to think a biological child is not a right

[Aribura]

and the NHS should not fund IVF in favour of vital medications for already existing people e.g. cancer drugs being funded?

I'm feeling masochistic this evening and am looking forward to munching on some biscuits and getting my ass handed to me.

"surely, there comes a time when it is a more valuable option than repeated IVF"

surely there comes a time when it's a more valuable option than having your own, even when you are ner-fertile like you are wendy?

an adoted child is not 2nd best, it's not like the shop has run out of kingsmill and you have to buy braces.

people should adopt a child because every fibre of them wants to adopt, not a replacement to a child they could not have

I think a lot of people would choose to adopt if that process where easier.

To a certain extent I agree with you that it is not a "right" but the NHS funds all sorts of things that are arguably not "rights" and that is something to be very grateful for.

My heart goes out to those on this thread who are battling subfertility. I struggled to conceive for many years and it was a dreadful time. I can't tell you how relieved I am to have all that behind me. I think it must be hard for the easily fertile to understand how it feels.

As for NHS rationing: yes, of course the NHS must ration and it does do so. Deciding what gets funded is endlessly complex and shifting and should never be reduced to: "this or life-saving cancer drugs?". Taking that line, quite frankly, it's hard to justify getting free vaccinations, antibiotics and dental treatment for our children, isn't it? But most people would be outraged if these were cut.

As for the 'they can always adopt' line, this comes up so often I'm beginning to wonder if we should dedicate a thread to it and then just link back whenever it comes up. I agree with the other adopters on this thread that it's a naff thing to say; in fact, I don't think I"ve ever heard it from the mouth of an adoptive parent. I have experienced years of infertility followed by a birth child, and then by an adopted child. Adoption is one of the two best things that ever happened to me (the other is conceiving my birth child); I STILL wouldn't ever think it appropriate to say this to a subfertile woman.

Oh, and just to add that the phrase "a child is not a right" has such a well-worn history of being used in discriminatory and oppressive ways (against lesbians, mostly) that I think any sensible person should abandon it. The other one is, "Children shouldn't be a lifestyle accessory". Because, of course, there are no good reasons for gay people to become parents, other than their desire for a child to match their handbag. Or something.

A better opener, OP, would have been: "Given the competing demands on the NHS and the low success rates of many fertility treatments, what would a fair, effective and cost-effective national subfertility service look like?" Or summat.

Excellent and interesting posts Devora

It's lovely to read of your two DCs !

Thanks for pointing that out Wendy, your insight and vast experience of adoption is priceless to us clueless adoptive parents. Now we know that we should love our adopted ones as much as our birth ones we can go and give them a special hug.

Re adoption should be easier and more people would do it - only if people wanted to adopted children already in the care system. Making the process easier wouldn't make caring for a traumatised child any easier, it wouldn't make thousands of babies available to people who want a baby would it.
That is why infertility an adoption are two separate issues.
Albeit issues that overlap but still separate and distinct.

What a surprise, the OP never came back...

I would just like to thank this thread for reminding me how very lucky I am, and to be grateful every day for my DD.

Best wishes for everyone TTC.

I refused to let this thread upset me.

The OP thought was a trolling wanker.

Ditto what Mrs DV and Devora said.

DS's adoption was chronologically second to my fertility treatment and anyone who knows him would understand why he is not any more second best than any other child in this world and in my very humble opinion is in fact way, way more amazing a child than any child I could have produced biologically (though I am prepared to concede that I may be a tad biased!).

But adoption is different. It is. Not better or worse but different. I have fantastic things in my life because of adoption - DS, humility and empathy (which a few posters here seem a little lacking in!), wonderful people whom I met as part of our adoption (before during and since). Life is great. But I have also missed out on things as has DS, providing my child with good pre-natal care, one to one attention from birth, knowledge of his genetic roots and a sense of where he came from and a lack of being part of the mainstream, a constant pressure to explain, to justify etc. And I can never "fix" that for him. (sorry thats a bit of a ramble )

But the OP is ridiculous to single out IVF. IVF costs the NHS around £60m a year - sounds a lot but unnecessary GP prescriptions alone cost the NHS over £8m a year, its estimated that failure to attend hospital appointment cost the NHS over £600m a year (even if you said only 10% of that might translate into true out of pocket costs rather than shorter waiting lists, that would alone pay for the IVF).

The total NHS budget is around £100 billion a year, cancer care accounts for around £5 billion of that.

I suspect there are many more profitable areas you could look to find more funding for cancer than IVF is that is truly your concern OP (colour me unconvinced by that but I can pretend )

"an adoted child is not 2nd best, "

the child of course isn't second best.But the choice usually is.Most people (not all, but most) prefer a child that is genetically their own.We, along with every other species of any life form on the planet, arwe programmed with the urge to spread our genees as widely as possible.

