'I destroyed my last embryo because of a test. Then I found out the truth.'

Growing up, Danielle* always imagined herself becoming a mother.

As an adult, though, things didn't quite turn out as she'd planned. Long-term relationships didn't work out, and she had no interest in having a child with the wrong person. So, nearing 40, Danielle made the decision to pursue IVF alone, using a sperm donor.

"I always wanted to experience becoming a mother," Danielle said. "My desire to be a mum overrode the notion that I had to be in a relationship first, so I decided to pursue IVF with donor sperm to make my dream of becoming a mother a reality."

After careful research, Danielle chose Monash IVF, drawn by its reputation, polished advertising and a host of glowing success stories.

Watch: Diary of a Birth by Mamamia. Article continues after the video.

Years later, Danielle is still trying to piece herself back together after a devastating twist—one that became the centre of a major class action against Monash IVF.

At the heart of the case was a genetic screening test known as niPGT-A. Marketed as a non-invasive and cost-effective way to determine embryo viability, it was used to help patients decide which embryos to transfer or discard.

Danielle had just one embryo left when she agreed to the test.

But when the results came back, that final embryo was deemed non-viable. Her chance at becoming a mother was gone.

"I was gutted. I had been told my last embryo was non-viable. I had uprooted my life to try and process it, and now I was being told that perhaps one embryo could potentially lead to a healthy pregnancy. I was in disbelief," she said.

The test was flawed.

The niPGT-A was offered to hundreds of women undergoing IVF between May 2019 and October 2022. The test was pitched as a tool to help choose the best embryo for transfer—without the need to biopsy the embryo itself.

An investigation later found that Monash IVF had relied on a validation study that did not meet industry standards. The test was significantly less accurate than patients were led to believe, and embryos may have been incorrectly labelled as non-viable. As a result, some patients may have lost their only remaining chance at having a biological child.

The class action, involving more than 700 patients, and led by law firm Margalit Injury Lawyers, alleged that Monash IVF had breached its duty of care, misled patients, and failed to ensure the test was properly validated. 

Patients alleged that Monash IVF informed them their embryos had abnormalities based on the niPGT-A results, prompting many to discard embryos that may have been viable.

Further allegations emerged that Repromed, a brand operated by Monash IVF, deliberately doctored clinical trial results, forged patient signatures on consent forms, and destroyed documents to cover up illegal experiments on patient embryos.

In August last year, Monash IVF agreed to a $56 million settlement following allegations that it used inaccurate genetic testing, leading to the destruction of potentially viable embryos.

Monash IVF has made no admission of liability as part of the settlement.

'I'll never know if those embryos were viable or not.'

Michelle* underwent IVF with Repromed, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Living in Darwin, it was her only local option. But, she says she and her partner did their homework and entered the process cautiously optimistic.

The medical side of IVF was manageable. It was the emotional toll that caught her off guard.

 "It's an emotional rollercoaster," she said.

Repromed suggested they try niPGT-A testing. The test results suggested none of the embryos were suitable.

"I'm angry. Not just for myself, but for everyone who was affected. In undertaking IVF you are vulnerable and willing to take, do and try anything to increase your chances," she said.

Michelle will never know if those embryos were viable or not. And she's not sure she wants to.

"Until recently, I had busied myself with 'projects' and work, never really dealing with the grief of not being able to have my own child."

For the women whose lives have been irrevocably changed by these events, the compensation they receive "will not seem adequate", said Janine McIlwraith, Principal Solicitor at Margalit Injury Lawyers.

"But that is a reflection of the inadequacies of the law in recognising psychological injury and how such injuries are compensated for."

"I would like to see more community discussion about how to ensure the corporatisation of medicine doesn't lead to a decline in standards of patient care; how are the sometimes competing needs of patients and shareholders appropriately balanced and protected?" Mcllwraith continued.

"I would also like to think that the case might be a springboard for the reconsideration of the regulatory framework for embryo research. I think there needs to be tighter regulation and more transparency about the work undertaken in laboratories, particularly where the research is to be introduced clinically.

"My hope is that this case will lead to change in the IVF industry in Australia."

'I don't know how to move forward.'

Both Danielle and Michelle describe their experience as a loss—not just of potential children, but of trust, autonomy, and clarity.

"It's hard to say which feelings came from the IVF process itself, and which came from this testing debacle," said Michelle. 

"One of the biggest impacts has been the feeling of a loss of control. (The experience) has made it difficult to make informed decisions. I had put my trust into the health professionals for all aspects of the IVF process."

For Danielle, it's the "what ifs" that keep her up at night.

"It feels like I am stuck in limbo not quite knowing how to move forward or make decisions to allow me to do this. I am left wondering every day, who am I, and what does my life look like if I am not going to be a mother?"

Michelle hopes that by sharing her experience, other women will benefit.

"Ask questions. Get second opinions. Don't be afraid to challenge the people in charge. Because you are the only one who has your best interests at heart," she said.

While the lawsuit will go some way toward financial redress, for Danielle, Michelle, and other women in the same position, the emotional scars run far deeper.

"I'm still grieving," Danielle said. "It feels like I am stuck in limbo, not quite knowing how to move forward or make decisions to allow me to do this.

"I am left wondering every day, who I am, and what my life will look like if I am not going to be a mother."

Incorrect embryo insertion. 

Just months after settling the class action Monash IVF fell under scrutiny again—this time, over a devastating embryo mix-up that led a Brisbane woman to give birth to a baby that wasn't biologically hers.

The error happened back in 2023, but only came to light in February this year, when the woman and her partner asked to move their remaining frozen embryos to another clinic. That's when staff at Monash IVF's Brisbane facility discovered something that didn't add up – an extra embryo in storage.

An internal investigation confirmed the wrong embryo had been transferred and the child the woman had carried and given birth to was, in fact, the biological child of another couple.

Monash IVF's CEO, Michael Knaap, described the incident as a "heartbreaking" and "devastating" mistake. 

"We apologise to everyone involved," he said. "We will continue to support the patients through this extremely distressing time."

The company claimed it was an isolated case caused by human error, prompting an independent review and tightening of its procedures. 

Legally, the situation is murky. In Australia, the woman who gives birth is generally recognised as the child's legal mother. But experts say this case could challenge that assumption. 

The scandals have led to growing calls for greater oversight of Australia's fertility sector.

niPGT-A pre-implantation testing of embryos was suspended from use in 2020.

A Monash IVF spokesperson confirmed the class action was settled in August last year, with no admission of liability.

"Monash IVF Group acknowledges and regrets any distress or hurt that may have been experienced as a result of this case."

Feature image: Getty.