First up. This is a short post. My high-speed Internet access has been off and on since the week-end.. read -we don’t have any at the moment. Dial-up is like… let me see now… treacle on the Internet. Do people still use dial-up??
Anyhow…I am sitting in a Starbucks, using their nice free Wi-fi. I must add – not a stroller in sight, but I think that’s more because… well downtown isn’t very baby-friendly anyway. All those trendy condos and what-not. No yards.
But I did want to share this post a) because a reader sent me the link – and I could feel her frothing at the mouth in irritation and b) – after reading some of the comments I could understand why. It seems to be getting easier to get fertility treatment, yet childfree women still struggle to get their tubes tied.
IVF and the business of baby making
At first I thought the article rambled a bit, however it’s basically asking why the National Health Service (the UK health system whereby health care is “free”) should be paying for several cycles of IVF. Now being a Brit, I know more about the NHS than even the Canadian Health Care system under which I now live. Under the NHS if you are ill you can access health care. That includes treatment to save lives. It’s not at all like the American system where the quality of health care depends on your ability to pay or your employers insurance. The NHS is paid for by taxpayers. So it isn’t really free in the true sense of the word. It also has it’s struggles, is under-funded but is still one of the best health care systems in the world, on that I will brook no argument. My point in saying all this is I too am aghast that every couple who has infertility problems can get 3 IVF cycles from their primary health care.
Most couples will foot their own bills. Given how expensive IVF is (even one cycle) I should think so too. The thought of tax dollars going to fund IVF makes me want to heave. As the writer says, why is the NHS paying for this treatment at all, let alone one with such a high failure rate. Just one cycle costs thousands of pounds, so no way is it cheap treatment. In a time of stretched funds, spending by the NHS on IVF means some other person who does need real life saving treatment is not going to get it or is going to have to wait.
Now, as I can feel myself dashing out this post, you are going to have to read the article and tell me what you think of it. One thing I will say is that the article has unearthed all the usual IVF suspects. Those that say that IVF is as “life threatening” as cancer because of how devastated a woman feels when she can’t conceive.
OK, as a childfree person I don’t get that, but please – as life threatening as cancer? Or other real diseases?? But they are serious. And should you disagree, well, read the comments.
Their premise seems to be that every woman has a right to be a mother and because of that “right” they are entitled to IVF treatment on the NHS.
If you want your own flesh and blood that badly should the rest of us divert tax dollars to furnish your wish?
There is no talk about how people can come to terms with being infertile, (and let’s not dare mention adoption, cruel heartless childfree people that we are) instead in a culture where motherhood is worshiped couples are encouraged to gamble on a 30% chance of conceiving on the baby making lottery. And to keep gambling – because many bankrupt themselves in the process. Of course, there are too many people who stand to gain in this lottery and I’m not talking about the couple seeking the baby.
Anyway, as always share what you think of the article. Time to get this posted before I’m kicked out of Starbucks! Some of the comments will make your hair stand on end. Many people get very upset if you say they don’t have a right to a child. I’ll comment later on.
Big thank you reader who sent me the link.
IVF and the business of baby-making
{ 1 trackback }
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, it was meant to be a short post…
Oh my, the op ed pages at the Guardian are always filled to the brim, aren’t they? Opinions are so personal, it always amazes me that newspapers print them as if it represents the thinking of the entire paper.
Full disclosure: my husband and I have been deling with infertility for four years.
Before I experienced infertility first hand, I had these same opinions. Why put yourself through all of that for a kid? I was also pretty uninterested in having a child. Part of this thinking came from the fact that I had no desire to have children and so I could not understand – or empathize – with those couples who so desperately wanted it. And, frankly, I got a little tired of the woe is me litany.
So what changed? I met my husband and realized that I wanted to have children with him – not that I just wanted children. I very specificially wanted HIS children. And, we found out that that would have to come at a price when we were both diagnosed with infertility (so male and female factor). Our choices if we still wanted children were limited to a) adoption (which is actually more expensive than medical treatment) or b) medical intervention.
In the end our choice was medical intervention. I am thankful that we were able to have that choice. And, frankly, it was our choice and no one else’s, but partly because we self-financed. Taxpayers did not foot our bills. The problem with mandating coverage for others, is that you implicitly request opinions from others as to the worthiness of spending money on IVF for others. It takes a personal choice and politicizes it – much like abortion here in the US.
There are valid concerns on both sides, if only each side would really listen to the other. But, people get very animated when procreation is involved, so it’s probably not surprising that there hasn’t been a more meaningful dialogue.
Infertility has been difficult for us, in part because we have also suffered two miscarriages in the process. But, having a child is a goal that we want to pursue and we are. It is no more our right to have children than anyone else’s, but it certainly is our desire and we are doing what we can to fulfill it.
I find that as usual, ignorant people leapt at the 28% success rate for UNDER THIRTY FIVE YEAR OLDS and now write that IVF has a one in three success rate. Firstly, thats more like 1 in 4. And for women over 40 the rate was like 0.8%!
I in theory agree that infertility (when a healthy 30-year-old cannot conceive, not the stupid 45-year-olds who “forgot” to) is a medical condition and if an insurance covers treatments of other non-dangerous conditions, there should be a provision for this one. Only if the insurance covers things like braces, sex changes, viagra, and other such elective matters. But while I feel that such a comprehensive insurance system should cover some infertility treatments, I kind of feel like they should only do so for couples that could afford to pay them anyway. I understand the ethics issue of selective breeding, but I do not see why we have to finance broke and stupid people, then finance their infertility treatments so that we can finance even more broke and stupid children. Really, if you do not earn enough money to support a family, then you don’t get a family. In the wild, weak animals do not live long enough or get a chosen as a mate and do not leave offspring. It is a natural order. We live in a world where if you do not earn enough, it doesn’t stop you from living a wealthy lifestyle financed by credit cards and government handouts. People expect and demand and feel entitled. But I just don’t see why I have to pay more and more taxes to CREATE a pile of people who we know before birth will be a burden! It sucks to want and not have – whatever the desired object is. But there have always been childless couples, its not like people throughout time hadn’t dealt. If the government uses my money to whelp out litters of welfare dependents, I don’t see why eventually there would not be a massive exodus of the inteligentsia and the wealthy and successful out of that country and into one with more favorable laws. Then the poor and the lazy will have to sort themselves out and finance themselves.
The NHS could be great-but we do like to pander to people desperate to have their mini-me. Sadly this is at the expense of people who are dying. These people have committed no crime save that of being over 60.I know several people-who trained as doctors over here in the UK have left the country because of the unfair bias in the system. One which quietly tells new doctors to inform patients over 60 who have expensive diseases that nothing can be done. It’s too expensive to treat these people who have contributed to the system. .Yet wannabe breeders are given a huge amount of public funds-and then if IVF works they then get huge handouts. This system is not run by medics but is dictated to by government ministers desparate to keep bribing the breeding voters.
IVF Treatment offers a valuable service to people who need it. And it isnt always as expensive as people think, there are services that offer IVF Abroad, such as http://www.ivfsupportservices.com/international-programmes.html and these tend to work out a lot less expensive and in often cases they can have higher success rates.
Infertility is a vanity issue. These couples want a child who looks like them. I am curious to know what the adoption system is like in the UK, and I mean what it is really like. I live in the US where people go on about how expensive adoption is. The fact that adoption is free through the US foster care system seems to be the best kept secret for some reason.
Also, infertility serves a natural purpose on a personal and species wide level. Treating it as just a hurdle to overcome in the quest for the perfect family is bound to have dire consequences.
Adoption isn’t any easier in the UK. But what most of these couples say is that adoption isn’t an option (i.e. they don’t want to adopt, at least not at the IVF go-round). They feel they have a right to their “own” baby
“Adoption isn’t any easier in the UK.”
Hi, Britgirl. I think you misunderstood? Adoption is FREE in the US. So many people seem to be unaware of that, though. I was wondering if the same is true about the UK.
I think the issue people have with the foster system is that the kids are perceived as disturbed in some way (through abuse etc) and also they are older.
