Egg-Cellent (get it? it's a pun) (Unit 5)

Egg-cellent


A major debate going on in the biological world is that of in-vitro fertilization. There are primarily two areas of debate with this topic. There’s the biological side of how it works and what can make it better and then there’s the ethical side of that says that women should be told of personal experiences before giving consent. The biologists’ article is narrowly focused on the question of whether fresh or thawed oocytes enhance embryo quality, which leads them to rely primarily on quantitative data, which is presented in a highly structured, IMRAD organization and with precise, technical diction. The philosopher’s article, on the other hand, focuses on the ethical question of how donating eggs will affect patients’ lives, which leads them to rely on more qualitative data, a more fluid organization, and more familiar diction.

To begin let’s look at the biological article. This was an entire study done by what appears to be doctors in both the biological and gynecological fields in which “A total of 43 patients who underwent 49 embryo transfers from January 1st to December 31st 2009 were analyzed” (Giordana). With this being a complete study they were obviously trying to answer a question. But what exactly is that question? Well these doctors said that “The objective of this study was to compare the embryo quality and gestational results in an egg donation program using fresh and vitrified/thawed oocytes, previously stored in an oocyte bank.” (Giordana) But this information just brings up the question of why? Well as biologists and OBGYN’s it’s assumed that their purpose for any kind of experiment like this is to try and improve the procedure. Well if you look at the fact that they’re testing fresh oocytes versus vitrified/thawed oocytes it’s obvious that they’re trying to determine whether or not an oocyte from one group will yield better results in the process rather than an oocyte from the other. So seeing as how this is a generic lab experiment they had to focus on quantitative data in order to find their answer.

As any lab experiment there has to be a plethora of quantitative data needed to both organize the experiment so that you can get accurate results which is then more quantitative data for the scientists to analyze and this experiment is no different. Let’s start by looking at their quantitative data needed to just organize the experiment: “Group I involved 27 patients whose treatment was carried out using fresh oocytes, while group II involved 16 patients using vitrified/thawed oocytes by Cryotop method” (Giordana). Now, these numbers aren’t too important because they’re just showing how big of a sample size is being used for each group which is important to know when thinking about the percentages of success or failure at the end of the experiment. It is, however, important to note that the “Mean age of the patients was 41 ± 4,0 (group I) and 42,06 ± 2,9 (group II)”. This is important mainly for consistency sake. The scientists wanted to make sure that age didn’t play as a factor in their results, which by the look of it didn’t seem to happen. “Fertilization rate after ICSI was 75,7% and 67,0%, respectively. Embryo development was similar in both groups and pregnancy and implantation rates were 47,1% and 24,02% in group I; 46,7% and 28,8% in group II.” Based on this final data that was collected it can be noted there is no correlation between frozen or thawed oocytes in terms of success of in-vitro fertilization. Although this doesn’t provide the doctors with a concrete answer on which method is better it does show that no matter what kind of oocyte is used there is a good chance of the process working which is what the biologists and OBGYN’s are concerned about.

Using quantitative data isn’t the only way that this biological article is able to get its point across in a very science based way. In order for anybody to even understand this information it needed to be presented in a very organized manner. Everything about this experiment is organized. From the experiment itself, with gathering the test groups, implanting the oocytes, and then monitoring the pregnancies, to the lab report with its solid presentation structure. This is important to the biological standpoint of the debate because in order for these biologists and OBGYN’s to be taken seriously for what they do and for their data to be viewed as credible they need to make sure that every step is laid out clearly so that this can be tested again if needed. Organization, however, isn’t the only way that these biologists work to be taken seriously. They also have to rely on a strong choice in diction.

The reason their choice in diction is important is because they need to be able to show that as licensed biologists and OBGYN’s they know what they’re talking about and can be seen as credible sources in their respective fields. For example “Endometrial preparation consisted of increasing doses of estradiol valerate and micronized progesterone” is nothing but medical jargon that somebody who doesn’t have knowledge in this field wouldn’t be able to comprehend. These doctors, however, have studied for years in their respective field so that they can understand and then explain that information coherently.

Now unlike the biological article that focuses on questions of “what?” and “how?” in order to improve the process of in-vitro fertilization, the ethical focuses on the question of “should women be told personal experiences before give consent to donate eggs?”

Unlike the biological article that focused on quantitative data with their experiment the ethical article focuses on qualitative. With their experiment it was all about interviews. The interview group “included 25 former patients of the fertility clinic, and 10 current staff members of the clinic” and of the 25 former patients there were “20 female IVF patients and five reproductive oöcyte donors, all of whom have experienced oöcyte collection.” The results of the interviews revealed that “of the 20 IVF patients, eight had not conceived a child and only one of those had reported discontinuation with IVF” and then “of the five reproductive oöcyte donors, two had donated an oöcyte that resulted in a pregnancy for the recipient couple.” These interviews consisted of an open question which was for the patients to describe their experience with the entire process. This is important to note because this is the ethical viewpoints entire focus in terms of how to improve the consent process for future patients and donors. After this the patients were asked to explain the process of preparedness for the process.

As a result of these interviews the ethical article noted there is a “tendency for patients to overestimate their chances of success prior to the experience of treatment” (Carroll). They also state that “once in active treatment, however, patients identify their oöcytes as both precious and precarious.” So with this information they arrive at their question of whether or not women should be told of personal experiences before undergoing the process themselves. This is, honestly, a fantastic question to ask in this situation because if a couple is incapable of conceiving a child on their own they turn to in-vitro fertilization as their only hope for having a child. So in order for the patient to be one hundred percent positive that they want to go through with the process they should be told of any kind of drawback that could happen as a result otherwise known as informed consent. Informed consent is in essence “A “fully informed” consent is that which is freely given, with full understanding, and without coercion” which entails “the disclosure of material information and ensuring comprehension or understanding, such as the subject’s ability to weigh up outcomes and probabilities in the information provided”.

Now in order for the ethical article to get all this information across to it’s readers it needs to be presented in a different format than the biological article. Rather than having a very structured format where you go from one section to another in a very solid and concrete way the ethical article allows its information to flow smoothly from one section to the other. This creates a very streamline way of taking in the information making it easier to connect every point and relate it back to their main question. This is exactly the type of format that they need so as to constantly build on their evidence without causing their reader to feel lost and feel like they need to go back to get a bit of information.

Their organization isn’t all they have that keeps their reader on track, however. They also have a much more familiar choice in diction. This allows for somebody, even if they don’t have much knowledge in the field, to understand the topic at hand. For instance the ethical article talks about a “payment model”. Everybody is able to understand what payment means so by using very common diction and terminology like that this ethical article is able to keep their readers invested because they are able to understand what they’re reading.

In closing, from a biological viewpoint quantitative data was able to prove that the process of in-vitro fertilization is capable of happening just fine no matter the state of the oocyte beforehand. While from an ethical viewpoint qualitative data about personal experience of going through the process shows that there’s nothing wrong with having donors as long as they are fully informed about what they’re getting themselves into.



Works Cited


Carroll, Katherine, and Catherine Waldby. "Informed Consent and Fresh Egg Donation for Stem

Cell Research." - Springer. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.

Giordana, S. M., M. F. Insua, B. Lotti, N. Fernandez Peri, A. Pellicer, and F. D. Neuspiller.

"Impact of Embryo Quality in Fresh versus Vitrified Oocytes in an Egg Donation Program."

Impact of Embryo Quality in Fresh versus Vitrified Oocytes in an Egg Donation Program.

N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.