IVF for lesbians rather than cancer drugs, it's all gone mad
Discussion
otolith said:
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
Let me simplify that point for you - gay people pay the same taxes as the rest of us, but the vast majority of them will make zero demand whatsoever on the NHS's reproductive health services, because the vast majority of them won't have kids. So if a tiny minority of them require the NHS to help with a simple, cheap procedure, it would be pretty churlish to moan about the cost.
otolith said:
Let me simplify that point for you - gay people pay the same taxes as the rest of us, but the vast majority of them will make zero demand whatsoever on the NHS's reproductive health services.
Don't forget the conterbalancing effect of a disproportionate level of STDs....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.
-there's a finite amount of money for the health service.
-there's not enough in it as it is to give medication to people with either terminal or massively debilitating illnesses as it is.
-the same pot of money if it isn't big enough already, should not then also be used on trying to conceive. not being able to have kids is not a disease and it's not terminal. prioritise.
in an ideal world they'd have thrown enough money at being able to make me over six foot just by taking a pill, but let's be realistic here. the money is stretched already. nothing to do with being callous, quite the opposite in fact.
otolith said:
Let me simplify that point for you - gay people pay the same taxes as the rest of us, but the vast majority of them will make zero demand whatsoever on the NHS's reproductive health services, because the vast majority of them won't have kids. So if a tiny minority of them require the NHS to help with a simple, cheap procedure, it would be pretty churlish to moan about the cost.
Let's not open the can of worms about various sexualities using more or less of certain parts of the NHS than others...I'm really not sure I see the problem here, as far as I understand it a lesbian who can conceive naturally but doesn't want sperm up her chute still won't be entitled to IVF.
A lesbian who is suffering from fertility problems which would prevent her from conceiving naturally using a sperm donor is now to be entitled to IVF. The same as a straight woman?
Surely the only argument here is that no one should be entitled to IVF regardless of sexuality? Unless of course you just want one group of people denied a medical treatment because of their orientation?
A lesbian who is suffering from fertility problems which would prevent her from conceiving naturally using a sperm donor is now to be entitled to IVF. The same as a straight woman?
Surely the only argument here is that no one should be entitled to IVF regardless of sexuality? Unless of course you just want one group of people denied a medical treatment because of their orientation?
Blue Oval84 said:
I'm really not sure I see the problem here, as far as I understand it a lesbian who can conceive naturally but doesn't want sperm up her chute still won't be entitled to IVF.
A lesbian who is suffering from fertility problems which would prevent her from conceiving naturally using a sperm donor is now to be entitled to IVF. The same as a straight woman?
Surely the only argument here is that no one should be entitled to IVF regardless of sexuality? Unless of course you just want one group of people denied a medical treatment because of their orientation?
Im probably in the minority here, but imho ivf should be a lower priority than medication for actual illnesses. In all cases.A lesbian who is suffering from fertility problems which would prevent her from conceiving naturally using a sperm donor is now to be entitled to IVF. The same as a straight woman?
Surely the only argument here is that no one should be entitled to IVF regardless of sexuality? Unless of course you just want one group of people denied a medical treatment because of their orientation?
VinceFox said:
Blue Oval84 said:
I'm really not sure I see the problem here, as far as I understand it a lesbian who can conceive naturally but doesn't want sperm up her chute still won't be entitled to IVF.
A lesbian who is suffering from fertility problems which would prevent her from conceiving naturally using a sperm donor is now to be entitled to IVF. The same as a straight woman?
Surely the only argument here is that no one should be entitled to IVF regardless of sexuality? Unless of course you just want one group of people denied a medical treatment because of their orientation?
Im probably in the minority here, but imho ivf should be a lower priority than medication for actual illnesses. In all cases.A lesbian who is suffering from fertility problems which would prevent her from conceiving naturally using a sperm donor is now to be entitled to IVF. The same as a straight woman?
Surely the only argument here is that no one should be entitled to IVF regardless of sexuality? Unless of course you just want one group of people denied a medical treatment because of their orientation?
Vince - and I'm speaking here as a lesbian who cannot have kids the biological way, no matter what - I do actually agree, it should be a lower priority, but I think it already is. You only get a few goes at IVF. Nobody's going to take you off dialysis after 4 cycles due to the expense - or Berlin (artificial) heart patients, or ventilator users etc etc etc.
I think that as a relative expense, a couple of cycles of IVF may be something of a bargain - discovering oneself to be infertile after 20- or 30-odd years of assuming that parenthood is only a matter of 'when' is terribly, terribly damaging for (almost) everybody that experiences it. Not something I've gone through - I've known for a good while now, long before I reached 'settling down' age, that I can't have kids and as a consequence now I've reached a point of stability I'm looking into adoption - but someone very close in my family did and it's horrific.
VinceFox said:
Im probably in the minority here, but imho ivf should be a lower priority than medication for actual illnesses. In all cases.
I'd go further and say that IVF on the NHS regardless of person, couple or sexuality should not be allowed. Everyone assumes that the NHS owes them because they've paid taxes for practically anything they want, yet the sad reality is that 'we' cannot afford an NHS at this time with an unlimited budget.Ozzie Osmond said:
otolith said:
Let me simplify that point for you - gay people pay the same taxes as the rest of us, but the vast majority of them will make zero demand whatsoever on the NHS's reproductive health services.
Don't forget the conterbalancing effect of a disproportionate level of STDs....BlackVanDyke said:
VinceFox said:
Blue Oval84 said:
I'm really not sure I see the problem here, as far as I understand it a lesbian who can conceive naturally but doesn't want sperm up her chute still won't be entitled to IVF.
A lesbian who is suffering from fertility problems which would prevent her from conceiving naturally using a sperm donor is now to be entitled to IVF. The same as a straight woman?
Surely the only argument here is that no one should be entitled to IVF regardless of sexuality? Unless of course you just want one group of people denied a medical treatment because of their orientation?
Im probably in the minority here, but imho ivf should be a lower priority than medication for actual illnesses. In all cases.A lesbian who is suffering from fertility problems which would prevent her from conceiving naturally using a sperm donor is now to be entitled to IVF. The same as a straight woman?
Surely the only argument here is that no one should be entitled to IVF regardless of sexuality? Unless of course you just want one group of people denied a medical treatment because of their orientation?
Vince - and I'm speaking here as a lesbian who cannot have kids the biological way, no matter what - I do actually agree, it should be a lower priority, but I think it already is. You only get a few goes at IVF. Nobody's going to take you off dialysis after 4 cycles due to the expense - or Berlin (artificial) heart patients, or ventilator users etc etc etc.
I think that as a relative expense, a couple of cycles of IVF may be something of a bargain - discovering oneself to be infertile after 20- or 30-odd years of assuming that parenthood is only a matter of 'when' is terribly, terribly damaging for (almost) everybody that experiences it. Not something I've gone through - I've known for a good while now, long before I reached 'settling down' age, that I can't have kids and as a consequence now I've reached a point of stability I'm looking into adoption - but someone very close in my family did and it's horrific.
In the case of a lesbian couple they have always been and continue to be eligible for IVF. And I believe that relates to yourself BVD if I have read your quote correctly.
The recent change is to allow IVF earlier (for all) but also an addition within the guidance of "Consider unstimulated intrauterine insemination as a treatment option" specific to same sex couples alongside the existing consideration for those that have a medical condition requiring it.
Of course this is all still guidance and the individual authorities will do what they like anyway.
But no the story is not about lesbians and IVF as the thread title would have you believe. The only difference in the guidance is a recommendation to give same sex couples artificial insemination on the NHS.
MOTORVATOR said:
But no the story is not about lesbians and IVF as the thread title would have you believe. The only difference in the guidance is a recommendation to give same sex couples artificial insemination on the NHS.
Im not sure about that, if a hetrosexual couple want a baby, they bang away like rabbits, sometimes hundreds of times and hope something happens, I dont understand the statistics,and possible the mechanics, how many times does a gay couple have to do it before one of them is considered infertile? surely the NHS cash would be better spent elseware, why arnt the goverment forwarding the adoption argument, it just makes so much sense. VinceFox said:
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.
-there's a finite amount of money for the health service.
-there's not enough in it as it is to give medication to people with either terminal or massively debilitating illnesses as it is.
-the same pot of money if it isn't big enough already, should not then also be used on trying to conceive. not being able to have kids is not a disease and it's not terminal. prioritise.
in an ideal world they'd have thrown enough money at being able to make me over six foot just by taking a pill, but let's be realistic here. the money is stretched already. nothing to do with being callous, quite the opposite in fact.
In any case your argument is infantile on the basis that IVF costs a tiny amount of NHS money. Cancer drugs is not such a small amount.
MOTORVATOR said:
I'm not sure that's right BVD / Vince hence why I made the post above.
In the case of a lesbian couple they have always been and continue to be eligible for IVF. And I believe that relates to yourself BVD if I have read your quote correctly.
The recent change is to allow IVF earlier (for all) but also an addition within the guidance of "Consider unstimulated intrauterine insemination as a treatment option" specific to same sex couples alongside the existing consideration for those that have a medical condition requiring it.
Of course this is all still guidance and the individual authorities will do what they like anyway.
But no the story is not about lesbians and IVF as the thread title would have you believe. The only difference in the guidance is a recommendation to give same sex couples artificial insemination on the NHS.
IVF wouldn't help me - I'm in the 'really can't get knocked up' rather than the 'need a lot of help to get knocked up' category. Hence adopting. Or trying to.In the case of a lesbian couple they have always been and continue to be eligible for IVF. And I believe that relates to yourself BVD if I have read your quote correctly.
The recent change is to allow IVF earlier (for all) but also an addition within the guidance of "Consider unstimulated intrauterine insemination as a treatment option" specific to same sex couples alongside the existing consideration for those that have a medical condition requiring it.
Of course this is all still guidance and the individual authorities will do what they like anyway.
But no the story is not about lesbians and IVF as the thread title would have you believe. The only difference in the guidance is a recommendation to give same sex couples artificial insemination on the NHS.
oyster said:
VinceFox said:
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.
-there's a finite amount of money for the health service.
-there's not enough in it as it is to give medication to people with either terminal or massively debilitating illnesses as it is.
-the same pot of money if it isn't big enough already, should not then also be used on trying to conceive. not being able to have kids is not a disease and it's not terminal. prioritise.
in an ideal world they'd have thrown enough money at being able to make me over six foot just by taking a pill, but let's be realistic here. the money is stretched already. nothing to do with being callous, quite the opposite in fact.
In any case your argument is infantile on the basis that IVF costs a tiny amount of NHS money. Cancer drugs is not such a small amount.
Whether anyone should get expensive fertility treatment on the NHS is an entirely different question to whether a woman's sexuality should be a consideration in whether she gets it or not.
As for unstimulated intrauterine insemination, well, it's a 500 quid procedure done privately (and it just took me a couple of minutes to google where one can get it done and for how much), so it's not exactly breaking the bank for the nation, but if the NHS were to cease providing it for anybody at all I doubt it would make that much difference to lesbian couples wanting to have kids.
As for unstimulated intrauterine insemination, well, it's a 500 quid procedure done privately (and it just took me a couple of minutes to google where one can get it done and for how much), so it's not exactly breaking the bank for the nation, but if the NHS were to cease providing it for anybody at all I doubt it would make that much difference to lesbian couples wanting to have kids.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff