Speaker 1: Already and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS. Oh,
Speaker 1: now it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Wednesday,
Speaker 2: the sixteenth of April. I'm Emma Gillespie, I'm Billy Fitzimon's.
Speaker 2: The story of an IVF mix up that led to
Speaker 2: a woman giving birth to a stranger's baby has made
Speaker 2: global headlines this month. The shocking incident might sound like
Speaker 2: something out of a movie, or certainly something from another country,
Speaker 2: but it has unfolded right here in Australia. The Queensland
Speaker 2: Fertility Clinic at its center monash IVF in Brisbane, has
Speaker 2: launched an investigation, but ultimately has blamed the mix up
Speaker 2: on human error. In today's deep dive, we are going
Speaker 2: to explore the legal questions raised by this mistake and
Speaker 2: the ramifications it could have for the fertility industry.
Speaker 3: Now, this story has captured international attention and it's easy
Speaker 3: to understand why I have never heard of anything like
Speaker 3: this happening yet before. Before we explain the fallout and
Speaker 3: what it means for the families and also the clinic involved,
Speaker 3: do you want to just take us through and what
Speaker 3: exactly happened here?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: So last week this shocking story broke where we learned
Speaker 2: that a Brisbane fertility clinic is investigating after it found
Speaker 2: out that a woman gave birth to a baby that
Speaker 2: wasn't biologically hers. So that woman was a patient of
Speaker 2: this clinic, Monash IVF, undergoing treatment there for in vitro fertilization,
Speaker 2: and during that process she was implanted with the wrong embryo,
Speaker 2: a fertilized egg that belonged to another couple also doing
Speaker 2: IVF through Monash in Brisbane at that clinic. Now, in
Speaker 2: terms of IVF in Australia where things are at, we're
Speaker 2: talking about the most commonly used form of assisted reproductive
Speaker 2: technology in the country. To give you a sense of
Speaker 2: how popular it is, there are around nineteen thousand babies
Speaker 2: born through IVF in Australia every year, and as a country,
Speaker 2: we really are considered one of the world leaders in
Speaker 2: this space. We're considered to be one of the safest
Speaker 2: places in the world to have a baby through IVF.
Speaker 3: I think that's part of what makes this so shocking,
Speaker 3: is just how common IVF is in Australia. Yeah, and
Speaker 3: I think the question that everyone has, I know I have,
Speaker 3: is how did this possibly happen. And at what point
Speaker 3: did they realize that this woman had been implanted with
Speaker 3: the wrong embryo.
Speaker 2: Yes, so it was this result of an incorrect transfer
Speaker 2: of an embryo. Now, if you're going through IVF for
Speaker 2: couples doing IVF, the process might involve egg dodonation and
Speaker 2: sperm donation and then fertilizing an embryo externally outside of
Speaker 2: the body. Through IVF, that embryo gets transplanted into the
Speaker 2: womb and hopefully a person falls pregnant through that process. Yes,
Speaker 2: the clinic said that in February it learned that one
Speaker 2: of its patients had been implanted with the wrong embryo,
Speaker 2: with an embryo that was not her own. And I
Speaker 2: think everyone really wants this to be more controversial or
Speaker 2: a more satisfying kind of reason for why or how
Speaker 2: this happened, but they've put it down to human error. Basically,
Speaker 2: that's all we know about why this happened. And in
Speaker 2: terms of how they found out, the woman involved wanted
Speaker 2: to transfer her remaining embryos to another IVF provider, so
Speaker 2: she had an embryo implanted. She had a pregnancy that
Speaker 2: went to full term, she gave birth to a baby.
Speaker 2: And then this couple said to Monash IVF, hey, can
Speaker 2: you please send out embryos somewhere else?
Speaker 1: And when Monash.
Speaker 2: IVF looked at those embryos, there were an unexpected number,
Speaker 2: so they found out that there were extra embryos in
Speaker 2: storage of those birth parents. That then led to an
Speaker 2: internal investigation that confirmed that an embryo from a different
Speaker 2: cup had been incorrectly thawed and transferred to the birth parents,
Speaker 2: resulting in the birth of the child. Monash says that
Speaker 2: it is truly sorry and it's now conducting a full
Speaker 2: review of its processes.
Speaker 3: My goodness, you can't even imagine how it must have felt.
Speaker 3: A when they discovered that that mistake had been made. Yeah,
Speaker 3: but then B when the family was told that the
Speaker 3: wrong embryo had been implanted in.
Speaker 1: Them, Oh, devastating.
Speaker 2: And after having gone through a full pregnancy and birth process.
Speaker 1: Couples who use.
Speaker 2: IVF, you know, typically it's not easy for them to conceive,
Speaker 2: so to jump through so many hurdles and get to
Speaker 2: that point, I'm sure was completely earth shattering.
