IVF for lesbians rather than cancer drugs, it's all gone mad
Discussion
I agree with some of the adoption comments in principle but have you ever looked into how ridiculously, absurdly, bureaucratically, discouraging it is to go through that process? Whilst I fully understand the need to "get it right" and to assess the adopters properly in order to do so, you would be hard pushed to find other than that the authorities running these processes want people to go away empty-handed rather than put both parties (adopters and adoptees) in a better position.
A married couple I know, he has his own long-standing successful business and she works in a responsible role in the local health authority, mid-thirties, own house, etc etc etc etc, who were unable to conceive and wanted to adopt (no other children past or present) went through 2 years (yes, 2 years) of assessment before being told at the end that since the woman suffered from a condition where she had occasional bouts of fatigue (I'm not playing that down, but it was a couple of times a year max and laid her out for a day or two) that they were unsuitable. No ifs, buts or maybes, just goodbye, and close the door permanently behind you. There was no thought to the fact that her husband would cover the childcare whilst she was unwell (as any normal couple with their own children would obviously do) and as a result one or two young kids were denied a decent home in a nice area with two potential parents who wanted them very much.
So that will be one factor which drives people to opt for IVF.
A married couple I know, he has his own long-standing successful business and she works in a responsible role in the local health authority, mid-thirties, own house, etc etc etc etc, who were unable to conceive and wanted to adopt (no other children past or present) went through 2 years (yes, 2 years) of assessment before being told at the end that since the woman suffered from a condition where she had occasional bouts of fatigue (I'm not playing that down, but it was a couple of times a year max and laid her out for a day or two) that they were unsuitable. No ifs, buts or maybes, just goodbye, and close the door permanently behind you. There was no thought to the fact that her husband would cover the childcare whilst she was unwell (as any normal couple with their own children would obviously do) and as a result one or two young kids were denied a decent home in a nice area with two potential parents who wanted them very much.
So that will be one factor which drives people to opt for IVF.
On the "why don't they just adopt" side, I'm not sure "I want a baby" is quite the same as "I want to adopt a five year old who has a learning difficulty/physical disability/behavioural issues/background of physical or sexual abuse/etc". For many who adopt or foster the experience is not a walk in the park, a lot of the kids do have issues and not everyone is willing or able to take them on.
otolith said:
On the "why don't they just adopt" side, I'm not sure "I want a baby" is quite the same as "I want to adopt a five year old who has a learning difficulty/physical disability/behavioural issues/background of physical or sexual abuse/etc". For many who adopt or foster the experience is not a walk in the park, a lot of the kids do have issues and not everyone is willing or able to take them on.
Not to mention the gruellingly invasive and frankly traumatic experience of application and assessment. Which I've no particular objection to - children in care deserve to have confidence that their second family will be better than their first and able to meet their needs long- as well as short-term - but it's an absolute nightmare to go through and as it currently stands there are very few people who feel able to put themselves through the process. We won't produce more adopters by refusing infertile women IVF, we'll just have some more deeply distressed childless couples. People who have it in them to adopt are generally already trying to do it, or at least already considering it.
PS IVF for lesbian couples is only allowed after they've been trying to conceive regularly for an extended period of time (with the assistance of a donor, obviously) - exactly the same as for straight women. This isn't an extra thing being offered, some bonus for the dykes, it's righting an inequality - one which I should note affects a tiny, tiny number of couples per year. The NHS's IVF bill is not going to go through the roof as a result of this one change.
BlackVanDyke said:
PS IVF for lesbian couples is only allowed after they've been trying to conceive regularly for an extended period of time (with the assistance of a donor, obviously) - exactly the same as for straight women. This isn't an extra thing being offered, some bonus for the dykes, it's righting an inequality - one which I should note affects a tiny, tiny number of couples per year. The NHS's IVF bill is not going to go through the roof as a result of this one change.
