A new line from the fertility industry?
Posted by Jesse Reynolds October 21, 2009
Biopolitical Times
CGS, along with many
others, has long called for greater oversight and accountability of the
unregulated $3 billion fertility industry (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). But for years, the American
Society for Reproductive Medicine has claimed that self-regulation
works, even though it has failed to discipline flagrant violators of
its guidelines. Thus, we are glad to finally see some action. The group
has expelled Michael Kamrava, the fertility specialist who rose to
notoriety after implanting six embryos in Nadya Suleman, the woman who
became known as "Octomom."
The manner in which the ASRM announced this action is notable. It was buried in a Sept. 25 press release, blandly titled "ASRM Responds to Incidents at IVF Clinics," apparently in response to the recent accidental switching and mislabeling of embryos at two clinics. In passing, the statement mentions that "Within the last few years, we have changed our by-laws to allow us take disciplinary action against members and, just this week, have expelled a member for cause." It wasn't until a few days ago that Rita Rubin at USA Today revealed that the member in question was Kamrava.
The press statement proceeds to describe the standards that a fertility clinic must maintain in order to be a member of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), an affiliate organization of the ASRM. However, the lack of membership in SART and ASRM is of limited consequence. Granted, some insurers will not cover clinics which are not SART members. But Kamrava can still practice his trade without ASRM approval. In fact, ten percent of fertility clinics in the US are not members of SART.
Furthermore, Kamrava is merely the most visible transgressor due to the enormous publicity surrounding Suleman. For example, an examination of the data that fertility clinics report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals that perhaps 80% of clinics implant more embryos that the guidelines call for. And many clinics advertise nonmedical sex selection, a practice that’s also contrary to ASRM guidelines.
That's why so many have called for binding federal oversight of the fertility industry. The ASRM's press release again surprises, with these closing comments:
The manner in which the ASRM announced this action is notable. It was buried in a Sept. 25 press release, blandly titled "ASRM Responds to Incidents at IVF Clinics," apparently in response to the recent accidental switching and mislabeling of embryos at two clinics. In passing, the statement mentions that "Within the last few years, we have changed our by-laws to allow us take disciplinary action against members and, just this week, have expelled a member for cause." It wasn't until a few days ago that Rita Rubin at USA Today revealed that the member in question was Kamrava.
The press statement proceeds to describe the standards that a fertility clinic must maintain in order to be a member of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), an affiliate organization of the ASRM. However, the lack of membership in SART and ASRM is of limited consequence. Granted, some insurers will not cover clinics which are not SART members. But Kamrava can still practice his trade without ASRM approval. In fact, ten percent of fertility clinics in the US are not members of SART.
Furthermore, Kamrava is merely the most visible transgressor due to the enormous publicity surrounding Suleman. For example, an examination of the data that fertility clinics report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals that perhaps 80% of clinics implant more embryos that the guidelines call for. And many clinics advertise nonmedical sex selection, a practice that’s also contrary to ASRM guidelines.
That's why so many have called for binding federal oversight of the fertility industry. The ASRM's press release again surprises, with these closing comments:
The time has come for policy makers to sit down with the leading
experts in the field to explore ways we can codify our standards to
give them additional regulatory teeth.
We
will lead an effort involving our members, representatives of patient
groups, policy makers and other stakeholders to work together to come
up with solutions.
Putting the weight of the law behind the ASRM guidelines--which have a number of strong points to them--would be a welcome development. But whether or not they get real "regulatory teeth" likely depends on who the "leading experts in the field" and "stakeholders" are.
Previously on Biopolitical Times:
