Implant vs. Transfer - A Call to Action!

OK, so I am on a crusade. This whole octuplets mom thing has me frothing at the mouth about many things, not least of which is the insistence of the media on using "implant" to refer to transfers.

I actually have a good friend who works at one of the major news services, and I asked her to bring this up to their health editor. Turns out the health editor is not concerned. She thinks the terms are interchangeable, especially since Nadya Suleman's doctor has this special procedure that "implants" the embryos into the uterine lining. If you ask me, the real issue here is that journalists like their synonyms. God forbid you should have to say "transfer" twice in the same paragraph.

Anyway, my friend has done what she can, over the aspect of the news she can control, but the health editor remains unconvinced. I wrote a comment to another news service and have received no response, so my guess is they also think it is a non-issue. And the New York Times, as Mel points out in today's LFCA, is as guilty as anyone.

So I added the following comment to the New York Times article:

1. Please, please stop saying that doctors "implant" embryos during an IVF. They are TRANSFERRED, and then may or may not implant (a biological process). This is not just semantics - it's misleading. So many people seem to believe that putting an embryo back makes a woman pregnant, and this is just not the case.

2. There are no baby stores in this world. Adoption is a very long, difficult and expensive road. It is also a wonderful way to build a family. So wonderful, in fact, I'm quite puzzled why everyone seems to expect infertiles to do all the adopting. If you're really concerned about the needy children of the world, put your money where your mouth is and adopt one - or two - even if you don't "have" to. And in the meantime, please stop telling infertile people to "just adopt." Many of us have. Many of us will. But there's no "just" about it.

And here's what I wrote to the news service:

"The recent hullabaloo over the octuplets mom has resulted in a deluge of news stories using incorrect terminology as regards IVF. This is not just irritating - it does a great disservice to the public who have many misconceptions about IVF, how it works and how much of a "sure thing" it is.

Please, please stop saying that doctors "implant" embryos into a woman's uterus during IVF. Oh, that this were possible! In fact, doctors TRANSFER embryos to the uterus, where they may or (more usually) may not implant. The transfer procedure consists simply of sending the embryos, plus a small amount of fluid, into the uterus. IF the embryos are viable, IF the woman's uterine lining is receptive, IF no other factors interfere, the embryos MAY implant, at which time they have the chance to become a viable pregnancy."

So please, join in! I encourage you to write to all the news media who are being so careless with their words. Because WORDS MEAN THINGS, as Wittish says on IVFC, and unless people start understanding the reality of IVF there is a real danger of backlash based on fear and ignorance.

Write all of these news sources and tell them to get their facts straight! (But be nice - we'll get better results that way ;) :

• Associated Press: Send an email to info@ap.org
• Reuters: Use their online comment form
• New York Times: Comment on the latest article, and/or use their online comment form
• Los Angeles Times: Send an email to feedback@latimes.com
• Washington Post: Use their online comment form (be sure to set the dropdown to "Letters to the Editor")
• Any other ideas? Add them to the comments section and I'll move them up here....
  

Peace out.