Which is really the only thing that makes any sense - there is no upside in having IVF if you don't need it, and lots of downside. I wonder, do people imagine that it's being offered as a mechanism to avoid having sex with a man? That really would be an atomic bomb to crack a nut!Zigster said:
scenario8 said:
I don't see it as all that more selfish than "natural" pregnancy, to be honest, if the concern is there are plenty of needy children awaiting loving families.
I agree. The "lots of children waiting to be adopted" argument is a pretty poor one unless you apply it across the board, not just to those going through IVF.I cannot see a point in IVF other than the 'I want my own child' route. There is a bit of equality chaos creeping in, 'everyone must be able to have their own child' etc.
Before someone gets all angry, you need to bear in mine this is my personal opinion. I tend to look at things very very logically.
JDRoest said:
So? Well if there are no more kids available for adoption it makes perfect sense.
Seriously - why is there state funded IVF when there are 100k+ children who need a loving family and a stable home?
Because very few meet social services 'correct' criteria to adopt, see fatigue post, ethnicity, social reasons etc,etc,etc why would people look abroad to adopt if the British 'system' Seriously - why is there state funded IVF when there are 100k+ children who need a loving family and a stable home?
was so excellent at what it does, bear in mind keeping kids in care/looking for care probably keeps many social workers in jobs rather than the aim of what should be, i'e placing children in loving family relationships where they can grow up & flourish rather than being shoved from pillar to post between carers & kids homes with probably more likelihood of being sucked into abusive situations.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jus...
a story from 2011, 60 babies (under 1) were adopted in that last year
65,000 children in care, lots of those will be young teenagers I suppose
but 3,660 under 1s in care
on the face of it, that looks absolutely shocking
a story from 2011, 60 babies (under 1) were adopted in that last year
65,000 children in care, lots of those will be young teenagers I suppose
but 3,660 under 1s in care
on the face of it, that looks absolutely shocking
Funding IVF probably actually saves the NHS money in mental health issues, try living with a wife who can't conceive, every month you get a massive downer when it becomes obvious this month isn't the one. The biggest piss take is dependant on where you live you are entitled to different treatments be it number of cycles of IVF on the NHS or Cancer drugs etc. for a National service there is a big discrepancy across the country.
The actual numbers involved:
Anti cancer drugs = £1.5 billion.
http://grahamemorrismp.co.uk/?p=1429
Whereas IVF costs the state around £60m per year (and if these new guidelines are fully implemented, it will cost an additional £65m).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/98775...
The adoption vs state funded IVF question is an interesting one.
Anti cancer drugs = £1.5 billion.
http://grahamemorrismp.co.uk/?p=1429
Whereas IVF costs the state around £60m per year (and if these new guidelines are fully implemented, it will cost an additional £65m).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/98775...
The adoption vs state funded IVF question is an interesting one.
speedyguy said:
Because very few meet social services 'correct' criteria to adopt, see fatigue post, ethnicity, social reasons etc,etc,etc why would people look abroad to adopt if the British 'system' was so excellent at what it does, bear in mind keeping kids in care/looking for care probably keeps many social workers in jobs rather than the aim of what should be, i'e placing children in loving family relationships where they can grow up & flourish rather than being shoved from pillar to post between carers & kids homes with probably more likelihood of being sucked into abusive situations.
That's why the current system needs to change. Keeping these children in care does them even less favours than the state being over protective. was so excellent at what it does, bear in mind keeping kids in care/looking for care probably keeps many social workers in jobs rather than the aim of what should be, i'e placing children in loving family relationships where they can grow up & flourish rather than being shoved from pillar to post between carers & kids homes with probably more likelihood of being sucked into abusive situations.JDRoest said:
That's why the current system needs to change. Keeping these children in care does them even less favours than the state being over protective.
