
Woman gave birth to stranger's baby after IVF mix-up - could it happen again?
The news of a woman unknowingly giving birth to another patient's baby after an embryo mix-up at a Brisbane IVF lab has made headlines in Australia and around the world. The distress this incident will have caused to everyone involved is undoubtedly significant.
A report released by Monash IVF, the company which operates the Brisbane clinic, states it 'adheres to strict laboratory safety measures (including multi-step identification processes) to safeguard and protect the embryos in its care'.
It also says the company's own initial investigation concluded the incident was 'the result of human error'.
An independent investigation will follow which presumably will shed light on how human error could occur when multi-step identification processes are in place.
On a broader level, this incident raises questions about how common IVF errors are and to what extent they're preventable.
The booming IVF industry
Because people have children later in life than they used to, some struggle to conceive and turn to assisted reproductive technologies. These include in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) which both involve handling of sperm and eggs (gametes) in the laboratory to form embryos. If there's more than one embryo available after a treatment cycle, they can be frozen and stored for later use.
Increasingly, assisted reproductive technologies are also being used by single women, same-sex couples, and women who freeze their eggs to preserve their fertility.
For these reasons, the fertility industry is booming. In 2022 there were more than 100,000 assisted reproductive treatment cycles performed in Australian fertility clinics, up more than 25 per cent on the number of cycles performed in 2017.
Regulation of the IVF industry
In Australia, the IVF industry is more regulated than in many other parts of the world.
To operate, clinics must be licensed by the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee and adhere to its code of practice.
In relation to storage and accurate identification of embryos, the code states clinics must provide evidence of the implementation and review of: 'Policies and procedures to identify when, how and by whom the identification, matching, and verification are recorded for gametes, embryos and patients at all stages of the treatment process including digital and manual record-keeping.'
The code further states clinics must report serious adverse events to the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee. The list of what's considered a serious adverse event includes any incident that 'arises from a gamete or embryo identification mix up'.
Clinics must also adhere to the National Health and Medical Research Council's ethical guidelines on the use of reproductive technology in clinical practice and research.
Lastly, states and territories have laws that regulate aspects of the IVF industry, such as requirements to report adverse events and other data to state authorities.
In the United Kingdom, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority regulates the IVF industry and requires clinics to report adverse incidents. These are reported as grade A, B or C, where A is the most serious and involves 'severe harm to one person, or major harm to many'. Data on adverse incidents is reported in a publicly available annual report.
In the United States, however, the IVF industry is largely unregulated, and clinics don't have to report adverse incidents. However, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine states clinics should have rigorous procedures to prevent the loss, damage, or misdirection of gametes and embryos and have an ethical obligation to disclose errors to all impacted patients.
How common are IVF errors?
There's no global data on IVF errors so it's not possible to know how common they are. But we learn about some of the more serious incidents when they're reported in the media.
While the recent embryo mix-up is the first known incident of this nature in Australia's 40-year IVF history, we have seen reports of other errors in Australian clinics. These include the alleged use of the wrong donor sperm, embryos being destroyed due to contamination, and inaccurate genetic testing which resulted in the destruction of potentially viable embryos.
In the UK, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's most recent report states there was one Grade A incident in 2023–24. This was the first Grade A incident reported since 2019–20 when there were two.
In the US, some notable errors include storage tank malfunctions in two clinics which destroyed thousands of eggs and embryos.
Lawsuits have also been filed for embryo mix-ups. In a 2023 case, a woman from Georgia delivered a Black baby even though she and her sperm donor are both white. The biological parents subsequently demanded custody of the child. Despite wanting to raise him, the woman who had given birth gave up the five-month-old boy to avoid a legal fight she couldn't win, she said.
In the US, some argue most errors go unreported because reporting is not mandated and due to the absence of meaningful regulation.
Are IVF errors preventable?
Despite Australia's stringent regulation and oversight of the IVF industry, an incident with far-reaching psychological and potentially legal consequences has occurred.
Until the independent investigation reveals how 'human error' caused this mix-up, it's not possible to say what additional measures Monash IVF should take to ensure this never happens again.
An IVF laboratory is a high-pressure environment, and any investigation should look at whether staffing levels are adequate. Staff training is also relevant, and it's essential all junior lab staff have adequate supervision.
Finally, perhaps Australia should adopt the UK's model and make data about adverse events reported to the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee available to the public in an annual report. To reassure the public, this report could include what measures clinics take to avoid the errors happening again.
Karin Hammarberg is an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow in Global and Women's Health, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine at Monash University.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
Miss Universe star shares heartache as 7 month old son has brain tumour
Ex Miss Universe star Erin McNaught and her partner Stace Cadet have shared the heartbreaking news their son Obi Brooks Kotaras, seven months, has been diagnosed with a brain tumour Australian model and former Miss Universe star Erin McNaught and her partner Stace Cadet have shared their heartache as their son has been diagnosed with a brain tumour. Erin, 43, who gave birth to their first child in October, and her record producer beau Stace released a statement this morning, sharing the devastating news about their son Obi Brooks Kotaras. The statement, shared on their Instagram pages, consisted of a snap of Obi laying on a hospital bed, a photo of his brain scan and a snap of the tot cuddling his dad. The statement in the caption read: "For the last few weeks we have noticed a rapid decline in Obi's behaviour and happiness. He was having problems eating, sleeping and most recently, keeping his head straight. "Late on Tuesday, as a precaution we took our little man in for an MRI under instruction from our Doctor. At about 6:00pm Tuesday night we met with a neurosurgeon who broke the heartbreaking news that Obi has a large brain tumour on the right side of his brain. "We are absolutely shattered and the last few days have been our hardest days. Our team at the Queensland Children's Hospital have been incredible and we remain hopeful that we can remove the mass and get Obi healthy and happy, pending the results. "We have a long and difficult road ahead us but are so lucky to have our family and friends' support at this time and we're keeping focussed on getting our little boy back." The couple were flooded with supportive messages in the comments. One follower wrote: "Big love team. Obi will be a fighter like his parents" followed by a red heart emoji. A second said: "Oh my heart just dropped. Sending love and strength" followed by a red heart emoji. "Oh no — this is heartbreaking Sending so much hope & strength xx" another said as a fourth penned: "Thoughts are with you and the family" followed by two red heart emojis. The heartache comes after the couple announced the birth of their son in October. Sharing a sweet photo of Stace having some skin to skin time with his newborn, the couple wrote in the caption: "Welcome home 'Mr. Obi Brooks Kotaras'. We can't believe how perfect you are and both feel so overwhelmed with pure joy." The tot is Erin's first child with Stace. She also has Evander, seven, and Ennio, five, with her ex-husband Example. Erin and Exmaple, real name Elliot Gleave, were married for 11 years before they split in 2022.


The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Monash IVF chief executive resigns after company's second embryo transplant bungle
Monash IVF boss Michael Knaap has resigned in the wake of the reproductive healthcare company's second embryo transplant bungle. In a statement to the ASX, Monash IVF said the board had accepted Knaap's resignation as chief executive officer and managing director. This week, Monash IVF admitted to a second bungled embryo implant. In April, Monash IVF revealed a woman had given birth to the child of an unrelated woman after a separate incorrect embryo transplant in Queensland. Monash IVF said in the statement on Thursday that it 'acknowledges and respects [Knaap's] decision'. 'Since his appointment in 2019, Michael has led the organisation through a period of significant growth and transformation, and we thank him for his years of dedicated service,' the statement said. Malik Jainudeen, Monash IVF chief financial officer and company secretary, will serve as acting chief executive. Experts are now calling for national regulation of the sector, something that the health minister, Mark Butler, said would be discussed on Friday when health ministers meet in Melbourne. Currently, IVF is regulated by state and territory laws, but a more consistent, federal approach is being urged. Clinics must be licensed by the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee (RTAC), a subcommittee of the Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). That's the unit that carries out audits, including on some assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinics internationally. Clinics must also follow ethical guidelines from the National Health and Medical Research Council. FSANZ said in a statement about the latest Monash IVF incident that Australia's fertility care system was 'among the safest, most transparent, and tightly regulated in the world'. FSANZ president Dr Petra Wale said errors were 'exceedingly rare' although 'deeply difficult for those affected'. FSANZ has called for a nationally consistent framework for ART, and an independent statutory authority to 'strengthen oversight and trust'. It said that while the clinical standards in IVF clinics are nationally consistent, each state and territory has its own legislation. Transitioning the RTAC to an independent statutory authority would strengthen the accreditation scheme with 'the regulatory clarity and operational flexibility needed to uphold rigorous standards and respond swiftly to emerging risks', it said, while a national approach to ART would 'strengthen transparency, streamline governance, and enhance patient care across the country'. The latest audit of Australian ART facilities found 172 non-conformance reports (NCRs), but only one was 'major'. Other countries audited, including New Zealand, had higher rates of NCRs. Professor Jeremy Thompson, from the University of Adelaide, is the cofounder and chief scientific officer at Fertilis Pty Ltd. Sign up to Afternoon Update Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion He said there is a global shortage of well-trained and experienced embryologists, so 'levels of training and experience can vary', and that it was a stressful job where 'skill and time management are critical for the best outcome'. But he said that 'Australia's reputation as a leader in embryology training and technique auditing is beyond question'. University of NSW associate professor Kuldip Sidhu, co-founder and director of CK Cell Technologies, said more rigorous compliance was needed in the industry. Embryologists are not currently registered under a national scheme, and doing this would 'help in adding another layer of responsibility to check such mishappenings in the IVF industry', he said. Dr Evie Kendal, a senior lecturer in health promotion at Swinburne University of Technology, said that with more human intervention in reproduction there was an increased potential for human error. 'Previous safeguards are clearly not up to the challenge of protecting clients against such incidents, and urgent ethical and policy guidance is needed to prevent such mistakes from occurring again,' she said. On Tuesday, Monash IVF told the ASX it would extend the review into the Queensland incident and start a new investigation into the Victorian one. Victorian health minister, Mary-Anne Thomas, confirmed the Victorian health regulator was also investigating. She said Monash IVF's 'clinical governance standards are not where they should be'. Monash IVF said on Tuesday that as well as the investigations it would put extra verification processes and patient confirmation safeguards in place 'over and above normal practice and electronic witness systems, to ensure patients and clinicians have every confidence in its processes'.


New Statesman
2 days ago
- New Statesman
Australia is no model for assisted dying
Photo by Kelly Barnes / AAP Image via Alamy Australian laws on voluntary assisted dying (VAD) are deemed so similar to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that three quarters of overseas witnesses invited to give evidence to MPs were from Australia. 'This is not a revolutionary law reform,' Alex Greenwich, a politician from New South Wales, told the bill's scrutiny committee earlier this year. 'It has been tried and tested, we have appropriate safeguards in place throughout Australia, and they work.' Although Australian states extend the six-month life expectancy requirement to a year for those with neurodegenerative conditions, in terms of eligibility, process and safeguards, their laws are similar to the UK's bill. The two differ only in that self-administration of life-ending drugs would be permitted here, and a multidisciplinary panel would review cases. So when Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP and the bill's sponsor, responded with a heart emoji and '#ChoiceAtTheEndOfLife' to a Guardian article published on 7 June that showed the Australian system being abused, eyebrows were raised. An elderly couple had been granted VAD when neither were terminally ill; medics in New South Wales effectively greenlit their suicide pact. 'Looks like the safeguards didn't work,' Mark Taubert, an NHS consultant and the vice-president of the European Association for Palliative Care, responded on X. According to the palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke, the story 'could not highlight more starkly the dangers of the law we are currently debating'. MPs hearing evidence on the bill had little time with six Australian witnesses, all of whom were supportive of VAD. Their arguments didn't always stand up to scrutiny. 'The medications are completely effective. I have not experienced any failures,' said Chloe Furst, a palliative care doctor from South Australia and board member of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand. But, MPs pointed out, there is no requirement that a doctor be present when someone self-administers, nor is there provision for reporting complications. In Western Australia, where this information is collected, complications were recorded in 4.3 per cent of deaths in 2023-24. Asked if it was a concern that a 'large proportion of people who opted for assisted dying cited being a burden as their reason', another witness, Meredith Blake from the University of Western Australia, replied this was 'not the evidence that we have got'. Except it is. Official state figures showed 35 per cent of those seeking VAD cited being a burden on family, friends or carers as their reason for doing so. Blake replied: 'If there are people who are saying they are a burden, that does not mean that their decision is not voluntary.' While MPs were told Australian palliative care doctors had 'embraced' VAD, I have spoken with medics in Australia who are troubled by how the legislation operates. Academics and politicians are, too. Robert Clark, a former attorney-general and MP in Victoria wrote to the committee twice with his observations: the second time after his fellow Australians had addressed MPs. Numerous aspects of their evidence were 'factually incorrect or incomplete', Clark claimed. There was not adequate palliative care available to all terminally ill patients in Australia. Evidence didn't show any reduction in non-medically assisted suicide. The right of doctors to object to VAD was not respected. Many doctors 'feel unable to raise concerns about VAD… lest they suffer adverse professional or career consequences, or else they are leaving the hospital system altogether', he said. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe British palliative care doctor Alex Hughes recently relayed his experience of assisted dying while working in Australia. Hughes, who is neutral on VAD in principle, described a borderline case in which it seemed the patient had chosen to die because of poor alternative care options. In another, he suspected the man may have been influenced by depression, but this had gone unexplored in assessment. Were assisted dying to come to the UK, doctors would be 'at a heightened risk of unconscious bias… [and] may lean towards giving patients the 'benefit of the doubt', granting assisted dying to individuals who, in reality, have more than six months to live.' The events described in the Guardian confirm that risk is not merely hypothetical. Ahead of its return to the Commons on 13 June, 1,000 doctors urged MPs to vote against the assisted dying bill. They argued it is 'deeply flawed' and unsafe. Similar statements have been made by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which say they cannot support the legislation as it stands. Such concerns are not 'noise', as Leadbeater has suggested. Many critics have no issue with the principle of safe VAD. But the passage of the bill has revealed law-making at its worst: rushed debate, the views of the vulnerable ignored or downplayed, and crucial information on how the bill would work absent. Supporters say there will be time to iron out details later. That is too risky. Under current plans, some vulnerable people will be helped – in Hughes's words – to have 'an inappropriate assisted death'. He now poses two critical questions for MPs: how many vulnerable people slipping through the net is acceptable? And can adequate safeguards be put in place 'without creating a system so cumbersome that it becomes unworkable'? It's time for MPs to be honest with themselves and the public: enabling some an autonomous death through assisted dying will inevitably put others at risk of harm. [See also: Has any Chancellor faced a challenge this daunting?] Related