IVF treatment

[Pink Betty]

It's a bit weird that we have to consider whether or not to pay for intervention to enable people to procreate.

If nature decides a particular combo of sperm and egg is a non starter.....so be it.

I am grateful for my children. I am also grateful that when a microscopic melon failed to grow in the womb in the proper way, it died. Nature has a way of sorting things out. The whole idea of IVF makes me uncomfortable, mostly.

[Daz Madrigal]

treelady said:

ok here's a question...

Obesity can be caused by both environmental reasons (overeating, etc) AND genetics. This led me to thinking that if obesity is an issue, what about genetic issues that the couples have no idea about? what f the IVF creates a child that needs many organ transpants or has other (expensive) medical problems?

Or does the price of the genetic profile for all IVF people outweigh the cost of the possible "defective" person?

How do you classify who is wanted and needed over someone else?


How are they measuring morality "stability" required for IVF?

I understand the need to make sure that public money is spent responsibly. But they had better be careful in how they word the definitions. Maybe they don't need to in your country. I am aware that nmy view may be culturally "american" but I feel that these are legitimate questions. Openly discriminating against people with disabilities or medical needs seems a bit much to me.

Of course, I guess that not having a national health care system does this by default.

This is an interesting topic overall.

On the whole I think a child with two parents of opposite sex are on the whole better for a child to be born into than a single woman living with a partner of either sex. I dont think the gender issue is that big a problem.

I think 'they' (the Social workers, nanny state petty officials) have now made it into a problem by deliberately targetting certain members for special treatment and its the 'easy targets' that they choose to deprive. To suggest that someone overweight or who smokes has a black mark against her/or him but to waive away any potentially un-PC subjects such as is the single mother a conscientious person or is she old enough to take care of her baby is wrong. And they have done it by targetting the wrong people.

You either don't disciminate at all or if you do you have to look more deeply into the backgrounds of all the people involved, which is probably what they want because it means more prying nannies asking you if you eat Big Macs, smoke occasionally, have certain conservative values etc.

[treelady]

I guess what I'm leading up to is that you really shouldn't use public money to pay for this stuff because there are too many touchy definitions involved, and like pm said, nature sorts itself out nicely.

[Daz Madrigal]

Its a tad harsh to say 'well if you want a baby you'll have to pay for it and even then it may not work'. I'd be chary about letting same sex parents through the gate but stopping some overweight woman who smokes but is a long married and hard working mother. When you bring nature into it then the waters get muddier because that leaves same sex couples in a quandary whilst there are overweight women and women who are smokers giving birth every day...nay every minute. So whats the difference using IVF..why should that be any different than normal pregnancys.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

Its a tad harsh to say 'well if you want a baby you'll have to pay for it and even then it may not work'. I'd be chary about letting same sex parents through the gate but stopping some overweight woman who smokes but is a long married and hard working mother. When you bring nature into it then the waters get muddier because that leaves same sex couples in a quandary whilst there are overweight women and women who are smokers giving birth every day...nay every minute. So whats the difference using IVF..why should that be any different than normal pregnancys.

Ever heard of adoption? Tree lady is right. In my opinion there are already far too many people living in this country (and the world in general) as it is. It is daft to encourage even more births through IVF.

It seems to me that all people care about these days is what THEY want. It is just another example of greed. The fact that the £30k or so it costs, could be better spent elsewhere (like feeding old people in hospitals) is irrelevant to them.

[gus2]

madrigalman said:

Its a tad harsh to say 'well if you want a baby you'll have to pay for it and even then it may not work'. I'd be chary about letting same sex parents through the gate but stopping some overweight woman who smokes but is a long married and hard working mother. When you bring nature into it then the waters get muddier because that leaves same sex couples in a quandary whilst there are overweight women and women who are smokers giving birth every day...nay every minute. So whats the difference using IVF..why should that be any different than normal pregnancys.

I should imagine it makes a change from 15 Barcardi Breezers and come and get it lads

gus

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

madrigalman said:

Its a tad harsh to say 'well if you want a baby you'll have to pay for it and even then it may not work'. I'd be chary about letting same sex parents through the gate but stopping some overweight woman who smokes but is a long married and hard working mother. When you bring nature into it then the waters get muddier because that leaves same sex couples in a quandary whilst there are overweight women and women who are smokers giving birth every day...nay every minute. So whats the difference using IVF..why should that be any different than normal pregnancys.

Ever heard of adoption? Tree lady is right. In my opinion there are already far too many people living in this country (and the world in general) as it is. It is daft to encourage even more births through IVF.

It seems to me that all people care about these days is what THEY want. It is just another example of greed. The fact that the £30k or so it costs, could be better spent elsewhere (like feeding old people in hospitals) is irrelevant to them.

I can see right through you, Sandy with my X-Ray eyes

You aren't quite so silly as to suggest a few IVF babies are going to dent the growth in population. What you're REALLY saying is that there should be a limit on how many children should be allowed and as its generally immigrant and lower class families who have lots of kids you'd really prefer to target them. Thats a different and even more controversial debate.

There's nothing wrong with adoption apart from it being somewhat hazardous and the Mother (and Father) have to make significant efforts to bond with adopted kids and that means a lot of time and effort. On top of holding down a job quite an onerous responsibility which is why women generally opt for their own kith and kin. Blood is thicker than water etc..

[gus2]

madrigalman said:

sandywinder said:

Ever heard of adoption? Tree lady is right. In my opinion there are already far too many people living in this country (and the world in general) as it is. It is daft to encourage even more births through IVF.

It seems to me that all people care about these days is what THEY want. It is just another example of greed. The fact that the £30k or so it costs, could be better spent elsewhere (like feeding old people in hospitals) is irrelevant to them.

I can see right through you, Sandy with my X-Ray eyes

You aren't quite so silly as to suggest a few IVF babies are going to dent the growth in population. What you're REALLY saying is that there should be a limit on how many children should be allowed and as its generally immigrant and lower class families who have lots of kids you'd really prefer to target them. Thats a different and even more controversial debate.

There's nothing wrong with adoption apart from it being somewhat hazardous and the Mother (and Father) have to make significant efforts to bond with adopted kids and that means a lot of time and effort. On top of holding down a job quite an onerous responsibility which is why women generally opt for their own kith and kin. Blood is thicker than water etc..

Blood is thicker than water my arse. Of course LeRoy is going to want to be with his drunken abusive father and his slatterny mother instead of being with decent parents who take care of him and give him love and the guidance to a good education. You are talking through your fooking hat.

gus

[Daz Madrigal]

We're not talking about YOUR parents we're talking about the vast majority of parents at the IVF clinic and if theyre all abusive drunkards then I'd be amazed they got any treatment other than being bounced out of the door.

Although with this liberal bunch of oddbods in charge of the S.S. (not quite the german variety but Social Services) it wouldnt surprise me ifmost people werent vetted for violence but against the more heinious crime of enjoying a swift cigarette.

...you can tell I'm a 20 a day addict huh?

[Daz Madrigal]

You are talking through your fooking hat.

gus

Give it a tug its got bells on!

[gus2]

madrigalman said:

We're not talking about YOUR parents we're talking about the vast majority of parents at the IVF clinic and if theyre all abusive drunkards then I'd be amazed they got any treatment other than being bounced out of the door.

Although with this liberal bunch of oddbods in charge of the S.S. (not quite the german variety but Social Services) it wouldnt surprise me ifmost people werent vetted for violence but against the more heinious crime of enjoying a swift cigarette.

...you can tell I'm a 20 a day addict huh?

You will apologise unreserverdly for that that uncalled for remark about my parents and delete the offending post or this will be my last post on this board.

gus

[Daz Madrigal]

gus2 said:

madrigalman said:

We're not talking about YOUR parents we're talking about the vast majority of parents at the IVF clinic and if theyre all abusive drunkards then I'd be amazed they got any treatment other than being bounced out of the door.

Although with this liberal bunch of oddbods in charge of the S.S. (not quite the german variety but Social Services) it wouldnt surprise me ifmost people werent vetted for violence but against the more heinious crime of enjoying a swift cigarette.

...you can tell I'm a 20 a day addict huh?

You will apologise unreserverdly for that that uncalled for remark about my parents and delete the offending post or this will be my last post on this board.

gus

I apologise unreservedly!!

Just as long as you get a sense of humour transplant, Gus!

[gus2]

madrigalman said:

gus2 said:

You will apologise unreserverdly for that that uncalled for remark about my parents and delete the offending post or this will be my last post on this board.

gus

I apologise unreservedly!!

Just as long as you get a sense of humour transplant, Gus!

I do not intend to enter into arguments with you over this post.
You will not insult my dead mother. You may insult me and I warn you that the insults will be reciprocated but you will not insult my mother. Now either remove that post or it is the last you will hear from me.

gus

[treelady]

madrigalman said:

What you're REALLY saying is that there should be a limit on how many children should be allowed and as its generally immigrant and lower class families who have lots of kids you'd really prefer to target them. Thats a different and even more controversial debate.

If I may, my observation of what sandy is saying is that the money used for IVF may be spent irresponisbly, and that money raised by collecting taxes should be spent responsibly. There are better ways that those dollars could be spent. (was I off the mark, Sandy?)

Enter my opinion again:

While it is very tragic that people can't have babies, it is not the government's job to pay for IVF for everyone. I am actually surprised that it's paid for at all by governments in any country. I don't think that it's discrimination against the lower class. The fact is that in most societies the rich people get more in everything. It's not the government's job to right all the inequities of life in general. People may disagree, which is fine. I understand the view that it is the government's job to provide for all the people, I just don't agree with it.

[Daz Madrigal]

treelady said:

madrigalman said:

What you're REALLY saying is that there should be a limit on how many children should be allowed and as its generally immigrant and lower class families who have lots of kids you'd really prefer to target them. Thats a different and even more controversial debate.

If I may, my observation of what sandy is saying is that the money used for IVF may be spent irresponisbly, and that money raised by collecting taxes should be spent responsibly. There are better ways that those dollars could be spent. (was I off the mark, Sandy?)

Enter my opinion again:

While it is very tragic that people can't have babies, it is not the government's job to pay for IVF for everyone. I am actually surprised that it's paid for at all by governments in any country. I don't think that it's discrimination against the lower class. The fact is that in most societies the rich people get more in everything. It's not the government's job to right all the inequities of life in general. People may disagree, which is fine. I understand the view that it is the government's job to provide for all the people, I just don't agree with it.

Oh no he didn't.

Sandy brought population control into this not me, TL. IVF treatment has got nothng to do with the subject of population growth so maybe I should have passed over Sandys remark.

Apart from that yes I think the people should resent expensive NHS resources being spent IVF treatment just as I resent it being spent on the removal of tattoos but thats typical of our 'public health system. I quite agree with everything else..they should pay for treatment privately.

Now all three of us are in agreement

..dunno about Gus he got out of the wrong side of the bed - the one against the wall

;D