Talk:Infertility

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryukiri 1, Vinsaaay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Qjenning.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fact checking

• Can someone fact-check this statement, please?

In other rare cases, they may each be fertile, but genetically or immunologically incompatible with one another, so that they might each be able to be fertile with other people, but not with one another.

This is my understanding, but I am not an expert in this field. Karada 13:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changes

• I just saved a bunch of little changes and a few sentence-sized changes. The psychological, ethical and social affects of IF and treatment could use some attention - there are some "people say" statements in there (I think I added one or two more) that need to be cleaned out of there sometime when it's not 2 AM. I would love to hear that another set of eyes have gone over my rewrites and fixed any of my stupid mistakes. I'll look back myself in a couple of days.

Treatments-- what about Traditional Chinese Medicine?

It is unclear to me why acupuncture and Chinese herbs have been left off the treatment list. Study after study has demonstrated their efficacy, and they represent a significantly safer and/or cheaper alternative to the treatments listed. I hope to see this oversight corrected.

In Chinese , ‘Hunyuan’ represents the true spirit of Chinese Medicine and translates into English as ‘The Original Principle’, or in other words, the inborn ability of each and every woman to conceive naturally. The primary goal of the Hunyuan Method™ created by Yaron Seidman L.Ac.,M.He. in 2002, is to allow infertility patients to conceive naturally without artificial assistance. Based on the sound principles of Traditional Chinese Medicine for health and rejuvenation, it strengthens the patient's health, thus allowing this inborn ability to come into play. Compared to Western medicine, it doesn’t aim at creating conception, it rather aims at creating a healthy person. Conception and pregnancy is then just a natural event, the way it should be. Most patients are aware of their ‘Windows Of Opportunity’ and often believe they are running out of time. In reality, a successful conception and pregnancy relate to the patient's health more then to the patient's age. In our center, a 40-year-old patient, who gains her health back through the Hunyuan Method™ (including general and reproductive health), stands a better chance of conceiving and maintaining pregnancy than a 30-year-old patient who is in poor health. When a couple doesn't conceive on their own (or with the help of IVF), it is time to try something new. Receiving a healthy Infertility Acupuncture treatment every month stretches your ‘Window of Opportunity’ that much longer. It doesn’t take away any time because patients can continue to attempt to conceive all the way through the process. Although The Hunyuan Method cannot cure all infertility, it can guarantee that patients leaving the program will be in much better health then when they entered. Statistics are better than with the use of IVF, which fails to help 50 to 90 percent of patients in many age groups. All health is very fragile, and any treatment needs to be considered carefully. We advise patients to try hormone stimulation and IVF as a last resort, when and if all natural methods have been exhausted. If you try us first, at the very least you’ll move onto IVF with the health necessary to make that work.

Genetic cause?

I feel the line that states transsexuality can be a genetic cause of infertility in women should be removed. Transsexuality itself has no effect on the ability to bare children in women who choose to become men, only treatment of the condition with testosterone injections or estrogen blockers can cause infertility and I doubt injecting yourself with testosterone is a ‘genetic cause’ of infertility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJ Izumi (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 October 2005.

If this was what that part said, then you'd be right. However, you're confusing your terms. (No worries though, if you're not familiar with them then they are, well, confusing terms!) A man who was born with a female body, what you seem to be trying to describe, is a transman. The section under female infertility, on the other hand, was in reference to transwomen. Because of their lack of uteri and overies, which is caused by their XY chromosome configuration, they lack the type of fertility that other women have. From this angle, a transwoman's genetic makeup is indeed what makes her an infertile woman. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no conclusive proof that a transsexual suffers any form of genetic issue that makes them a transsexual. As it stands it is accepted as a psychological issue. A biological XY male, with a psychological condition in which they precive themselves as female, does not make them an infertile woman, reguardless of surgical or hormonal status. It's like saying a cause of infertility in dogs includes your dog actually being a human who THINKS they're a dog and thusly can't have puppies. I'm quite certian that if someone included 'Being a Furry' as a cause of infertility in dogs it would be edited out quite quickly.

NPOV

Women trying to conceive often have clinical depression rates similar to women who have heart disease or cancer the article needs such statement'

It needs a source or it's out. JFW | T@lk 15:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's got a source and it makes perfect sense. If you think it is not so, please provide evidence support for your POV. JFW | T@lk 15:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Although more research needs to be done, parents may want to consider alternatives to disposable diapers for male infants.

