Yes, I'm still around, still reading quite a few blogs (I even comment sometimes). Many of the last posts I've read have been about how angry women are at the fact that the media (in general) can't get the term right - specifically, they're referring to the Nadia Suleman octoplet story, which is all over the news.
I think that everything that needs to be said has been, but I'll just give my personal take on a few things:
First, any doctor who agreed to transfer as many embryos as s/he did (the current claim is 6) was extremely irresponsible - because I believe that the goal of IVF should be a singleton pregnancy (this from a mother of twins... and has also read studies on eSET
and its alternatives and the results of such decisions - and I am very pro eSET for the recommended group - I'm sure I had another post, but I can't find it...)
Second, Ms. Suleman is clearly a masochist because otherwise I can't understand her agreeing to transfer so many embryos. I can understand an "addiction" to being pregnant, giving birth and having a neborn or infant, but the toddler stage is... well... very draining, if you ask me. Especially when you've got a few strong-willed toddlers with a high tolerance for screaming and fighting (not to mention any names from my personal experience). For a long time I could not imagine reaching a point when I would not want
another baby. Since Yirmi was born, I feel that our family is complete. I don't think it's a doctor's decision to make, though (when a family is complete, regardless of the circumstances). [To address comments I've read like, "How could anyone treat a woman who already had 6 kids?"]
Third, parents don't always think things through, but after 6 kids, you should know the implications of having more children. Counting on others to support you (if that was her plan) is reason enough not to have another (even "just" one). Again, if that was her plan.
I can't talk about selective reduction because I would have avoided the need to consider it to begin with in her case. (Though admittedly, personally I was just lucky because in 1993, it was common to transfer 4 embryos, which I did - and ended up with one baby. In 1995, I transferred 4, but only one was considered really good enough to transfer - explain fraternal twins? By 2001, I knew enough to transfer 'only' 2.)
And now to the part you've all been waiting for. Implanting or transferring embryos. Clearly the medical term is transfer. It would be nice if the media would use the correct term, but is implanting really wrong? Implant
means "to insert in living tissue (as for growth...)" or "to fix or set securely or deeply". And what happens during embryo transfer? The doctor inserts the catheter into the uterine lining and places the embryos there. IN the uterine lining. S/he doesn't just randomly shoot them into the uterus and let them land wherever they please. If that were the case, probably most of them would just immediately fall out, when actuallythe effect is more like super glue. So... in fact, the embryos are
literally being implanted into the uterus. Kind of like plants that you put in the ground. Sometimes they take root and sometimes they don't. Getting upset about the terminology seems silly. As if women who've had IVF form some exclusive club... I find the awkward pronunciation of nuclear (nook-you-ler) much more annoying.
You might also be interested in "How many embryos should I transfer?"