A NY Times article today suggests that ICSI can lead to birth defects, learning disabilities and sterility in boys. She does not cite any medical journals but says there could be problems.
I searched my academic databases to find a meta-analysis that argues ICSI does not cause more birth defects, a meta analysis that argues that IVF and ICSI have more birth defects than spontaneous conception, and a large study that shows no differences in birth defects for ICSI over IVF.
I trust large studies and meta analyses over single articles because these sorts of studies are able to account for odd blibs in procedures and studies that can cause errors in any one study. I also do not always trust the media because they like to exploit fears in their readers, and this is most definitely a possibility. I've emailed the author, Peggy Orenstein, to ask her to provide her reference for that suggestion and am waiting to hear back.
I know one of her main points is that IVF/DE/ART procedures are a market not a science. Nonetheless, I don't know whether to request that we don't use ICSI because of a potentially incorrect belief in a nominal increase in birth defects at the risk of decreasing our chances of success at having a baby come home with us from the hospital.
Final point: these are traditional IVF and ICSI, not DE IVF or ICSI. People using traditional IVF/ICSI have fertility problems to begin with (egg and/or sperm quality) that DE can take completely out of the equation. I have to keep reminding myself that DE IVF compared to traditional IVF is simply not a fair comparison.
I think I've talked myself back into using ICSI in our cycle.