Such people want BABIES not children, who they can mess up in their own way instead of dealing with the way someone else messed up them up first.
Are you aware that while adoption in the US might be free, people who want to adopt cannot, esp. if they are older or, god forbid, gay. Then, even if they are allowed, it can take years and years. Maybe the US should work on getting a better adoption system (which, i might add you, are paid for with your tax dollars) before we give up the notion of also putting tax dollars towards IVF.
The hostility in many of the comments on that article (IVF and the business of baby-making) amazes me. So many go along the lines of “if you don’t know what it’s like to crave a baby, you should keep your mouth shut”. By that reasoning, the same type of people ought to shut up about me wanting to get my tubes tied, but no chance of that. I live in Germany and thus am not affected by what the NHS pays for or not. The health insurance system here is similarly biased though: they cover half the costs for three cycles of IVF treatments (on certain conditions), but no tubal ligations for non-medical reasons. It incenses me – either both treatments should be covered or neither, everything else is politicising where it doesn’t belong. And I agree with those who would give priority to life-saving drugs over IVF. Off topic, I am so glad I found this site! As a childfree person, it goes a long way towards making me feel less like an alien.
I live in Germany too, Domino. It doesn’t half annoy me that my healthcare policy will pay for IVF, and for me to have as many normally conceived babies as I want, but heaven forfend that they should consider covering my contraception or an elective sterilisation. I agree with you: cover both or neither. They used to cover ligations, I believe, but changed their policies in about 2004.
I understand infertility can bring great unhappiness, but it isn’t a life-threatening condition. And when I see hospitals appealing to raise money for new scanners and equipment in the UK, yet IVF and other life-enhancing (as opposed to life-saving) treatments are readily funded, it seems crazy. In an ideal world there would be funding for both, but we don’t live in that world. And when people are raiding their savings and remortgaging their houses to raise money for expensive cancer drugs that the NHS won’t fund, I have to conclude that their priorities are right up their collective arses.
A friend of mine moved to the UK with her husband and, although not a UK citizen, got her 3 rounds of IVF treatments. Didn’t even work. Doesn’t that tell you that they are not compatible and it’s not for them? No, sir! They turned to fertility tourism. It worked and they are happy now. I still feel she should have adopted. After reading stories like that http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205897/Baby-P-Inside-mind-mother-shows-remorse-says-shell-Peter-heaven.html I wonder why it’s so important for people to have their own DNA experiment when they could save kids like that. I’m beyond pissed at her selfishness. Not only do I disagree with her choice, but I’ve lost her friendship for ever now that she has her ultimate fashion accessory.
I have been dealing with infertility for over six years. I live in the states where there is no mandated infertility coverage, so I guess this issue is a little far removed for me. Every penny comes out of my own pocket. And even if it was covered, I have some serious reservations about treatment that forces my body to do something it is apparently not ready to do. I have the very unpopular opinion(in the infertility world) that there is no reason for IVF to be covered. Or even injectibles with IUI. I understand all too well what it feels like to not have your body work properly, but sometimes things cannot be helped.
It is elective after all. My insurance does not cover it for the same reason it does not cover tubal ligation, boob jobs, or sex changes. And I am ok with that.
There is not enough money to go around for funding EVERYthing. Demanding IF coverage is a bit ridiculous.
The only reason I would support it being funded is mostly for the sake of regulating it. Heavier regulation to keep renegade RE’s in check would solve a lot of the problems IVF can cause.
I do agree with waterbishop – there are not enough tax dollars to fund EVERYthing. As it should be. People do – those that aren’t bums – earn a salary, which after taxes, they can spend as they wish. You want a hamster, a handbag, new titties, knock yourself out! Some people want sushi, fine. I would like to live in a country where I can go to see a doctor when I am ill and not worry that a simple apendectomy or wisdom tooth extraction can literally wipe out my savings (happened to people I know) If it isn’t a medical necessity however, I think people should deal or pay up. Is it fair that the rich can have as many children as they want, as many ipods as they want, perky boobs until they die? Well, yes. Really, someone in their family managed to do something difficult, extraordinary or lucky and SUCH IS LIFE. Money can be earned. Those that desire something that costs money will have to earn it and go without other things that cost money. Why does everyone moan how its unfair?
