Opinion
Regulating IVF Treatment In Nigeria
InVitro Fertilisation (IVF) is increasingly becoming a
method of bringing joy and laughter to fertility challenged couples all over the world. According to recent reports over one million babies have been conceived through the test-tube method globally with 40,000 taking place in Nigeria.
Many marriages which had hitherto hit the rock in Nigeria due to the problem of childlessness have been restored. So, it’s all kudos to the technology and the experts who have been involved in the service, particularly in Nigeria.
However, for us to continue to enjoy the benefits of the life giving technology, it is important, doctors and other stakeholders look into some disturbing practices that have crept into the scene. There seems to be no regulatory measures concerning the practice as a result of which incompetent and unethical methods are now the order of the day.
I recently heard a story of how a donor egg was used for a couple without their consent. Fortunately, the woman had a little knowledge of IVF procedure and was able to detect that something was wrong. She knew that for an embryo to be produced, a woman’s egg should be collected and fertilized with a man’s sperm. But in their own case, her husband’s sperm was collected after which she was asked to come to the clinic for embryo transfer. She was surprised and wanted to know how the embryo came about without her egg. What followed was accusations and counter accusations between the couple, the doctor and his staff which eventually ended at the police station.
A lot of other cases of unethical practices abroad. Practitioners do all kinds of things to convince couples that they are the best and live them to their clinics, just to make money.
In 2012, the Association for Fertility and Reproductive Health (AFRH) of Nigeria, approved minimum standards for clinics offering Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART)/IVF in Nigeria.
The guidelines which focused on the type of personnel that can operate in an IVF Clinic, the qualification, and experience necessary for such clinic operations also outlined the number of embryos that can be transferred in a treatment cycle. It recommended a maximum of two embryos for patients less than 30 years old, three for 31-38 years old, and not more than four for those above 38 years. It also required and mandated all IVF centres to keep records of procedures and have informed consent.
Unfortunately, accounts of couples who have undergone IVF treatment show that what obtains in many clinics is far from the recommendations of AFRH. In some cases, like the one I narrated earlier, the details of the procedure are known only to the doctor. Capitalising on the ignorance of some couples and their desperation to have their own children, the doctors manipulate the procedure, throwing all ethical guideline over board to achieve results. Many of them insert up to seven fertilized eggs instead of the recommended numbers inspite of the dangers it poses to the mother and the baby.
What about quacks who have hijacked the technology. At a public event recently, the Chief Medical Director, The Bridge Clinic, Dr Richard Ajayi, lamented that more than 60 per cent of people offering IVF service in the country do not have the facilities and qualified personnel for it, but have continued to do so in order to get money from patients.
He said that due to the perceived financial benefits and patronage, doctors and health workers who know little or nothing about IVF have continued to take advantage of couples in need by offering services they lack the right infrastructure to offer.
We all know that IVF treatment is very expensive. Infact, to go through one treatment cycle, some couples have to sell their properties or borrow money from different sources. It will therefore, be intensity of those in authority to allow these couples to be ripped off by doctors, both the qualified and unqualified ones. The procedure for IVF and the cost should be standardised.
Strict regulation and monitoring of IVF activities in the country is the only way to protect the patients and eliminate quacks from the system. It will also serve as a check for medical practitioners who have been making false claims to draw more patients. As Professor Osato Giwa-Osagie, co-pioneer of IVF in Nigeria advised, “we must regulate how many embryos should be transferred. We must determine what qualifies you to operate an IVF clinic and what should be the qualification of doctors who offer infertility treatments”.
In addition; couples opting for IVF should be educated properly on the procedures for the treatment. Ignorance, can be very dangerous to the mother, the baby and can lead to continuous waste of money and emotional trauma.
Calista Ezeaku
From all indications, Nigeria possesses enough human and material resources to become a true economic powerhouse in Africa. According to the National Population Commission (NPC, 2023), the country’s population has grown steadily within the last decade, presently standing at about 220 million people—mostly young, vibrant, and innovative. Nigeria also remains the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, with enormous reserves of gas, fertile agricultural land, and human capital.
Yet, despite this enormous potential, the country continues to grapple with underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2023) show that about 129 million Nigerians currently live below the poverty line. Most families can no longer afford basic necessities, even as the government continues to project a rosy economic picture.
The Subsidy Question
The removal of fuel subsidy in 2023 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been one of the most controversial policy decisions in Nigeria’s recent history. According to the president, subsidy removal was designed to reduce fiscal burden, unify the foreign exchange rate, attract investment, curb inflation, and discourage excessive government borrowing.
While these objectives are theoretically sound, the reality for ordinary Nigerians has been severe hardship. Fuel prices more than tripled, transportation costs surged, and food inflation—already high—rose above 30% (NBS, 2023). The World Bank (2023) estimates that an additional 7.1 million Nigerians were pushed into poverty after subsidy removal.
A Critical Economic View
As an economist, I argue that the problem was not subsidy removal itself—which was inevitable—but the timing, sequencing, and structural gaps in Nigeria’s implementation.
- Structural Miscalculation
Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain nonfunctional. By removing subsidies without local refining capacity, the government exposed the economy to import-price pass-through effects—where global oil price shocks translate directly into domestic inflation. This was not just a timing issue but a fundamental policy miscalculation.
- Neglect of Social Safety Nets
Countries like Indonesia (2005) and Ghana (2005) removed subsidies successfully only after introducing cash transfers, transport vouchers, and food subsidies for the poor (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria, however, implemented removal abruptly, shifting the fiscal burden directly onto households without protection.
- Failure to Secure Food and Energy Alternatives
Fuel subsidy removal amplified existing weaknesses in agriculture and energy. Instead of sequencing reforms, government left Nigerians without refinery capacity, renewable energy alternatives, or mechanized agricultural productivity—all of which could have cushioned the shock.
Political and Public Concerns
Prominent leaders have echoed these concerns. Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the subsidy removal as “good but wrongly timed.” Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also faulted the government’s hasty approach. Human rights activists like Obodoekwe Stive stressed that refineries should have been made functional first, to reduce the suffering of citizens.
This is not just political rhetoric—it reflects a widespread economic reality. When inflation climbs above 30%, when purchasing power collapses, and when households cannot meet basic needs, the promise of reform becomes overshadowed by social pain.
Broader Implications
The consequences of this policy are multidimensional:
- Inflationary Pressures – Food inflation above 30% has made nutrition unaffordable for many households.
- Rising Poverty – 7.1 million Nigerians have been newly pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2023).
- Middle-Class Erosion – Rising transport, rent, and healthcare costs are squeezing household incomes.
- Debt Concerns – Despite promises, government borrowing has continued, raising sustainability questions.
- Public Distrust – When government promises savings but citizens feel only pain, trust in leadership erodes.
In effect, subsidy removal without structural readiness has widened inequality and eroded social stability.
Missed Opportunities
Nigeria’s leaders had the chance to approach subsidy removal differently:
- Refinery Rehabilitation – Ensuring local refining to reduce exposure to global oil price shocks.
- Renewable Energy Investment – Diversifying energy through solar, hydro, and wind to reduce reliance on imported petroleum.
- Agricultural Productivity – Mechanization, irrigation, and smallholder financing could have boosted food supply and stabilized prices.
- Social Safety Nets – Conditional cash transfers, food vouchers, and transport subsidies could have protected the most vulnerable.
Instead, reform came abruptly, leaving citizens to absorb all the pain while waiting for theoretical long-term benefits.
Conclusion: Reform With a Human Face
Fuel subsidy removal was inevitable, but Nigeria’s approach has worsened hardship for millions. True reform must go beyond fiscal savings to protect citizens.
Economic policy is not judged only by its efficiency but by its humanity. A well-sequenced reform could have balanced fiscal responsibility with equity, ensuring that ordinary Nigerians were not crushed under the weight of sudden change.
Nigeria has the resources, population, and resilience to lead Africa’s economy. But leadership requires foresight. It requires policies that are inclusive, humane, and strategically sequenced.
Reform without equity is displacement of poverty, not development. If Nigeria truly seeks progress, its policies must wear a human face.
References
- National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Poverty and Inequality Report. Abuja.
- National Population Commission (NPC). (2023). Population Estimates. Abuja.
- World Bank. (2023). Nigeria Development Update. Washington, DC.
- World Bank. (2005). Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Lessons from Indonesia and Ghana. Washington, DC.
- OPEC. (2023). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Vienna.
By: Amarachi Amaugo