For couples experiencing infertility, the desire to have a child can be overwhelming. Every month that passes is another missed opportunity. Depression, pain, sadness, and despair finally set in, and at some point, most couples become desperate enough to gamble tens of thousands of dollars on expensive procedures like InVitro fertilization (IVF) without understanding. completely what they’re getting into. For the vast majority of couples who try IVF, false hopes turn false, and things that sound too good to be true prove to be.
Before you decide to spend your valuable savings on IVF or any of its newer forms such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), you owe it to yourself to learn more about NaPro Technology (TPN), a medically sound approach. and scientifically backed to treat the cause. of your infertility. “NaPro” stands for “natural procreator” and, as the name implies, refers to the application of medical and diagnostic technologies to achieve pregnancy “naturally” through intercourse rather than a laboratory procedure.
Here are 10 reasons to choose TPN over IVF:
1. NaProTechnology focuses on disease
If a couple can’t get pregnant, it makes sense that the first thing the doctor should do is find out why. This is THE goal of the entire TPN program. With IVF, the cause of infertility is not important and the underlying problem is completely ignored.
2. Success rates are better with NaPro technology
Recent data from the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha, NE, shows that NaProTechnology’s success rates are 1.5 to 3 times better than IVF (23.5% vs. 38.4% -81.8%). In a 4-year study of 95 TPN couples who had been trying to conceive for an average of 6.1 years and had 176 unsuccessful attempts at an artificial reproduction technique (ART), Boyle[1] reported there were 123 conceptions. The life table analysis showed increasing success the longer the couples stayed in the TPN program, with 26.2% of pregnant women between 12 and 17 months and 32.6% between 18 and 25 months.
3. Destruction of embryos
An analysis of ART data[2] from 1983 to 1986 he showed that the transfer of 1,372 embryos (3.2 per woman) resulted in 81 live births. From these data, it is necessary to create 16.9 live embryos to produce a live birth. The higher success rates reported for IVF procedures generally mean that more embryos are being transferred, increasing the risk of multiple births.
4. Infanticide: “Selective Reduction”
One of the most objectionable things about IVF is that it can result in a situation where a woman is forced to deal with a dangerously high multiple pregnancy rate. The risk of pregnancy increases dramatically with the number of babies in the womb. Women are often forced to selectively “shrink” (ie, kill) additional babies in the womb due to an unacceptably high risk of pregnancy.
5. Natural sex versus a laboratory procedure
In IVF, sperm and eggs (gametes) are collected through masturbation (male) and harvesting (female) where they meet in a laboratory to form embryos that are then reintroduced into the female body. TPN, on the other hand, relies on a natural sexual act to achieve pregnancy.
6. NaProTechnology is more profitable
According to Collins[3], the median cost of an IVF cycle in the United States in 2001 is $ 9,226. However, the $ 20-30,000 expenses are not unheard of because IVF clinics prefer to sell discount packages (multiple cycles) to increase success rates and allow for “shared” risk. In comparison, at a medical center in Duarte, CA (Santa Teresita), TPN has been cited to cost approximately $ 9,290, which includes a medical evaluation, a hormonal and ultrasound evaluation, and an outpatient surgical infertility treatment.
7. Pregnancy outcomes
There is growing concern that IVF may have significant adverse effects on children conceived with this procedure. In a study of birth defects after ICSI and IVF procedures, Hansen et al.[4] reported that babies with ICSI and IVF were more than twice as likely to have been diagnosed with a major birth defect at the end of one year of life (8.6% and 9.0%) compared to naturally conceived babies (4 ,two%).
8. You could get pregnant again!
Because natural fertility is restored with TPN, these couples can often become pregnant again. In Boyle’s studio[1] of 89 births to women who had failed ART, there were 14 women with 2 live births and 1 woman with 3 live births. Since IVF does nothing to correct the cause of infertility, there is no benefit for subsequent pregnancies.
9. What will you have to prove?
Ironically, in some cases, IVF procedures cause additional damage to the female reproductive system during treatment. For example, some IVF clinics will perform the surgical removal of a blocked and inflamed fallopian tube to increase success rates.[5]. In these cases, when IVF fails, fallopian tube repair is no longer an option. This approach is contrary to the natural and restorative orientation of the TPN physician and surgeon.[6]. TPN is designed to restore (not destroy) reproductive function. At the very least, TPN couples have addressed the underlying cause of the problem, often resulting in better overall health.
10. What happens after I get pregnant?
This is perhaps the most important question. Couples doing IVF often have not thought about what will happen next. Success equals pregnancy. Unfortunately, ignoring the underlying problem that leads to infertility in the first place can negatively affect the pregnancy and even lead to miscarriage. With TPN, restoration of health and fertility begins before conception and continues throughout pregnancy with the goal of preventing miscarriage and promoting optimal health of the newborn baby and mother.
References
1. Boyle, P., NaProTechnology (NPT): After previously unsuccessful artificial propagation technology (ART). 2004.
2. Cvetkovich, LL, Reproductive Technologies: A Scientific View, in The Gift of Life: Proceedings of a National Conference on Vatican Instruction on Reproductive Ethics and Technology, M. Wallace and T. Hilgers, Editors. 1990, Pope Paul VI Institute Press: Omaha, NE.
3. Collins, J., Cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, 2001. 19: p. 279-289.
4. Hansen, M., et al., The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization. New England Journal of Medicine, 2002. 346: p. 725-730.
5. Nackley, AC and SJ Muasher, The importance of hydrosalpinx in in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility, 1998. 69: p. 373-384.
6. Hilgers, TW, The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaPro Technology. 2004, Omaha, NE: Pope Paul VI Institute Press.
Copyright 2006 Majella.us
#reasons #to #choose #tech #NaPro #place #fertilization #vitro
–