@og: Have you undergone infertility treatments? If so, do you think you shouldn’t have been allowed to have them if you were less fortunate? If someone had cancer and they were poor, should they have to die b/c they couldn’t afford treatment? For some people, not being able to have children is like having a terminal disease.
“For some people, not being able to have children is like having a terminal disease.”
Do you really think that? Really? You believe that wanting a baby is akin to terminal illness?
Let me ask you something.
Have you ever nursed a relative who was dying of a terminal illness? Have you ever watched someone you love unconditionally slowly deteriorate day by day until they are totally paralysed, when they cannot even swallow or lift a hand off the bed? Have you watched someone you love in such excruciating amounts of pain that they are litterally screaming in agony even as the doctor arrives and injects them with morphine or fentanyl? Have you watched someone you love lose their ability to speak or communicate, become incontinent, lose their sight and most of their hearing?
Have you sat with that person 5 days before their death and realised that you are looking into their eyes for the last time ever as they slip into a coma, and felt the total and utter loss and devastation that occurs within you at that moment?
I do not see how anyone can even begin to compare the two – having a terminal illness and wanting a baby. To try and draw that comparison is sick, insensitive and deeply ignorant.
The desire to have a child is purely selfish. The world is massively overpopuated already, it certainly does not need a mini-you in it.
You ask if people think it is right that a wealthy person can have fertility treatment when a poorer person cannot. I think it is right. If you cannot afford, out of your own pocket, to pay for the treatment then you certainly do not have the money to raise a family.
You want a kid so bad? Adopt one. Foster one. Get a job, paid or voluntary, working with abused/abandoned/vulnerable kids. Save up some money and pay for fertility treatment yourself. Get a dog, or a cat or a horse. Whatever. But don’t expect me to pay for it, or help you with it, and do not ever let me hear you in a real, live face to face conversation try to say that wanting a child and not having one is akin to a terminal illness, because I will absolutely take you to pieces.
@Nerd: Point taken re: terminal illness.
However, let me ask you this. Do you think you should have to pay to treat someone you do not know who is dying from a terminal disease and cannot afford healthcare? Should I have to pay for that relative of yours who you unconditionally love if they CANNOT afford healthcare? Well, if you want to know my opinion…it’s YES. I think as taxpayers we should chip in for what should be everybody’s right: to be healthy if they are sick, to have children if they need help…among other things. I believe we were put on this earth to have children, and if someone cannot then I believe in assisting them TO A DEGREE. I do think there needs to be a cut-off point if it’s clear it’s not going to work..but I do not know who has the right to determine that.
An old post I know but Melissa if
you feel you are put here to have children, if that’s so, as has been said it’s up to you to fund the having of them yourself. It’s not my concern, quite frankly, if someone has a “want” or a “need” to reproduce themselves. And as for paying for them to have IVF from my tax dollars… forget it. Want IVF? Pay for it yourself instead of demanding the public purse chips in. People can’t afford the price and for some reason they expect people to pony up and help them pay for it. Why? Because they WANT a child. Not good enough.
@nerd has already laid out that there is no life-threatening comparison as many would have us believe. Did someone already say that just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you should? Well, it’s true…There are plenty of kids who need parenting and who are already here – insisting on having expensive IVF because you want your own flesh and blood… then you have to be able to afford it yourself. My hard earned tax dollars should not be paying for it.
HERE! HERE! Well said!!!!
Why , oh why have I not had the personal pleasure of coming face to face with one of these self-absorbed arrogant bitches who have the fucking AUDACITY to compare their disappointing baby making problems to a life threatening catastrophic illness like cancer?????? So much smackdown potential there, I hate to waste it.
I think that the problem with the NHS is not necessarily a lack of funding (a quarter of a trillion pounds is a huge amount of money wrenched from the taxpayer), but instead it is financial mismanagement.
