NHS told: give trans patients equal access to fertility service

Cancer patients ivf is more complicated when no eggs could be harvested before treatment. its not as straight forward as “you had cancer so you’re entitled to treatment”.

no apols neccessary- I don't think I expressed myself very clearly!

There are so many differences between a person diagnosed with cancer and someone who is transgender, not least it seems, the power of their lobby groups!

Urgh, yes. Apols for my misunderstanding. I sadly agree with you. Cancer sufferers don't have a pressure group lobbying on this particular issue - because quite understandably the focus is more on the postcode lottery for access to particular cancer drugs and treatments

Clearly preservation of life takes priority over preservation of fertility when it comes to cancer funding, but loss of fertility due to cancer treatment has significant life changing impact long after (hopefully successful) treatment is finished. In women it's obvs a lot more complex than for men, and requires a more lengthy delay in starting treatment - and may not be an option in the case of hormone receptive cancers. But it really should be funded and an option to those who wish to preserve gametes (or potentially preserve ovarian tissue, rather than going through ovarian stimulation and egg collection), and it will be tragic if this is no longer available because funding is required for those whose sterility is an active choice. Whoever shouts loudest.

Sorry bananafish what I meant was that if people who are transgender have established parity with those diagnosed with cancer, their fertility treatment will likely be provided longer than other groups.

The NHS will likely maintain options for those diagnosed with cancer (it would be politically difficult to announce cuts for this but also, the numbers involved- especially for female patients is relatively small) I've linked at the beginning of the thread to a campaign started last year which shows how disparately the protocols are applied.

So, in reality, should the challenge be successful, it seems more likely that those who are transgender could end up being a group with preferential access.

I think the postcode lottery of NHS funding of fertility treatments is especially appalling.

If the principle of parity with those diagnosed with cancer is established, it would likely protect the options for this group longer than others.

I hope that is the case, and that fertility preservation (and the subsequent treatment cycles needed to use the frozen gametes) for those diagnosed with cancer will continue to be funded on the NHS

I will be very sad when IVF for non cancer sufferers will only be available for those who can afford to self fund, but I do understand that the NHS is under enormous pressure (although it's a bitter pill to swallow when so much of the budget is spent on obesity related conditions, and infertility is a disease as defined by the WHO, which is not self inflicted). Our IVF was self funded, we didn't have any treatment on the NHS, but I know many people whose families wouldn't exist if they'd not been able to access NHS fertility treatment.

I suspect there will be no funding for IVF on the NHS within a few years, and I wouldn't be surprised if this latest challenge accelerated that

If the principle of parity with those diagnosed with cancer is established, it would likely protect the options for this group longer than others.

This website shows how patchy the access to fertility treatment is on the NHS nationwide - different CCGs have entirely different policies, and more and more are withdrawing funding completely. I suspect there will be no funding for IVF on the NHS within a few years, and I wouldn't be surprised if this latest challenge accelerated that

www.fertilityfairness.co.uk

Well they could just pay to do it privately like all the women who do it because they are worried that they won't find someone to have children with in time.

not more than anyone else, but on the same basis as anyone else.

but that is the issue. The current system of access isn’t consistent, it’s patchy and only a tiny fraction of say, women undergoing cancer treatment are able to access it properly.

For a pressure group to create voluntary sterility then demand higher levels of access than other groups is unethical.

This isn’t a case of ‘trans=no treatment’ - please dont soon it as that. it’s looking at what resources are available and why some groups or some postcodes get better treatment than others.

Treatment should be based on clinical need. Not postcode and not perceived worthiness.

How the hell is the nhs meant to afford this?

Fertility treatment isn’t going to be available through the nhs for much longer at all, is it?

I think GC feminists campaigning against this is a real mis-step. (I am a GC feminist.) trans people have as much right to maximise their chances of parenthood as anyone else (ie, in the current NHS, a complete lottery of a chance).

Fully support their rights to access this sort of treatment - not more than anyone else, but on the same basis as anyone else.

This thread is really worrying me.. about both people already in the queue for fertility treatments and for the children and young people being encouraged to affirm themselves by surgery and medicalisation at such young ages.

R0wan

louise I agree with you. The NHS choices website talks of surgery creating ‘functioning’ penises and vaginas with ‘acceptable appearance’ but it sounds like what most people might expect by that description in terms of function- including sexual pleasure- is going to be extremely limited.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/#surgery

No-one mentions sexual pleasure in all of this. From what I read, do correct me if I am wrong, puberty blockers result in sexual disfunction of the person taking them. That means if I am reading this right, that children are not only rendered infertile, but also deprived of a fulfilling sex life. Both outcomes imhop are abuses of power of those entrusted to oversee the child's welfare (Ie safeguarding, yet again)

That's my understanding, too.

I wonder whether there's a certain squeamishness about thinking of an person's sexual pleasure while that person is still a child, so people avoid it.

After all, if you can disconnect from rational thought and embrace the cognitive dissonance that is trans ideology, I expect it appears equally reasonable to disconnect thoughts about the child from thoughts about their future sexual pleasure.

Thought this old article from Juliet Jacques (part of a series on the Guardian website) was interesting:

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/14/transgender-freezing-sperm

Seems to me that JJ has a realistic (and almost GC!) understanding of the difficulties of trans parenting.

(As an aside, does anyone know anything about Juliet? She seems to have been banned from twitter... I only looked her up because I’ve enjoyed this old blog and we share musical tastes!)

This might be a slight de-rail but

No-one mentions sexual pleasure in all of this. From what I read, do correct me if I am wrong, puberty blockers result in sexual disfunction of the person taking them. That means if I am reading this right, that children are not only rendered infertile, but also deprived of a fulfilling sex life. Both outcomes imhop are abuses of power of those entrusted to oversee the child's welfare (Ie safeguarding, yet again)

It's a campaign by Prof Geeta Nargund at St George's

Apols for daily mail but haven't seen it picked up anywhere else on Google news

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6027481/IVF-expert-says-let-women-freeze-eggs-free-NHS-avert-fertility-crisis.html

R4 World at One have just had an interview about a call for all women to be able to freeze eggs from a certain age if childless.

They have said they plan to look in more depth at fetility and have asked for comments.

(I only caught the final couple of minutes)

Interesting banana - thank you.

Bit of a catch22 in terms of regulation. I hadn't thought about that

The outcome of this will simply be that fertility treatment for women will be cut further. There won't be any new treatment for anyone who is trans.

I note here that a sizeable percentage of activists encouraging this are also those who want Self ID and have no surgery and no need for fertility treatment.

This whole thing has more in common with restricting access to abortion than extending rights.

bowl expenses are monitored by CAFCASS. They can and do ask to see proof of expenses paid and a breakdown of what's been claimed when assessing suitability for a parental order to be granted.

That's post birth. Up front there is limited regulation because UK law forbids it. It is illegal for a lawyer to be involved in any kind of surrogacy arrangement.

In the cases of host surrogacy where IVF is involved, cases in UK clinics have to be approved by the ethics committee for an embryo transfer to take place

However there's no doubt that greater regulation would offer significantly greater protection. So the answer to your question is 'not well regulated enough', because the law doesn't permit it. I think this is wrong and most surrogacy campaigners strongly advocate for greater regulation of UK surrogacy.

How well regulated are altruistic agreements? Who monitors what’s seen as a ‘legimate expense?’

I’m absolutely against paid surrogacy of any kind. Altruistic surrogacy I’m not quite sure how I feel about it - it’s such a huge thing to do and I imagine it could be potentially open to abuse. Who monitors it?

They are still contacting a stranger whether they initiate that contact or not.

In that case contacting strangers for the purposes of obtaining a surrogate mother should be banned.

Surrogates contact IPs - not the other way around

IPs don't initiate contact with a surrogate

In that case contacting strangers for the purposes of obtaining a surrogate mother should be banned.

Women’s rights seem to be going backwards.