An opposing perspective to "Clinical utility of polygenic risk scores for embryo selection: A points to consider statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)"
Currently in a debate over the cost-benefit of voluntary IVF for the purposes of embryo selection without trying naturally.
Has anyone laid one out? Considering the impact of IVF on maternal health vs natural conception and the expected gains in various health aspects of the child. The LessWrong post is pretty good on the benefits and $ cost, though is almost a year old and so I imagine things may have changed.
Also the benchmarking for nearly everything is somewhat unclear in whether it’s between natural conception or IVF without PGT-P. I know IVF is related to overall worse outcomes but would be interested to know how much of that is a selection effect from older, less fertile mothers
Got to scan through the linked analysis, not enough time for a full read at the moment, but I'm guessing the underlying argument is effectively that, while PGT-P passes a cost-benefit analysis, it does not pass the medical liability challenges that any hospital or practitioner would face.
Is this roughly true and, if so, are their foreign hospitals, say in Mexico City or elsewhere that provide IVF treatments where this work could be done?
Seems like an excellent opportunity for you to do a such cost-benefit analysis.
GM, I have a question: is someone studing if we are selecting for the WRONG poly-genes?
Currently in a debate over the cost-benefit of voluntary IVF for the purposes of embryo selection without trying naturally.
Has anyone laid one out? Considering the impact of IVF on maternal health vs natural conception and the expected gains in various health aspects of the child. The LessWrong post is pretty good on the benefits and $ cost, though is almost a year old and so I imagine things may have changed.
Also the benchmarking for nearly everything is somewhat unclear in whether it’s between natural conception or IVF without PGT-P. I know IVF is related to overall worse outcomes but would be interested to know how much of that is a selection effect from older, less fertile mothers
Thanks for bringing this up.
Got to scan through the linked analysis, not enough time for a full read at the moment, but I'm guessing the underlying argument is effectively that, while PGT-P passes a cost-benefit analysis, it does not pass the medical liability challenges that any hospital or practitioner would face.
Is this roughly true and, if so, are their foreign hospitals, say in Mexico City or elsewhere that provide IVF treatments where this work could be done?