Back in 1970s when the NHS was only 20 years old, the then Labour Government decided to start up an idea in a few areas of the country which would see the Superintendent Physicians of hospitals stripped of their ability to make anything other than clinical decisions. Instead, any decision relating to buildings, maintenance or where money should go would be decided by a board of managers/directors. In my opinion, the worst thing that Thatcher’s Government did was, in 1991, to roll out Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) across the country. Now, there is not a single part of the country without a PCT, and that means that there is not a single part of the country where medics are making the decisions about what money needs to be spent on.
You do not need any form of medical or clinical qualifiction or experience to get yourself onto a PCT board, instead you just need to prove that you can handle a budget. Of course, people will counter my argument by saying that PCTs decide where the money goes based upon figures from medics. No, they will decide on budgets and spends based upon figures from middle managers at individual hospitals and surgeries. They will also only see what they *want* to see. The figures are just that, figures, they do not tell of the complexity of each case and how some cost more than others. The clinicians have been saying since last year that there needs to be more provision for mental health services due to the (then threat of) recession and how that will adversely affect people. Has there been any more money put aside for mental health services? No, of course there hasn’t, in fact in some areas there was less money put aside as the previous years had seen lighter use of the mental health services. It is a sad fact that those ‘in charge’ on these boards do not see the full picture because they have no clinical experience. I would even hazard to suggest that you cannot appreciate the the extent of such budgetary demands if you have no clinical experience.
This seems to be where IVF falls. PCTs think they have the money for it, because they erroneously believe that lighter use of Mental Health and cancer services will continue, therefore they’ll squander the money into a clinical discipline which is not lifesaving or vital, then the blame gets put on other disciplines for going over budget. Er, hold on…you, the PCT just pissed away a spare pot of cash on something that’s non-essential (not having a kid isn’t going to kill you), but is ‘fashionable’ at the time. So now, surgeries have to be cancelled, and people die because of a lack of mental health provision, and that’s the fault of the surgeons, doctors and nurses, is it? Of course not, it’s partly the fault of the PCT and partly society at large demanding a right to a child when no right exists.
It makes me angry that our central Government pissed away £12.7bn on an IT system without consulting the medics who would be using it, and instead just having it created over 10 years and then finding that it doesn’t work, not to mention that clinicians never wanted it in the first place! That £12.7bn could pay for the training and employment of 26,000 doctors or 40,000 nurses. That £12.7bn could pay for a few more hospitals, or new surgical equipment. Instead they’ll spend it on something that, like IVF, has a very low success rate.
Until they finally reinstate superintendent physician positions (or even budgetary boards made up entirely of clinicians) and remove the non-clinical boards members and middle management from the NHS, money will always go missing, to where it shouldn’t go, or simply be wasted on their over-inflated salaries. And until then, people will die unnecessarily because the funds went to something inessential. From my own personal experience of spending most of my life in hospital (receiving essential and often lifesaving treatment) I wouldn’t want another system of healthcare in this country, I only want to change the way it’s managed. And to think, I’m about to enter a career in the NHS! The NHS may be the envy of the world, but if the rest of the world knew how badly managed it was, they probably wouldn’t want it.
Apologies for length, sorry it took so long to make a point!
I know that being childfree means that I’ll never hanker for a child, and therefore I have no idea how painful not having one is. But the whole attitude of people being ‘entitled’ to a baby really gets me, for the following reasons :
1. if you can’t conceive naturally, maybe it’s nature’s way of telling you that there’s something in your genetics that shouldn’t be passed on. When we play God with this stuff, we risk the quality of life of the child we conceive, and the children they may conceive further down the line. Sonner or later, this stuff has a way of biting people in the ass.
2. There are any number of children already here and in care, crying out for homes and love. When they’re all homed, maybe then the government can start paying for IVF for more babies. Maybe then, it could afford to.
3. Having a child is always a choice, it’s not a Communist directive or even a moral imperative. It’s pure self indulgence. if you can afford to indulge yourself, go ahead, but I’m not obliged to help out. I don’t expect you to pay for my choices. Don’t expect me to pay for yours.
