AIBU to ask what the new definition for infertility means?

[RestlessTraveller]

So I'm listening to radio 5 and they are talking about how infertility has been redefined so that single men can now be treated for infertility i.e. helped to have a baby. I think this is great news but I'm not sure how. Will there be an army of surrogates or will he need to have one to start with?

myownprivateidaho what exactly could single men conceive "in" if they were given the right to conceive?

I disagree that everyone should have the right to reproduce even if they're single. Some people cannot get a partner for very good reasons.
Should a man that has been convicted of child sexual offences be allowed to pay a surrogate to produce a child for him?
Should someone that is HIV positive be allowed to reproduce with a surrogate? Would that surrogate contract HIV?
Should someone that has shown in their adult life that they cannot manage their affairs and regularly feed, clothe and house themselves be allowed to reproduce through a surrogate and have a child that they then cannot feed, clothe or house?

This definition of 'infertility' is utterly ridiculous.

Sorry, also missed this :

WHO guidance sets an international legal standard which we are forced to abide by, including the NHS.

I'm sorry, not a legal expert, but I don't how that tallies with the statement in the news reports that "A spokesman for the Department of Health said the NHS was under no obligation to follow WHO’s final advice." That was why I was assuming the discussion of what would happen if the NHS followed the advice was hypothetical.

None of the informal (i.e. not through a clinic) sperm donation options are safe.

They're risky legally (in terms of who the child's legal parents are or whether child maintenance can be sought from the donor) and they're risky medically (HIV etc).

We're a lesbian couple and had no legally or medically safe options but to go through a fertility clinic.

We had to pay every month surrounded by straight couples who were entitled to free treatment (at the time -10 years ago). Even when it turned out we did have a fertility problem we still had to pay because the rule was no free treatment for lesbians.

Infertile couple and e.g. gay couples can't conceive safely without help and only clinics can help safely.

Best wishes to anyone going through infertility. It sucks.

I did not realise lesbian couples had to pay for ivf, that's really unfair.
Is that still the case moosey, or has that changed now that same sex marriage is legal?

Butterflies, the reports I read said it was legally binding, but it might be the case that it would only be enforced if someone took legal action. I'm really glad the DoH is going to ignore it.

undersmile, this guidance isn't saying that single men have a right to conceive in that a surrogate will be found and forced to carry. It's saying that not having a partner is a fertility problem and therefore they have to be treated equally to people with medical fertility problems. So, a couple where for example a woman has no womb, would need to find, source and finance the expenses of their own surrogate outside of the NHS before having any free treatment. A man wishing to have a family would be entitled to be treated the same. So if he could find a surrogate then he would be entitled to free IVF on the NHS for her.

butterflies, to be honest your friend or gay men are not great examples because the need for a surrogate means there will be very few of them. If it was enforced problems would be caused by reproductively healthy women who just decided that they wanted a baby just being able to nip to their local hospital and put in an order for an NHS funded one. There would be so many it would probably mean funding would have to stop for everybody if they were entitled to equal treatment to people with, for example, PCOS, endrometiosis or low sperm count. But they would still retain the ability to conceive and could do so by other methods. But people with medical problems couldn't. So facilitating their lifestyle choices would ultimately take away the rights of those who have a medical need.

Moosey, I know these days lesbian couples definitely get funding if there is a fertility problem (officially). Unofficially (at least in the clinic I go to) there doesn't even need to be a fertility problem. They are required to declare that they have attempted insemination 6 times unsuccessfully but the clinic doesn't go into detail on this or ask for proof. This is actually equal treatment as fertility clinics believe they often treat couples who don't actually have sex and haven't been trying but they don't ask them for proof they've actually had a shag either.

Do you think there would be a time/age requirement?
Like you have to be at least x years old/ single for x years/no older than x (even for men)

Because butterflies friend, I would say, should probably qualify but a person in their 20's who has been single for a year or two... Probably not.

Mostly, I think this is ridiculous but I can see it being good for some asexual people and single people who's time is running out.

older, the point is that the WHO are saying being single is a fertility problem like any other so deserves to be treated 'equally'. So if an age limit was set for treatment it would have to apply across the board. So if it was set at 30 being the threshold for treatment it would be across the board for everyone, including medical infertility. So women in their 20s with early menopause wouldn't be able to access free treatment because that would be 'unfair' on single women so they would probably lose any chance they had to have children. And people with genuine medical problems discovered in their teens would be forced to wait until they were much older and their chances of conceiving much lower in the name of 'fairness'

Basically any age limit would disproportionately hit those with genuine problems all in the name of 'fairness' to people who don't actually need the treatment in the first place!

The NHS isn't under obligation to accept WHO guidance surely?

So just because the WHO has changed a definition doesn't automatically mean the NHS must now change their own definition and criteria.
At worst, they will have to fight a test case from someone who is single and wants funded ivf but can surely make sure their criteria for accessing NHS fertility treatment includes a medical issue?

Or am I missing something?

sperm is a lot easier to find than a womb

This!

A single woman who wants a child but has no medical problems with her fertility has options.

A single man doesn't.

My personal opinion to this quandary is 'tough shit'. It's not discrimination, it's biology and unless women are recruited to effectively be 'rent a wombs' there is really not a solution to the issue. I don't like the idea of women being an inconvenient truth in conception.

"I don't like the idea of women being an inconvenient truth in conception."

This, exactly.

I've been giving this a lot of thought and I'm going to go back to the example I gave yesterday. As I said, our legal advice was that someone could not be rejected for IVF on the grounds that they were single. This was nearly a decade ago, btw.

On the other hand we were able to uphold our policy that NHS IVF is only available to those with clinical infertility (as defined by our policy).

I'm a Nurse and not a legal expert, but I imagine that NICE will review its guidance and will clarify the circumstances when NHS funding is appropriate. My prediction is that they will endorse the WHO definition of infertility, but will set funding criteria that requires evidence of clinical sub-fertility.

I hope I'm right.