardize efforts to restrict abortion by also attacking I.V.F., which is broadly popular. Many Democrats, meanwhile, have been reluctant to regulate the industry for fear of opening the door to restrictions that might, for example, limit who is eligible for I.V.F. (as in some countries, where gay couples are excluded). Fox expects that the overturning of Roe v. Wade will lead to new scrutiny of I.V.F., which might ultimately threaten its wide availability."

IVF for sex selection: legal in the U.S

Slate has the story:

The Parents Who Want Daughters—and Daughters Only. Sex selection with IVF is banned in much of the world. Not in the U.S. by Emi Nietfeld

"Sex selection was once controversial in the U.S. and is banned in almost every other country. Many Americans unaware of the process still assume that it’s that way. In reality, it has now become a standard part of IVF here. For some, the option to sex select is a perk of an otherwise exacting process. For others, it’s the whole point of doing IVF in the first place.

...

"Still, “the very act of sex selection is sexist,” argues Arianne Shahvisi, a professor of philosophy at Brighton and Sussex Medical School in the U.K., where elective sex selection is illegal.

...

"It’s not just the U.K. Virtually all the industrialized world—including Canada, Australia, and every European country besides Cyprus—bans sex selection except in rare medical cases. Most nations prohibit the practice on the grounds that it promotes sexism and that the children born from it may be harmed by gendered expectations. Widespread preference for a certain sex can also skew the population—as in India and China, where abortion and infanticide of girls have resulted in tens of millions more men than women. 

...

"In 1994 the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the nonprofit that provides the industry’s professional guidelines, condemned sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Yet with no enforcement power, the guidelines remained just that. Unlike in most peer nations, IVF in America is mostly privately paid and weakly regulated. Instead, market forces dominate. By 2018, despite the ASRM’s recommendation that they not offer sex selection, 75 percent of clinics continued to provide the service. Since then, the ASRM’s ethics committee has updated its position to a neutral stance."

Education (and age) versus fertility in the U.S. marriage market

 Markets change over time, including the marriage market.  American marriages have become more assortative in recent years, and it appears that, in the 21st Century, women no longer pay a 'marriage penalty' (measured in spousal income) for graduate education.

The Human Capital–Reproductive Capital Trade-Off in Marriage Market Matching, by Corinne Low, Journal of Political Economy Volume 132, Number 2, February 2024

"Abstract: Throughout the twentieth century, the relationship between women’s human capital and men’s income was nonmonotonic: while college-educated women married richer spouses than high school–educated women, graduate-educated women married poorer spouses than college-educated women. This can be rationalized by a bidimensional matching framework where women’s human capital is negatively correlated with another valuable trait: fertility, or reproductive capital. Such a model predicts nonmonotonicity in income matching with a sufficiently high income distribution of men. A simulation of the model using US Census fertility and income data shows that it can also predict the recent transition to more assortative matching as desired family sizes have fallen."

Notable sentence about the ancien regime: "I provide a simple condition such that there always exists a man rich enough that he prefers a higher fertility but poorer woman to a richer and less fertile woman."

*******

And here's an earlier paper on fertility (through IVF) and age of marriage in Israel:

Gershoni, Naomi, and Corinne Low. 2021. "Older Yet Fairer: How Extended Reproductive Time Horizons Reshaped Marriage Patterns in Israel." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 13 (1): 198-234.

"Abstract: Israel's 1994 adoption of free in vitro fertilization (IVF) provides a natural experiment for how fertility time horizons impact women's marriage timing and other outcomes. We find a substantial increase in average age at first marriage following the policy change, using both men and Arab-Israeli women as comparison groups. This shift appears to be driven by both increased marriages by older women and younger women delaying marriage. Age at first birth also increased. Placebo and robustness checks help pinpoint IVF as the source of the change. Our findings suggest age-limited fertility materially impacts women's life timing and outcomes relative to men."

Frozen embryos are children: Alabama Supreme Court ruling

 The Washington Post has the story, which emphasizes the implications this ruling could have on in-vitro fertilization (IVF).  That would also impact surrogacy, and possibly deceased donor transplantation (depending on how it impacts the definitions of who is alive and who isn't...) 

Frozen embryos are children, Ala. high court says in unprecedented ruling. By Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff, February 19, 2024 

"The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them, a decision that reproductive rights advocates say could imperil in vitro fertilization (IVF) and affect the hundreds of thousands of patients who depend on treatments like it each year.

"The first-of-its-kind ruling comes as at least 11 states have broadly defined personhood as beginning at fertilization in their state laws, according to reproductive rights group Pregnancy Justice, and states nationwide mull additional abortion and reproductive restrictions, elevating the issue ahead of the 2024 elections. Federally, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this term whether to limit access to an abortion drug, the first time the high court will rule on the subject since it overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

"The Alabama case focused on whether a patient who mistakenly dropped and destroyed other couples’ frozen embryos could be held liable in a wrongful-death lawsuit. The court ruled the patient could, writing that it had long held that “unborn children are ‘children’” and that that was also true for frozen embryos, affording the fertilized eggs the same protection as babies under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.

...

"The push for defining personhood has even affected tax law: Georgia now recognizes an “unborn child” as a dependent after six weeks of pregnancy.