4. When IVF diverts money from genuinely sick people, then I have a real problem. These are people who have worked, paid taxes, raised families of their own. They’ve paid their dues, and they deserve to be looked after in return. In terms of social utility, they’re a whole lot higher on the totem pole than a hypothetical baby. You may think that not being able to get pregnant causes you gut wrenching pain. Compare that to the pain of someone dying from bone cancer, whose family has to sit and watch them wasting away in agony, when there’s no money and no drugs to treat them. Tell them that you ‘deserve’ a baby. I don’t agree, and I bet they don’t either.
5. Something else that annoys me when people can’t conceive, is that they can apparently abuse their bodies all they like – smoke, drink and eat crap – and then cry to the doctors to fix them when they can’t get pregnant. Any doc worth his salt should be telling these people to get healthy, and then try naturally and see what happens. I have a cousin who can’t get pregnant – she’s 6ft1 and 115lb – she’s severely underweight, but instead of the doctors telling her to eat something, they fill her full of drugs and put her on the IVF merry-go-round. WTF? I abhor the attitiudes of most people that they can treat their bodies like junk heaps, and then expect doctors to work miracles on what they’ve wrecked.
6. I don’t agree that if you already have a biological child, you should get IVF at all. You already have one, which is better than most infertile couples. They won’t die if they don’t have a sibling, and neither will you.
I have no issues with one round of IVF. And if you want to pay for more, go right ahead. But one is enough when it’s taxpayer funded.
I don’t need to read the article to be incensed by the idea that being unable to have a baby is akin to a life threatening disease. Oh please! There is such a thing as “need” and “want.” We need oxygen, we need food; we want a sports car, we want a baby. No matter how strongly that “want” feels it doesn’t turn into a “need.” Not having a baby isn’t going to kill you. Not having oxygen will.
It’s called perspective. Some people need to get some.
(And I do not make light of the pain some people feel being infertile. I appreciate that and I feel for them, however, it is not going to kill them.)
According to that article, IVF only costs 5-15 thousand pounds. Next to the cost of raising a kid, that’s a pretty miniscule amount. If you don’t earn enough money to save for a couple of years for IVF, can you afford the child?
Congratulations! Our selection committee compiled an exclusive list of the Top 100 Child free Blogs, and yours was included! Check it out at http://thedailyreviewer.com/top/Childfree
You can claim your Top 100 Blogs Award Badge at http://thedailyreviewer.com/pages/badges
Cheers!
I look at it this way.
The government is willing to take a risk on a possible future tax payer slash consumer. If 3 rounds of IVF at £15k each for a total of £45k could possibly produce a tax payer or consumer that would, hopefully (provided they’re not on the dole their whole lives) bring a higher return than the £45k “investment.” Apparently, that’s as much as they’re willing to “invest.”
Melissa–I’m not sure what you mean by ‘older” in your post regarding restrictions placed on adoption in the U.S., but I live in the U.S. and personally know two people who were in their early forties to mid-forties and adopted here. The entire process took approx one year–three months longer than a pregnancy.
I do know there are age restrictions placed on people in Europe who want to adopt, specifically Italy–you can only be a certain number of years older (I think it is around 43) than the child you would like to adopt. As it should be and for good reason. I believe that anyone who is fifty or older and wants to adopt needs to seriously consider whether or not they are being fair to the child. It’s not just about wanting to be a parent, it is about quality of life for the child. That should be paramount. While there are no guarantees for anyone of any age who has a child that they will be around until he/she reaches adulthood, obviously the odds are in favor of younger parents.
It is factually incorrect that gays cannot adopt in the U.S.
As far as IVF goes, again, my personal opinion is that there should be a cut-off point by age. I just read an article in a U.S. magazine about a women who had twins at 61 and another woman who had them at 50. The 61 year old said that she planned on being around to dance at her childrens’ 40th birthday party and if she wasn’t they would have each other. In her delusional opinion it is about the quality of the experience they have as children. Hunh? If she doesn’t make it past 70, does she really believe that the two ten year olds will be able to care for one another or have a great experience as orphans. More selfish magical thinking based on some fantasy about parenting, which absolutely is not putting her children first. For whatever reason she wanted to experience motherhood at 60 and by God, she’s going to do it, whoever else be damned.
