"..Although IVF is used routinely for the treatment of unexplained infertility, there is limited evidence to show that it is more effective than expectant management, and there is insufficient evidence to recommend it as an alternative to other therapies such as clomiphene citrate (Serophene), intrauterine insemination, or gamete intrafallopian transfer.

1 Risks of IVF include psychological stress, multiple gestations, operative risks, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Another issue is its high cost. More research is needed to clearly establish the efficacy of IVF compared with other therapies... "

As a doctor, I know nothing is more desperate than a couple who can't get pregnant...in vitro fertilization is a nice "technical" answer to the problem...

When the tubes are blocked, either from an earlier tubal ligation or from scar tissue from infection or endometriosis, the only way to get pregnant is to bypass the tubes with IVF...

However, what is more disturbing is that some doctors are using IVF for any infertile woman...

And, of course, there is nothing happier than when it results in a child...But there is a question: Are we essentially selling snake oil? I mean, using IVF makes everyone happy because it is like a placebo for the parents and makes money for the clinic and gives the doctor a feeling of doing a good deed...

Because of this, few question if it is wise to do...I once read a history of the early research...essentially, because of Catholic objections, the government didn't fund these clinics, so the "research" was essentially funded by desperate parents...yes, they "Understood" the risks...but ethically, their own desperation made the decision less free, and ethically the doctors should not have exploited this anxiety (not to mention taking the money) of the parents when the "success rate" was very very low (it is now a bit better...30%, which is about as high as "expectant" treatment)...

And, of course, there is that nasty side effect of left over embryos...Again, no one wants to talk about it, partly because of the "abortion wars", but partly because the parents didn't think about the problem of "left over" embryos....and most of them think of these embryos as "children"...

So it's easier to ignore the problem than to confront the ethical dilemma...what should we do with aging embryos? WIth time, the chance of going to term even if implanted gets lower...

SHould a woman, who is often getting old to carry a child, risk trying to carry another baby (or sometimes six or ten more babies at various times)...

Some Evangelical groups are calling for adopting these children...but as "old" embryos, the rate of birth is low...and with half a million (?) left over, where would you find people to adopt them?

The Catholics frown on IVF because it is artificial and debases the sexual union between husband and wife...and have no answer...one priest said that the fetuses should not be destroyed, but left in storage so that their "death" would at least be natural...

Indeed, one suspects part of the overhyping/hysteria about embryonic stem cells is partly the abortion wars, but partly to justify seeing such embryos as non humans...so there would be less guilt to either destroy or use them to experiment on...

Ironically, few IVF parents have "released" their embryos to the stem cell experimenters, which is why the previously mentioned Korean scientist was first accused of an ethical lapse, because he pressured his female collegues into donating eggs for his experiments...