Source please. This sounds like bunk created by environmentalists. Nothing else in the article - besides heredity and injury/disease - suggests reasons for worrying about male infertility in infants. It may be a legitimate point with a scientific basis, but it's badly presented.

I agree! Brian Pearson 18:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Chromosomal Abnormalities and Infertility

why would chromosomal abnormalities cause infertility? such as aneuploidy, kleinfelter's syndrome or even 48,XXYY syndrome, turner syndrome, robertsonian translocation, Small supernumerary marker chromosome and so on. Does having an extra chromosme prevent spermogenesis from not occurring? I don't understand how people with a trisomy (Down Syndrome) are infertile. Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 23:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean, would even in-vitro vertilisation work for someone with kleinfelter's syndrome? Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 21:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hamster test?

I just came across an article called hamster test. I wondered if it was still used and if so, whether or not it could be inserted under Diagnosis and tests. Brian Pearson 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought you would be writing on male infertility alone and not include female infertility. [Tolulope Ogunbiyi] 14:44, 16 March 2007(BCH)

External link

I removed an external link from this article and received this reply on my talk page:

Hi - Based on your request, I would like to discuss your removal of the external link Infertility Doctors & Clinics Find Infertility Doctors & Clinics in the U.S. Based on my research of what external links should be linked, this seems like a perfect fit for the page because it is a "value-add" for the reader and it is something that can't be included in the content of the page directly (i.e. we can't list every individual infertility specialist on the site directly). Here is the wiki article that I'm referencing for justification on why it should be linked:[External_links] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.242.71 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like others to chime in on whether they think the link is usefull or not. If others agree that it is, I'm fine with having the link added back in. Deli nk 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it was indeed a fair removal.--Christian B 21:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

funny you should ask.....I was actually just going to leave a comment about not finding that link. I was on wikipedia a few weeks ago at work and utilized that link to contact a clinic and I was actually just coming back here to find that link b/c I misplaced it. Having said that, I would say it is useful and should be put back on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbelle00 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

- I had posted the initial request to add this link back in and just wanted to check on its status and/or the date that you will be making a decision. Thanks!!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.242.71 (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit of advertising in the link, but yet I think it does more good than harm in the article. Mikael Häggström 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on a final comment in Deli nk Talk page, I'm adding this link back in "Feel free to go ahead and add it back in. Deli nk 17:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.242.71 (talk)

Abortion and infertility

Under the section for "Female infertility", induced abortion was listed as a risk factor for subsequent miscarriage. However, conflicting reports state that abortion is not a risk factor for subsequent miscarriage. I have removed the section for discussion; it is here:

• • Abortion

1. “Induced abortions, miscarriages, and tobacco smoking as risk factors for secondary infertility.” Tzonou A, Hsieh CC, Trichopoulos D, Aravandinos D, Kalandidi A, Margaris D, Goldman M, Toupadaki N. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993 Feb;47(1):36-9.
2. “Association of induced abortion with subsequent pregnancy loss”. A. A. Levin, S. C. Schoenbaum, R. R. Monson, P. G. Stubblefield and K. J. Ryan. JAMA Vol. 243 No. 24, June 27, 1980.

One such conflicting report is here, supplied by the American Journal of Public Health. This report states: "In general there was no significant association between prior induced abortion and risks of pregnancy loss with the relative risks of 1.10, 0.88, and 0.81 for the first to third trimester respectively."

Another conflicting report is mentioned in Atrash and Hogue, The Effect of Pregnancy Termination on Future Reproduction, Baillière’s Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 391-405 (June 1990).

Another: A leading obstetrics textbook states that other than the “small risk” of infection, “Fertility is not altered by an elective abortion.” F. Gary Cunningham et al., Williams Obstetrics 21st Edition, 877 (2001).

Furthermore, Abortion#Health considerations makes no mention of abortion as a risk factor for subsequent miscarriage or infertility. In light of these conflicting reports, I have removed this section from the article, pending clarification on the matter. Photouploaded 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The study you cited states, “A slight increase of first-trimester spontaneous loss was noted with the D&C/Suction procedure and early induced abortion.” Also, that study is older than the 1993 study I cited.

Studies bear more weight than textbooks, so the textbook is irrelevant.

Look again. Abortion#Health considerations lists “sterility”.

While a list is a poor vehicle for conveying nuanced information (such as the fact that multiple abortions are more likely to damage fertility than single abortions), removal of the info is not warranted.LCP 17:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The study I cited is also newer than "The effect of pregnancy termination on future reproduction" that you mentioned, so that article also has no bearing on the source I used. In other words, it is outdated.LCP 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Sterility" is indeed listed at Abortion#Health considerations, but it's notable that the reference listed there is the same reference as the first of the two listed to support the claim here.

"Newer" does not necessarily mean "more accurate" or "more credible". This information is contested in medical literature, and it should not be included until the facts become clear. I will post this to Wikiproject:Medicine to see if anyone can shed some light on the subject. Photouploaded 17:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Newer is better in this case as your study is a survey and states, “there is no evidence of an association between induced abortion and secondary infertility or ectopic pregnancy”. That is blatantly contradicted in light of subsequent research. Your study itself also states, "In conclusion, except for the association between pregnancies following dilatation and evacuation procedures and premature delivery and low birthweight, no significantly increased risk of adverse reproductive health has been observed following induced abortion." LCP

If different procedures propose different levels of risk, that should be made clear. The blanket term "Abortion" should not be applied as "A Risk Factor". I have posted to WP:MED and await their input. Photouploaded 18:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the following as it is in no way contracticted by any literature:

• • Abortion done by Dilation and evacuation —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCP (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the Totallydisputed template to this section, due to your revert to include this contested material. Photouploaded 18:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Contested? I don’t think so. The only leg you have to stand on is a textbook. Of the other sources you brought to bear, both support the text I have included—as I have demonstrated by taking text directly from those sources. Regarding “The effect of pregnancy termination on future reproduction,” even it includes the caveat, “except for the association between pregnancies following dilatation and evacuation procedures….”LCP 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I saw that you posted an angrier response and then deleted it. I don't want an edit-war or a personal argument. Please, just give it 24 hours and see if any of the WP:MED members have anything useful to say. One of them may bring some new sources and ideas. That will allow for time to cool down as well. Photouploaded 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cooling off is a great suggestion. I appreciate you suggesting it.LCP 22:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is what you wrote at [1]: “… a user claims that there is an established causal effect between induced abortions and subsequent infertility, risk of miscarriage, and sterility. I have found three references which state that there is not a causal link between abortion and infertility.” That is hardly an unbiased presentation of the case. An unbiased statement would have looked like this: “…a user has found references that support a link between…. I have found references to the contrary.” Do you see the difference? It is this type of thing that gets under my skin in our conversation.LCP 23:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly didn't see much of a difference. Before I said anything, I included links to the section and footnotes that support your claim. I provided the evidence for the existing claim, before I mentioned the contradicting evidence. If I worded it poorly, I apologize. If you think it would improve future communication between us, my offer is: if you will remove your comment from WP:MED, I will change it to something like, "this section had references which say x, but I have found references which say y". Photouploaded 16:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I am removing the contested tag as Photouploaded was only one contesting edits and is now retired.LCP 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. If there are textbooks that weigh in on this, that might be a good approach to take. Antelan ^talk 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say? I don't see this anywhere in Wikipedia guidelines.LCP 22:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the ref, and I still do not see how a secondary source is preferable to a primary source—especially when the primary source presents a summary of its own conclusions. Regarding text book vs. study, I think the following supports the use of the study: “As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.” Also, how do you deal with a secondary source contradicting a primary source—which is what is really at stake here?LCP (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be useful for this article to shed a bit more light on the circumstances under which abortion may pose a risk to fertility. For instance, having one caesarean section usually won't negatively impact the chance of becoming pregnant again in the future, but having more than one may.[2] According to one source I found, "What Causes Female Infertility?", the situation with abortion is similar:

"Abortion performed under sterile conditions is very safe and carries few risks. Frequent abortions, however, may impair a woman's fertility. The cervix can weaken and be unable to sustain a pregnancy. Scar tissue may form inside the uterine cavity after multiple abortions resulting in a closed uterus, known as Asherman's syndrome. Infertility, therefore, results from implantation failure."

Contraception was not widely used in Russia until recently, and, thus, women often ended up having multiple abortions during their reproductive years.[3] I think, if we were willing to delve deeply into the topic, Russia might provide us with a good case study of how having more than one abortion effects (or does not effect) fertility.

The risk of infertility associated with abortion is greater in regions where adequate medical treatment is unavailable due to the increased risk of infection.[4] The World Health Organization estimates that 24 million women in the world are effected by secondary infertility as a result of having had an unsafe abortion.[5]

The British Parliament recently convened an inquiry into induced abortion, and a portion of the report they produced, "Impact of abortion on women's health: Future reproductive outcomes," contains references to a number of studies which examined the effect of abortion on fertility.

That said, though, I don't have any objection to including information on how abortion may or may not effect fertility in this article, as long as it's supported by sources. I just think we need to be careful to present the information in a context which avoids undue weight. -Severa (!!!) 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with PhotoUploaded, the statements in this article about abortion and infertility are blanket, without context and misleading. Also, the very titles of the articles cited as evidence to the contrary suggest that the authors do not make a causal connection between abortion and infertility: “Association of induced abortion with subsequent pregnancy loss” (note the word "Association," not effect). Also, the second and the other study cited to contend that abortion has a causal effect on abortion includes tobacco use among subjects. Because of the consideration of the other factor, this should be the first indication that the study is not seeking to find a causal relationship with only abortion and infertility.

PhotoUploaded has provided several studies that show abortion has no significant impact on fertility. References to abortion as a cause of infertility should be removed until we have a consensus on how these studies should be represented on the page.--70.173.47.6 (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didn’t read the articles.LCP (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

where

Infertility affects approximately 10% of people of reproductive age, and 15% of couples. Roughly 40% of cases involve a male contribution or factor, 40% involve a female factor, and the remainder involve both sexes.

The section and its refs fail to be specific about where this applies - USA? global? hardly. This is not the USPedia. Also at least the last ref is pretty meager. --84.159.167.79 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

lack of generality

I wanted to link to "sterile" to describe plants which cannot reproduce sexually and I found this should disambiguate to this page, described as: "The quality or state of being unable to reproduce; of being infertile. The term may be used of higher animals." To my dismay, however, this page is extremely non-general, talking about human infertility rather than the general phenomenon. I don't mean to criticize this page — I agree that most people searching on "infertility" are going to want to know about human infertility — but how should we resolve this? Any suggestions? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 20:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

I have removed a number of external links that are non-notable or commercial and do not meet WP:EL. They don't contain a "little bit" of advertising; their entire websites are advertisements for their product, whether it's for a directory of doctors who pay to be listed, campaign to promote X or products tagged with little trademark signs. Wikipedia is not a directory or a list or a how to, and none of these links meet the spirit of Wikipedia's intent to provide vetted encyclopedic information -- they just promote somebody's business or cause. Flowanda | Talk 08:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mobile Phones and Infertility

Comments on this section? I've once heard that cordless phone base stations may be a possible factor in infertility as well. Not aware of any studies for it, but at least we have some studies on mobile phones.

• Mobile phones: Studies have linked mobile phone usage with reductions in "sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology". PMID 17482179 PMID 17655195
• AC Magnetic Fields: Magnetic fields from alternating current have been linked to substandard sperm (over 1.6 mG for over six hours a day) and higher rates of miscarriages (over 16 mG). Jcemcare (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Microwave news is not a valid source. Verbal chat 06:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is biased towards humans

Why is there no discussion of animal sterility and hybrid sterility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.160.52 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. This article appears to presuppose that the subject is entirely with regard to humans. However, this topic is equally valid for animals. (E.g. mules.) I'd like to suggest that the article be modified to cover this aspect of infertility, particularly in the lead section. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Heat Induced

Can't heat also induce sterility in males? Here is something but I can try to find something else that's more reliable if necessary. If no one has any objections I will insert this. 71.67.115.56 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sufertility?

The definiton of subfertility isn't very clear, and it doesn't seem to be any different to 'normal' infertility. This ought to be changed. 218.215.51.144 (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Research Study Making Advancements in Battling Infertility

Major advances are being made in China with some success in treating infertility. While these advances are making medical history, they are not being effectively shared with the rest of world and doctors who could use this information because they are being documented in Chinese and need to be sorted out and translated. A meta analysis was done compiling the information that was found in the archives of Chinese medical studies. This meta-analysis was done to see if Chinese herbal medicine used in conjunction with traditional treatments would help increase ovulation and conception rates. Less than 18 percent of women conceive within six months of utilizing clompihine citrate, human goanotrophins, or letrozole. After six months without any success in getting pregnant, women begin to look into other alternatives to include complementary medicines. included looking into 1009 experimental studies that was narrowed down to 14 studies that met the criteria that was set by the researchers. People have been using complementary medicine for years to help with ailments or medical issues. It has been shown that acupuncture has been successful in helping women get pregnant. The idea that women use Chinese Medicine to help with infertility is not new. Utilizing a meta-analysis the researchers were able to look at Chinese herbal medicine and see if it does help increase the likelihood of ovulation and pregnancy. Chinese medical journals are filled with important information that is not easily accessed since it has to be translated first. This meta-analysis meticulously looked through these journals, while specifically picking out key words. Even though they were focusing on key words they still ended up with many studies that they needed to look into further to determine if they fit the criteria for this meta-analysis. While there are many studies looking into infertility this analysis was focused on specific studies that utilized Chinese herbal medicine. The patients all had to struggle with anovulatory infertility, be randomly assigned within the study, one group needed to be given Chinese herbal medicine as well as clomiphene citrate, and another group just the clomiphene citrate. Information on basal body temperature, pregnancy rates, ovulations rates, or endometrial lining was also required to be a part of the meta-analysis. As with most studies a confidence interval of 95% was required. All of these criteria increase the strength of the study. A weakness with this meta-analysis is that all of the studies used were rated a one. While this is a very weak rating, there was no bias on publications or articles used since they were all rated the same. Another weakness is that while a difference is shown with using both the Chinese Herbal Medicine and clomiphene citrate, the difference is not significant. More studies will need to be done to look into this situation further. There is also the issue that since the data was collected from varying sources and few studies made it into the met-analysis there ended up being only a small sample size and varying control within each study. A larger study that is more controlled would be able to hopefully come up with more significant results. This analysis in general brings to light that there are other options for women to try to have a baby. Unfortunately there are many factors to play into conceiving a child. The data showed an increase in the endometrial lining which is known to decrease when using clomiphene citrate alone. This could be a reason for why pregnancy rates were a little higher for women taking Chinese herbal medicine. Since herbal remedies are not monitored by the Federal Drug Administration effective use and dosage is not known and the varying amount of each herb used in each study is not disclosed in this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis brings up important ideas that should be researched further. Women spend a lot of time and money trying to conceive. Chinese herbal medicine may work in increasing the likelihood of women conceiving a child; any advances made in this field are very important and relevant to many women of childbearing age. There is limited research on this tops and future research is required. This meta-analysis provides a stepping-stone for future studies. Aclar060 (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)aclar060

glossary/acronym guide

Like many health topics there are a huge number of acronyms and strange terms associated with infertility and its treatment. Any thoughts on adding a 'acronym/glossary' guide to this article or setting up a separate article 'beginners guide' type thing? Scrumph (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Misleading statements

It is simply not true that 30 % are due to the man and 30 % due to the woman and 40 % due to both. If you read the paragraph below it becomes obvious that an additional 20 % of infertility cases are due to low egg quality etc which has to do with the age of the female of the couple.

In the US, up to 20% of infertile couples have unexplained infertility.[28] In these cases abnormalities are likely to be present but not detected by current methods. Possible problems could be that the egg is not released at the optimum time for fertilization, that it may not enter the fallopian tube, sperm may not be able to reach the egg, fertilization may fail to occur, transport of the zygote may be disturbed, or implantation fails. It is increasingly recognized that egg quality is of critical importance and women of advanced maternal age have eggs of reduced capacity for normal and successful fertilization. Also, polymorphisms in folate pathway genes could be one reason for fertility complications in some women with unexplained infertility.[29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.247.228 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Primary sources

"At least three studies, by Aarhus University, the Danish Cancer Research Center (DCRC), and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) found that childlessness, whether voluntary or involuntary, contributes to shorter lifespans and increased psychiatric problems in humans. The studies indicated that the link between shorter lifespans, mental health issues, and childlessness is particularly noticeable among women. The Aarhus study found that childless women were four times likelier to experience a premature death while men were twice as likely. The DCRC study concluded that childless women had an 18% higher risk of developing mental disorders. The ESRC found that childless women faced an increased likelihood of poorer health and earlier death."

References

• Primary source. Does not mention "voluntary" http://jech.bmj.com/content/67/4/374
• Primary source. Does not mention "voluntary" https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/28/3/683/936415
• Which ref is this third one? I am seeing this http://www.researchcatalogue.esrc.ac.uk/grants/RES-000-23-0394/read

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

WP allows the use of primary sources, which is necessary in this case because you reverted the use of the secondary source. Also, "voluntary" is paraphrasing the source's language. If you don't like the word, propose another. In the meantime, we should leave the information since it's obviously adequately sourced and we can hash-out the wordage in the meantime. CorduroyCap (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything good in WP happens because people do what they should. Please follow MEDRS. If you don't understand why MEDRS is so important and has broad and deep consensus, please see WP:Why MEDRS? which may help. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I found a book that might support some details about this. Will get to it latter tonight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The textbook is more conservative:

"How someone ends up with no children may be more important than not having a child per se. Choosing not to have children, being unable to find a partner, not being fecund, surviving the death of one’s children, and being socially childless because of early divorce represent different paths to childlessness, and each of these paths has different connotations. Marital history and gender also mediate the consequences of childlessness for individuals, as do the usual cleavages of education, income, and health."

"At the same time, research on well-being in old age has shown that adult children have a positive impact overall on parents’ well-being and even on mortality: People tend to live longer if they have a surviving adult child. This effect of children on life expectancy is mediated by people’s perceptions of the emotional and social support that is available to them in case of need... One explanation for parents’ higher life expectancy may be the healthier behaviour that parenthood encourages."

Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences. Springer. 2017. p. 352. ISBN 978-3-319-44667-7. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Basically "Older people with adult children may live longer. Why this is the case is unclear and may dependent in part on those who have children adopting a healthier lifestyle, support from children, or the circumstances that led to not having children."

Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That is better sourced and reasonably cautious. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"Accidental rape"

This is the section on Immune Infertility

Antisperm antibodies (ASA) have been considered as infertility cause in around 10–30% of infertile couples.[22] In both men and women, ASA production are directed against surface antigens on sperm, which can interfere with sperm motility and transport through the female reproductive tract, inhibiting capacitation and acrosome reaction, impaired fertilization, influence on the implantation process, and impaired growth and development of the embryo. Factors contributing to the formation of antisperm antibodies in women are disturbance of normal immunoregulatory mechanisms, infection, violation of the integrity of the mucous membranes, accidental rape and unprotected oral or anal sex. Risk factors for the formation of antisperm antibodies in men include the breakdown of the blood‑testis barrier, trauma and surgery, orchitis, varicocele, infections, prostatitis, testicular cancer, failure of immunosuppression and unprotected receptive anal or oral sex with men.[22][23]

What does it mean by accidental rape???? Someone please change this so it makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:4080:5960:64CA:84B6:F220:F150 (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In source: "For all these reasons, it may be deduced that ASA production in men and women can be associated to: a disturbance of normal immunoregulatory mechanisms, accidental rape, physical trauma, chemical trauma or iatrogenic infection in the hemotesticular 15 barrier or to a obstruction in the male reproductive ducts. 9,19,20,31 As a result, sperm are recognized as antigens 15,18,20,25,29 and humoral immune response is triggered by B-lymphocytes that release ASA. Cellular response is achieved by T-lymphocytes’ activation, the release of cytokines and complement system activation. 9,16,17,20 ASA production is the result of autoimmune response in men and of alloimmune response in women, and it is associated with idiopathic infertility in human beings." [6] Additional info [7] --Путеец (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect they just mean rape. The first language of the authors seems to be Spanish and the English in it is not fantastic. PriceDL (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

PriceDL It looks like you're right. --Путеец (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Society and Culture

Sources are not up to date, the URL does not work. Vinsaaay (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Unimportant information about puberty

I don't think it is important to have a whole section about puberty let alone mention it anywhere in the article. The page is about the inability to achieve pregnancy 12 months after engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse with an opposite-sex partner. Most of the information is about children being pre-pubescent, which is really not necessary since children shouldn't be having sex anyway. WashyGenius (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)