Guidelines need to be put into place that actually protect future children born to IVF. As has been proven over and over, many in the medical profession are profit maximizers which is not really surprising, but a greedy doctor’s willingness to take Visa or Mastercard should not be the determining factor as to who should become a parent. I always thought that that it went without saying that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. But I guess not, so I just said it again.
For Nerd–very well said. I agree with everything you posted. Unfortunately, I can relate to you in your experience. You have my deepest sympathy and empathy.
@Melissa: 1 – I come from the UK where the size of one’s wallet does not determine whether they live or die. I have also used private health care in the UK via my company Insurance – I paid premiums. Comparing preventing a person from dying to someone who wants a baby is a non-starter – there is no comparison as far as I am concerned – except in the mind of the person who happens to want a baby and makes it a life or death issue. It isn’t. Hence your question is moot. Again, if you can’t afford to pay for IVF, don’t expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill. It is non-essential. You will have to put your money where your mouth is and fork out the money for it – if it’s really that important to you.
@Britgirl: Your blog, your opinion, of course. However, since you’re admittedly child-free and have no plans to ever have children, I suspect you’re probably a bit bias on the subject. You don’t want to have something covered that you’re never going to need. Millions of people who do want children probably feel otherwise. I really don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer here.
There are most certainly moral issues surrounding IVF that speak to whether it is right or wrong. But that is another topic. As far as payment goes, if the universal health coverage bill is passed in the U.S. it will NEVER cover IVF. It is far from a fail proof procedure, (can take several rounds if it works at all). It is an expensive elective procedure that is not required to save a life or to maintain a good quality of life. If you read the news, the AMA is already sending their expensive lobbyists to Washington to fight universal health care. The insurance companies are already sending their lobbyists to Washington to fight universal health care. Any procedure with a high profit margin such as IVF is not going to be paid for by insurance companies. The doctors don’t want it, the clinics don’t want and the insurance co’s don’t want it. They barely cover life and death medical procedures. Trust me, you will not be getting an insurance card in the mail that will allow you to walk into a fertility clinic to have IVF–not going to happen. As others have accurately pointed out if you can’t afford IVF yourself, you probably can’t afford to properly care for a child.
Again the point of people who WANT children versus those best equipped to parent them is disregarded by those who believe our purpose is to reproduce. I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again, 1 out of five children in the U.S. lives in poverty–that translates to tens of millions, many with parents who WANTED to have children. One of the critical factor in deciding to have children is that you are willing to put them and their needs before your own. If you can’t do that by evaluating the costs of raising a child or children to adulthood and whether or not you can afford it, then you really aren’t ready to be a parent, You can argue all day long that it’s what you WANT but that’s not a relevant point.
Comparing infertility to a terminal illness is appalling. Desire for a child of your own flesh and blood is an issue of vanity. I do not want my tax dollars going toward IVF anymore than any other vanity item whether it be a nose job or hair plugs. Then again, at least those things don’t contribute to overpopulation, which is degrading the environment we all share. Furthermore, IVF is a “gift that keeps giving”. Meaning, IVF babies are much more likely to be multiples and premies which have chronic health problems, also to be footed by the taxpayers.
The thought of tax dollars going to fund IVF makes me want to heave. As the writer says, why is the NHS paying for this treatment at all, let alone one with such a high failure rate. Just one cycle costs thousands of pounds, so no way is it cheap treatment. In a time of stretched funds, spending by the NHS on IVF means some other person who does need real life saving treatment is not going to get it or is going to have to wait.
Why should they feed the children of alcoholic or addicted parents? Or pay the health costs of obese people or diabetics who can’t give up cookies?? Perhaps they could foot ttheir own bills too since their irresponsible behavior is largely to blame. Much infertility is out of the control of the person (or couple). Can we say the same for diabetics, cardiac patients, the obese etc…?????