I agree, I'm afraid I work in a govt dept & the system needs to change radically, I am deeply embarrassed at how they operate, how risk averse they are & how reluctant they are to change, no wonder UK plc is now foooked and the problem is even more worrying when they are doing the same with childrens lives & futures.
speedyguy said:
I agree, I'm afraid I work in a govt dept & the system needs to change radically, I am deeply embarrassed at how they operate, how risk averse they are & how reluctant they are to change, no wonder UK plc is now foooked and the problem is even more worrying when they are doing the same with childrens lives & futures.
I've probably told this story on PH before, but I was at a friends parents house a couple of years ago. We're similar ages (40 or so) and I needed to stay somewhere that evening, so his parents kindly offered. His parents are a very nice Yorkshire couple probably in their early 70s.They showed the family photos and there is a black kid in them?? So....kinda asked who the black kid was and that's one of my friends brothers, his eldest brother in fact. Scratched my head, as you do, and it turned out that his parents adopted a black infant child in the late 60s, and he was the first of their three children. They went on to have two more kids by birth.
The guy in question became a fireman in a small village in Yorkshire I believe.
But how times have changed, a Yorkshire miner, living in a pit village, adopting a black child in the late 60s, and it's their first child. As opposed to today where race and culture are more important than actually finding loving parents.
I'm a little on the fence with IVF having seen it effectively destroy a couple. If it's not to be and all that.
But regarding the lesbian bit I thought I'd actually read the guidance doc rather than the media headline.
The only reference to same sex that I can find is this.
1.9.1 Intrauterine insemination
1.9.1.1 Consider unstimulated intrauterine insemination as a treatment option in the following groups as an alternative to vaginal sexual intercourse:
people who are unable to, or would find it very difficult to, have vaginal intercourse because of a clinically diagnosed physical disability or psychosexual problem who are using partner or donor sperm
people with conditions that require specific consideration in relation to methods of conception (for example, after sperm washing where the man is HIV positive)
people in same-sex relationships. [new 2013]
Everywhere else in the document it makes numerous references to ensuring vaginal intercourse is attempted first as a pre requisite and also the likely success rates.
I'm not sure why a part of society that just doesn't like the idea should be exempted from that or why we should be expected to pay for it.
But regarding the lesbian bit I thought I'd actually read the guidance doc rather than the media headline.
The only reference to same sex that I can find is this.
1.9.1 Intrauterine insemination
1.9.1.1 Consider unstimulated intrauterine insemination as a treatment option in the following groups as an alternative to vaginal sexual intercourse:
people who are unable to, or would find it very difficult to, have vaginal intercourse because of a clinically diagnosed physical disability or psychosexual problem who are using partner or donor sperm
people with conditions that require specific consideration in relation to methods of conception (for example, after sperm washing where the man is HIV positive)
people in same-sex relationships. [new 2013]
Everywhere else in the document it makes numerous references to ensuring vaginal intercourse is attempted first as a pre requisite and also the likely success rates.
I'm not sure why a part of society that just doesn't like the idea should be exempted from that or why we should be expected to pay for it.
MOTORVATOR said:
I'm not sure why a part of society that just doesn't like the idea should be exempted from that or why we should be expected to pay for it.
1. I'm not concerned about paying for them to have a disposable syringe to put some cum into.2. As far as I know, lesbians pay tax too. I should imagine that as a group the gay community pay somewhat more into the funding of procreation and child raising than they consume.
Edited by otolith on Sunday 24th February 20:53
VinceFox said:
JDRoest said:
VinceFox said:
peoples lives aren't cut short by not being able to have children, nor do they face living in fear and agony by not being able to have children.
i f**kin dis pear.
I'd despair as well if I just posted that. Seriously WIIIIIDDDDDEEEEEE of the mark. i f**kin dis pear.
JDRoest said:
VinceFox said:
JDRoest said:
VinceFox said:
peoples lives aren't cut short by not being able to have children, nor do they face living in fear and agony by not being able to have children.
i f**kin dis pear.
I'd despair as well if I just posted that. Seriously WIIIIIDDDDDEEEEEE of the mark. i f**kin dis pear.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff