THE NOTION of keeping women `eternally fertile' speaks not only of unnecessary medical tampering with a woman's natural cyclical rhythms, but of a society which is denying change and personal growth through ageing. This is a society that wants women to be the same throughout their lives. It can see only the negative in the necessary biological process of growing old. It seems to be to be just one more devaluation of what constitutes a woman's core - what we used to call the womanly. (Jeanette Kupfermann)
MORE WOMEN of child-bearing age are choosing, as is their right, not to become parents. Stories of babies born as a result of in-vitro fertilisation and related techniques ought not obscure the fact that fertility treatment is long, laborious and four times out of five unsuccessful. It is also a minority pursuit. Sometimes it is hard to resist a queasy sense of disproportion at the West's intense interest in advances in fertility while over-population and fertility control so concern the rest of the world.
I APPLAUD ovary transplants as a great medical breakthrough. They will give hope to women who fear cancer treatment will leave them sterile. But I am not sure about fertility engineering which gives older women the chance to prolong their fertile life so they can have babies in their 50s and 60s. I have always had reservations because of the effect on the child. (Dr Miriam Stoppard)
IT IS important not to over-react to this marvellous piece of medical advance. It has a serious clinical aim and a desirable clinical outcome. It could be abused but we should not react to it as if abuse is the only option. We cannot drop an area of study because we cannot handle the consequences. This breakthrough is as relevant as any other form of surgery and should be welcomed as such. (Sheila McLean)Reuse content