I'm feeling masochistic this evening and am looking forward to munching on some biscuits and getting my ass handed to me

So... you know it is a subject that is highly emotive as well as controversial, and you were looking forward to lots of heartfelt, upset posts as a form of idle entertainment? Hmn.

Yuk.

oopsi I'd argue that even the choice to adopt isn't second best. There are people who choose to adopt who haven't birth children and haven't attempted fertility treatment so it wouldn't even be safe to assume its second chronologically.

It is less problematic to give birth for so many reasons (not all to do with the adoption process) and its the "normal" thing to do and what your biological default is. So it makes absolute sense that the majority of people go this route. I don't personally "prefer" a child that is genetically mine, though I would have preferred to grow my child myself and give birth to him.

Thing is, if you have only children you've given birth to, how would you know whether the process or the children are second best? My children are donor conceived -are they or the process second best too? I'll never know of course as I can't have children who are biologically dh's - and I'll never have any others now. I do know that they are incredibly well thought through children. It's possible to have well considered bioological children or not well thought out ones. Nobody who goes through fertility treatment or adoption can escape thinking everything through. Which is a positive IMO.

Adoption wasn't a second best choice for me (though it came second after my natural conception, for reasons to complicated to go in here). Like kew, I look at my adopted child in awe, perfectly aware that my genes couldn't have made anything so beautiful, so athletic, so clever . (My birth child is also beautiful and clever, of course - I'll stay quiet on the athletic - but tbh she was not born with all of dd2's natural advantages.)

The experience of parenting each is inevitably and deeply coloured by the fact that one is adopted and the other is not. That doesn't mean I love one more than the other - I don't. I have always known I don't need to be biologically connected to a child to love it as its mother. Many people say they don't feel that way, and I see no reason to suppose they don't know themselves any less than I knew myself. That is just one reason why it's daft to suggest that all infertile people should adopt.

Adoption wasn't second choice for us either. Again, it came chronologically second, after we had a birth child, but it was always something that DH and I had always discussed and wanted to pursue. But as Devora and others have said, adoption really isn't for everyone (though I'd encourage everyone to at least consider it, even if only fleetingly).

FWIW, I certainly don't agree that those of us who became parents through adoption or assisted conception love their children more. But perhaps those of us who became parents without assistance can take that a bit for granted - having got pregnant easily with DS, I know I did. But after a couple of miscarriages, I certainly don't now.

As my user name suggests, adoption wasn't a second choice for us either. I love my DC more than life itself and they are both adopted.

having a child is not a right.

it is a heavy reponsibility, and a wonderful piece of luck.

IVF should be available where appropriate (ie, where it is likely to do some good)

it's not the answer to all problems, but it can take some people out of TTC misery.

what about the over population of the planet!!??-animals are more attractive than us anyway& need the land /sea /air we're screwing up,plus there's lots of unwanted children out there/orphans,disabled , and IVF has ovarian cancer health risks.what about doing something else with your life ,being a good aunty,fostering,campaigning ,travelling.its so self indulgent this "my baby" thing,get a dog & join greenpeace & baby sit for someone.bloody waste of resourcesfor spoiled " having it all "types.look at our grandparents-many widowed in WW1 & infertile,stoicly did useful things with their lives,theirs freedom in chillessness-oh,and it doesnt make you immortal either incidently.!

Molehill - I think you've hit the nail on the head. Children achieved through fertility treatment or gained through adoption have been very well thought through before they arrive (or are conceived). Biological children often are too, but not always. Of course, it doesn't make the children themselves any more or less precious but something that is hard won is generally considered to be more valuable in our society which has such respect for striving to achieve something.

But however we got them, all children are a gift. :)

Just one question, after which I might read your post again-do you have kids?

Sorry-that was to Sara btw

Blimey Saragj how old are you? Your grandma was widowed in WW1?

(and dogs use up a fair bit of the earths resources).

saragj

Overpopulation is clearly caused by some fertile people having several children, not infertile couples who are desperately hoping to have even just one child.

Did you opt to have no children, so that you weren't contributing to overpopulation?

Did you choose not to reproduce, and do "something else with your life" as you think it's "self-indulgent" to have a child of your own?

How many of the world's "unwanted children out there" have you adopted or fostered?

My Grandpa flew planes in WW1 MrsDV
I did have lots of maiden (great) aunts from that era too.

3 sisters and a brother all living together in an old house they'd bought for their parents in rural Oxfordshire - My great- grandmother & great-grandfather who as a vicar had lived in a huge old rectory in Northumberland at the end of the 19th century - where my granny grew up. Visiting them was a real window for me (a child of the 60s and 70s) into another age !

Tangential by name, tangential by nature
Does anyone mind ?!