IVF Poll

[percival]

[Poll #271874]

Feel free to be honest! A good friend of mine defended the "no" vote to me recently, and I can see her point in that IVF is a "luxury" intervention - you are not curing a life threatening illness, you are just helping a couple indulge in their dream of a child.

Comments

[apel.livejournal.com]

I think it's only fair to ask how long the couple has been trying. Some people probably think that if it doesn't work within a couple of months, there is a problem. On the other hand, there's no way of checking the answer, and I don't think any attempt should be made to find out either. Simply asking the question is enough of a privacy invasion.

[pinkfinity.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, it's not safe or healthy to extract eggs more often than once every two months or so, so that should force a limit on the number of times that can be done per year, or at least the frequency, and I do think there should be requirements that the couple has (a) tried for at least six months and (b) there is no blocked falopian tube, which might (a) be the reason for the delay, and (2) be cleared in the testing.

Also, I think that before the IVF process begins, perhaps the woman should be required to have done ovulation prediction tests for three months, because it's entirely possible that the couple is just not "hitting it" at the right time. So I guess what I'm saying is, I think that as a general issue, it's a good thing to expand IVF access, but there should be a few checks & balances of less-intrusive means first.

[sqellie.livejournal.com]

I somewhat agree with your friend. It's more that I would rather see NHS improved on different areas first, rather than an outright objection to the concept. I don't so much look at it as a luxury as much as I look at it as there are more important (life/death etc.) issues that should be expanded upon and strengthened first.

By the way, I was reading Discover magazine the other day and they have a story this month on vitality, mostly having to do with the egg. It was a really good read and I thought you might be interested in it. One new thought is that IVF may actually have undiscovered long-term health effects due to potential polarity issues that might not occur during the most common IVF methods. VERY up in the air, though. It also was talking about how the egg develops three months before ovulation so what you do now (alcohol, stress, etc...) really effects your future eggs. It's not up on the website yet (http://www.discover.com), but should be within the next couple weeks. Anyway, I just thought that it was interesting and that you might want to take a look at it as well.

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

Until the world population drops below 6bn again, then no. We don't need more kids, same as we don't need more elderly people to live to 100+ and be unable to do things for themselves for years. The priority has to be that the planet reproduces in sustainable numbers.

I'd sooner see the NHS invest in health promotion, and helping people to adopt older kids - supporting interventions for ADHD, funding nutrition research, helping the kids that we do have live better, and funding research into HIV/AIDS. In particular it would be good to see money invested in Sign Language, Speech Therapy and other communication related projects.

We have thousands of kids in the UK that need long term foster parents, and who can't be adopted. Worldwide, there's millions of AIDS orphans that need homes.

I understand the very real desire to have children - I've watched friends suffer through infertility. I think that possibly a part-payment on the NHS might be an option, where the treatment is meanstested, or else the NHS gives out an interest free loan to cover treatment.

*tongue firmly in cheek from here on*
Perhaps it might be an idea to make all infertility treatment free on the NHS, but a requirement that all seeking treatment must pass the suitability guidelines for fostering/adopting. There would be no such thing as a private clinic, and in order to prove their suitability as parents they should foster a child as is deemed appropriate.

[piperx.livejournal.com]

I'm going to take the truly psychological approach to this question and wonder why you're asking this. Granted, it's a very interesting issue. I'm not even sure how I would answer it because there are a lot of gray areas and I'm not familiar with the types of things that the NHS covers.

I'm leaning towards "yes". Infertility *is* a medical problem and therefore should be covered along with other medical problems. Here in the states, most medical insurance policies will not cover "luxury" treatments such as non-medical related plastic surgery, yet you'd be hard pressed to find a health insurance policy that would *not* cover infertility treatments. It's perfectly reasonable IMO and in the opinion of the IHS.

But back to the original question, I hope this doesn't have any major bearing on your decision to consider IVF. If you have this option available to you and you really want to go this route, I definitely think you should take advantage of the NHS coverage and not feel guilty about it.

I'm sorry if I'm making an assumption that is totally off-base. Please tell me to piss off if I am. :-)