What readers thought about the PGS article in NEW YORK magazine

What professionals think about the recent Stephen Hall article about PGS in NEW YORK magazine has been extensively reviewed in this and last month’s issue of the VOICE. For the publisher, however, likely even more important is what the general readership thought, and that can be deducted from the Comments section of the following magazine issue.

We are told that a few readers considered the piece “groundbreaking in the field.” To quote one (somewhat hesitantly for her language, though she was not ashamed to sign her name to her comment): “In the very specific and not-all-that-openly-talked-about IVF world, this is fucking huge.”

Interestingly, however, the new laboratory director at Columbia University’s IVF program defended the utilization, though without disclosing that he, until recently, worked for one of the principal proponents of PGS in the country. His arguments, therefore, were just more of the standard PGS-community cliché, though somewhat more artfully formulated than the opinions of another principal proponent of PGS, discuswed elsewhere in this newsletter. Even more interesting, however, his new boss, Columbia’s new head of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, also pitched in with a letter-to-the editor, and concluded that, “Stephen S. Hall’s article highlights the reality that despite the tremendous progress in in vitro fertilization over the past decades, there are still far too many for whom the dream of building a family is not realized.”

Likely the biggest compliment to Hall was, however, a tweet from Washington Post’s Sarah Pulliam Bailey: “This fascinating story on IVF/ethics is why we need more reporters covering a ‘reproductive beat.’” She is so right!

This is a part of the November 2017 CHR VOICE.