Speaker 3: And just to be clear, so we know that they
Speaker 3: discovered this in February, and at that point the woman
Speaker 3: had already given birth and they were raising this baby.
Speaker 2: Yes, So we don't have any information on the age
Speaker 2: of the baby or the names of the couples and
Speaker 2: families involved.
Speaker 1: Those details have been kept private.
Speaker 2: We really don't know how old this child is, but
Speaker 2: the clinic have referred to this embryo and a baby,
Speaker 2: so you know, we can assume that it's probably happened
Speaker 2: within the last year.
Speaker 3: And do we know what happens now, not just what
Speaker 3: action was taken once they found out that this mistake
Speaker 3: had been made, but also what happens now to the baby.
Speaker 2: Yes, So the clinic has been really transparent over the
Speaker 2: last week in terms of what it's doing, what it's done,
Speaker 2: and what it plans to do going forward. Its executive
Speaker 2: team was alerted within hours of that discovery in February,
Speaker 2: and then the regulator, which is the Fertility Society of
Speaker 2: Australia and New Zealand, was also notified that same week.
Speaker 2: So this has all been bubbling under the surface since February,
Speaker 2: but we the public have obviously only learned about it
Speaker 2: in the last week. In a statement, Monashe IVF said
Speaker 2: an independent investigation is now underway alongside full process reviews
Speaker 2: of its laboratory safety measures. Medical Groups CEO Michael Knapp
Speaker 2: said the clinic has apologized to everyone involved and said
Speaker 2: ongoing support will be provided to the parents. He added
Speaker 2: that while the clinic is quote devastated, it is confident
Speaker 2: that this was an isolated incident, but the whole debarcle
Speaker 2: has really raised questions about what happens next for these families,
Speaker 2: what it's going to mean from a legal perspective, who
Speaker 2: gets custody, have any laws been broken, Will Monash be
Speaker 2: sued or even face criminal action, etc.
Speaker 3: Usually when we look at what the legalities around a
Speaker 3: case are, we will look at the precedents or to
Speaker 3: see if anything like this has happened before.
Speaker 1: Has anything like this has happened before?
Speaker 2: So adding to the uncertainty, I suppose, is the fact
Speaker 2: that this incident is thought to be the first of
Speaker 2: its kind in Australia. So there are no known examples
Speaker 2: that have happened within Australia, but there are a few
Speaker 2: international examples that could provide a bit of a roadmap
Speaker 2: for the way forward. Mind you, they all come out
Speaker 2: of the US, these recent examples. So in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: a similar mix up occurred in the state of California.
Speaker 2: Two couples went through a clinic there and they ended
Speaker 2: up raising babies that weren't biologically theirs for three months
Speaker 2: before the error was detected. They did end up swapping
Speaker 2: custody of the children, but both families sued that clinic,
Speaker 2: and one family went public speaking about the psychological harm
Speaker 2: that came from the incident. They said it was incredibly
Speaker 2: traumatizing to go through. Also in California, a couple of
Speaker 2: years earlier, in a separate clinic, there was a mix up.
Speaker 2: That clinic was sued by a couple overclaims their embryo
Speaker 2: was mistakenly implanted in a different woman who gave birth
Speaker 2: to their son in twenty nineteen. And then more recently,
Speaker 2: a woman in Georgia in the US sued a clinic
Speaker 2: she had gone through IVF. She is a white woman,
Speaker 2: her sperm donor was also white, but she gave birth
Speaker 2: to a baby of African American appearance, and that's how
Speaker 2: that particular mix up ended up coming to light. But
Speaker 2: they all have very similar kind of origins and do
Speaker 2: relate to what's gone on here in Queensland. But while
Speaker 2: there are those concerning examples out of the US, this
Speaker 2: is so rare and even rarer in Australia, to the
Speaker 2: point of you know, Monash IVF in their response pointing
Speaker 2: out that this is quote an isolated incident, which you know,
Speaker 2: I'm sure everyone hopes that that is absolutely true.
Speaker 3: What has the response been like within the assisted fertility
Speaker 3: industry to this story?
Speaker 2: So we have heard from that regulator that I mentioned earlier,
Speaker 2: the Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand FSA and
Speaker 2: Z i'll call them. It's a body that sets out
Speaker 2: the standards and regulations for assisted reproductive technology in Australia.
Speaker 2: It's released a statement that said, quote the trust patient's
Speaker 2: place in our profession is sacred and we must continually
Speaker 2: earn it through clear governance, shared responsibility and action. We
Speaker 2: ask that the privacy of the families involved is respected
Speaker 2: during this time as they work through what is undoubtedly
Speaker 2: a complex and personal situation. But this has reignited conversation
Speaker 2: about how IVF is regulated in Australia and safeguards and
Speaker 2: what those are and how they protect patients and babies.
Speaker 2: FSA and Z has actually been calling for a national roadmap.
Speaker 2: This is well before this mix up unfolded. They are
Speaker 2: calling for this decade long roadmap to future proof the
Speaker 2: assisted fertility sector and to boost support for all families,
Speaker 2: including non traditional families. And in September last year, it
Speaker 2: actually handed down a review of the fertility sector. It
Speaker 2: called for urgent reforms to address a raft of issues,
Speaker 2: including the falling birth rate and access and cost. But
Speaker 2: in terms of its relevancy for this story this week,
Speaker 2: this tenire National Fertility Roadmap includes calls for national fertility
Speaker 2: legislation to streamline regulations that differ between states and terror. Now,
Speaker 2: I didn't realize that those regulations differed between the states
Speaker 2: and territories, but f SA and Z called current inconsistencies
Speaker 2: a primary concern that significantly impact children, parents, donors, and
Speaker 2: assisted reproductive technology in general. So this report called on
Speaker 2: health ministers to support the roadmap and ensure consistent legislation
Speaker 2: across the nation to lead to improved and more equitable
Speaker 2: outcomes for Australian families.
Speaker 3: You saying that has caused a light bulb moment in
Speaker 3: my head, and I'm pretty sure we actually did cover
Speaker 3: it last September. We did when it came out, So
Speaker 3: we will put a link to that in the show notes.
Speaker 3: But m how would more regulation in the industry have
Speaker 3: potentially reduced the risk of what happened in Queensland happening.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a really good question and I think there
Speaker 2: is no clear cut answer given how I suppose, well,
Speaker 2: the industry is perceived on a global scale to function
Speaker 2: and operate here in Australia.
Speaker 1: But from these proposed.
Speaker 2: Regulations, I think it's about centralizing standards and practices so
Speaker 2: that every state and territory is working consistently to the
Speaker 2: same level and adhering to the same kind of regulations. So,
Speaker 2: for example, this report suggested establishing a national register and
Speaker 2: a genetic bank to centralized genetic information of donors and
Speaker 2: donor conceived children. It recommended national health standards for egg
Speaker 2: and sperm donation to ensure consistency and quote safe futures
Speaker 2: for children conceived by IVF and the regulator argues that
Speaker 2: these approaches, among other suggestions, would ensure consistent reproductive and
Speaker 2: privacy standards around the country now. At the time last
Speaker 2: September when this report was handed down, the government said
Speaker 2: that it would carefully consider the proposed framework. That we
Speaker 2: haven't heard much since, and Shadow Health Minister Ann Rustin
Speaker 2: at the time acknowledged that more work was needed to
Speaker 2: improve policies.
Speaker 3: And so, do we know what will happen to the
Speaker 3: custody of this child and is there anything within existing
Speaker 3: Australian legislation that kind of sets out a roadmap when
Speaker 3: this kind of thing happens, Although you did say that
Speaker 3: this has never happened before.
Speaker 2: Well, this is where an already complex story probably gets
Speaker 2: even trickier because in Australia, biology and genetics don't actually
Speaker 2: determine who has the right to parent a child. And
Speaker 2: what that means in this instance is that we could
Speaker 2: be in for a really complicated custody battle. The child's
Speaker 2: biological parents have rights, but so does the birth mother,
Speaker 2: and this split between birth parents versus biological parents becomes
Speaker 2: quite crucial. And under Australian law, whoever gives birth to
Speaker 2: the child is the legal mother. So there are obviously
Speaker 2: so many moral and ethical questions as well as the
Speaker 2: legal ones.
Speaker 1: Raised by this issue.
Speaker 2: And because we have very little information about the families
Speaker 2: at the center of this case, it's really unclear as
Speaker 2: to what the path forward in terms of custody could
Speaker 2: look like if we look to the US example, there
Speaker 2: was that bungle where a family agreed amicably to swap children.
Speaker 2: We're talking about one baby here, two sets of families involved.
Speaker 2: It's I'm sure going to be incredibly complex.
Speaker 3: And you mentioned that IVF regulations differ state by state.
Speaker 3: What's the state of play in Queensland. Is there anything
Speaker 3: that we know about the state that could impact the
Speaker 3: next steps of this case.
Speaker 2: So Queensland has actually faced its share of IVF controversies
Speaker 2: over recent years. It has led to some reform, but
Speaker 2: I suppose there has been a little bit of bad
Speaker 2: pr back to back for the industry in Queensland. Specifically.
Speaker 2: You might remember mid last year we covered a story
Speaker 2: about thousands of frozen sperm donations being destroyed in Queensland.
Speaker 3: I do remember that.
Speaker 2: I thought you might very sharp. She's got a good Philly.
Speaker 2: So the Health ovidsman in Queensland actually launched an investigation
Speaker 2: into fertility service providers in the state after there were
Speaker 2: several complaints from patients of alleged misconduct across the board.
Speaker 2: Now this wasn't about one provider specifically, it was a
Speaker 2: series of complaints and a trend that reflected concerns within
Speaker 2: the industry. So that investigation examined data from sperm donations
Speaker 2: over the past decade.
Speaker 1: It looked into twenty four.
Speaker 2: Clinics who were licensed to provide IVF and the regulator
Speaker 2: identified severe gaps and risks in the industry. Evidence from
Speaker 2: hundreds of complaints included the misplacement of sperm and eggs,
Speaker 2: the use of incorrect embryos, and mix ups in sperm samples.
Speaker 2: It also identified screening issues for donors and challenges and
Speaker 2: shortcomings in record keeping. For example, quote failure to maintain
Speaker 2: accurate contact details for donors, an inadequate disclosure of medical
Speaker 2: information to donor conceived children and recipients.
Speaker 3: Wow, how did the Queensland government respond?
Speaker 2: It was quite a damning report and following the Queensland
Speaker 2: Government actually passed the state's first law on.
Speaker 1: Assisted reproductive technology.
Speaker 2: So under those laws, Queensland Health now has the power
Speaker 2: to inspect IVF providers. The government has also launched a
Speaker 2: Donor Conception Information Register to hold details about procedures in
Speaker 2: the state and when live births occur that are linked
Speaker 2: to IVF. So there has been a bit of an overhaul.
Speaker 2: But to your earlier question, you know whether or not
Speaker 2: that would have prevented this mishandling or all this mix up.
Speaker 3: You know who could say, and back to this case.
Speaker 3: Just lastly, what has been the fallout for Monash IVF.
Speaker 2: Yes, so, monasch IVF is a really huge provider in
Speaker 2: the IVF space. They run clinics right around the country,
Speaker 2: so we're talking about their Brisbane clinic, but this is
Speaker 2: a national organization. You may have actually heard of them
Speaker 2: before because there was a major class action settled last
Speaker 2: year involving Monash IVF. The provider was accused by more
Speaker 2: than seven hundred complainants of using inaccurate genetic testing and
Speaker 2: destroying potentially viable embryos. So at that time last year,
Speaker 2: Monash agreed to a fifty six million dollar settlement. The
Speaker 2: fallout from that was quite public and there were a
Speaker 2: lot of on the record conversations in the media at
Speaker 2: the time from those seven hundred people who brought the
Speaker 2: action condemning Monash's practices. In terms of the legal action
Speaker 2: it could face in the future, we still don't know.
Speaker 2: But this is a publicly listed company and their share
Speaker 2: price has fallen dramatically in the days since this news
Speaker 2: came to light so huge ramifications for a very large
Speaker 2: corporation there. We have heard from Queensland Health Minister Tim
Speaker 2: Nichols who says the government is watching Monash's handling of
Speaker 2: this current controversy closely and based on that it will
Speaker 2: assess how to proceed and if it's going to use
Speaker 2: those new powers to monitor the clinics specifically. He said,
Speaker 2: we stand ready to provide whatever support we can to
Speaker 2: the families to resolve this terrible, terrible situation. As the
Speaker 2: regulator in the future, we will be ensuring that these
Speaker 2: organizations do everything they can to make sure this terrible
Speaker 2: type of event does not occur in the future. In
Speaker 2: a statement on Friday, Queensland Health said it would work
Speaker 2: with Monash IVF to reinforce safeguards and identify possible risks.
Speaker 3: Wow, it's something that we will absolutely be keeping our
Speaker 3: eye on as any more information comes out.
Speaker 1: Thanks for explaining it, em Thanks for having me.
Speaker 3: I have to say before we leave this entire podcast,
Speaker 3: I've been thinking about my favorite book of all time,
Speaker 3: which is called The Light Between Oceans, and it is
Speaker 3: all about parents who raise a child who are different
Speaker 3: to the biological parents. And then it's this huge custody
Speaker 3: battle and I read it ten years ago and to
Speaker 3: this day, I don't know what the right answer was
Speaker 3: about who should have kept custody of the child.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's such an ethical and moral gray area,
Speaker 2: but there you go, a podcast and a book wreck
Speaker 2: or yes.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much and for explaining again, and thank
Speaker 3: you to everyone who has listened to this podcast. We'll
Speaker 3: be back again this afternoon with your evening headlines, but
Speaker 3: until then, have a great day. My name is Lily
Speaker 3: Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda bunge Lung Chalcuttin woman
Speaker 3: from Gadighl country. The Daily oz acknowledges that this podcast
Speaker 3: is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl people and
Speaker 3: pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island and nations.
Speaker 3: We pay our respects to the first peoples of these countries,
Speaker 3: both past and present.