To be pissed of that infertile people are getting the blame for falling adoption rates.

[VisitorsEntrance]

As in infirtile person you are forever having adoption suggested to you by helpful people.
Now people having successful IVF are being blamed for the drop in adoption rates.

Why not blame the hoops you have to jump through www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46081726

I don't see any blame in the article and I think those who do are just being incredibly over-sensitive.
I’m sorry but two failed sessions and the third ending in a miscarriage does make me rather touchy.

"IVF used to be around 7% successful and now it's around 30%... So as a choice, adoption is competing with lots of other ways of having children... Every child deserves a family to live and grow up in but adoption still takes twice as long as it should, which puts people off.

From that article. He is saying that the adoption process is not fit for purpose, society has changed!

There is no blame in that article.

The head line is Adoptions fall by 62% as IVF success rises Not adoptions fall because the process is difficult or calls to make the process easier.

I've read the article and in no way are infertile people being blamed. Far from it; the situation being described is that the lengthy process for adoption coupled with the increase in success rates for IVF make the latter a more attractive option.

If any blame is attached, it is to the adoption process.

We aren’t eligible for adoption because although we have a 4 bed house and can offer a child their own bedroom, we have 2 bedrooms on the bottom floor and 2 on the top. We also have DD who is biological.
We have been told the adopted child must be on the same floor as us. But that also we can’t put DD on a separate floor (even though she is there already). I completely understand the reasoning, but honestly, I was a bit 😕. Anyway and then I got pregnant again which was a shock, so we will have our Bio children on a separate floor.

The boss of a body that represents children in care has said the success of IVF has contributed to a drop in the number of children being adopted. That isn't a direct quote, it is a shitty paraphrase.

He did say that as IVF has got more effective the adoption process has become more unwieldy and that that simply is not good enough for the increasing numbers of looked after children across the UK!

Disclaimer: obviously that last sentence is my own, possibly shitty, paraphrasing!

The article content isn't too bad. The headline IMO wrongly implies causation.

The head line is Adoptions fall by 62% as IVF success rises Not adoptions fall because the process is difficult or calls to make the process easier

But falling adoption rates most likely are partly due to increasing IVF success. That's not blaming anyone, it's just stating a fact. If people can get pregnant through IVF, they're less likely to adopt. Or do you dispute that?

The head line is Adoptions fall by 62% as IVF success rises Not adoptions fall because the process is difficult or calls to make the process easier

"As" means happening at the same time, "because" means as a result of. It's a headline. It is brief, intended to draw in the audience to read the article. It neither blames the adoption process nor IVF.

This made me angry too.

The BBC article has been edited in several places since I first read it very early this morning.

It did talk about cause, rather than contribution, and also seems to have now removed the request for infertile people to contact them and explain why we chose IVF over adoption.

I didn't see a corresponding link requesting everyone else to explain why they chose to have a biological child over adopting.

The head line is Adoptions fall by 62% as IVF success rises Not adoptions fall because the process is difficult or calls to make the process easier.

Yeah, that doesn't read as blame to me. It's not saying "all you selfish people using IVF, how dare you, look at all these poor homeless darlings left recreating the Oliver Twist soup scene" now, is it?

It's reporting on two basic facts and then exploring issues in the article. And actually it clearly says that the adoption process is too slow. That's blaming the State services and highlighting what they're doing to improve their own problems - when you find a part blaming the IVF users, come back to me.

There is no blame. I understand why people might be oversensitive but there simply isn't any blame in that article.

But falling adoption rates most likely are partly due to increasing IVF success. That's not blaming anyone, it's just stating a fact. If people can get pregnant through IVF, they're less likely to adopt. Or do you dispute that?

Exactly.

That isn't a direct quote, it is a shitty paraphrase.

It’s a direct quote from the item.

@visitorsentrance I’m sorry but two failed sessions and the third ending in a miscarriage does make me rather touchy.

I think the 'i'm sorry' is superfluous.

It did talk about cause, rather than contribution, and also seems to have now removed the request for infertile people to contact them and explain why we chose IVF over adoption.

That’s shocking. No one ever asks people why they had biological children rather than adopting.

They need to look at some of the hoops they make people jump through. Yes they should look at the prospective adoptive parents very closely, but some of the rules are OTT.

I have friends who have fostered for 6 years. The same LA won't consider them for adoption because they have a 15 year age gap. They are 35 and 50 ffs no 17 and 70. They've been married 10 years, fostered for 6, they always have older children when they foster them (and usually with additional needs - their house is adapted) and they wanted to adopt an older sibling group - the most difficult to place - and the age gap is suddenly too much.

I think I get rather touchy because when you have had failed ivf you always get people saying ‘are you going to adopt’ and then looking confused when you say no.

I didn't see a corresponding link requesting everyone else to explain why they chose to have a biological child over adopting.

Exactly.

No one is being blamed. It isnt infertile peoples fault that adoption rates are falling but one of the reasons why they are is that ivf is more successful.
Obviously fertile people can and should consider adoption too but their decision wouldnt have been affected by improved IVF so if they were going to adopt before then they still will be now. Infertile people who may have considered adoption before now are choosing to have IVF instead, its not their fault that medicine has improved and they have other options that may be better for them to chose from but it is meaning less children are being adopted.

My aunt and uncle adopted in the 70s both dcs were from friends/relatives of theirs. The girls were pretty much signed over?
There is no way the process was anything like it is now.

I really wouldn’t have been bothered had the headline been ‘adoption process requires overhaul due to dropping rates’ and then been pretty much the same article.

It’s the headline that bothers me.

The fall in adoption rates has absolutely bugger all to do with IVF and absolutely everything to do with a completely broken care system. I could elaborate my point with examples but I can't really due to confidentiality reasons, but I can think of at least 10 children who could have been adopted but weren't because of multiple system failures, that and so many adopters are rejected for reasons that a biological parent would never have a child removed for.

The fall in adoption rates has absolutely bugger all to do with IVF

I disagree.

There are obviously multiple contributing factors. The crappy nature of the process is one of them. The reduced number of people unable to get pregnant is another.

I agree OP. We are about to embark on our 5th IVF attempt and in all honesty if we were able to look into adoption alongside the IVF process we would. But we know that you have to be 6-12 months (depending on the local authority) "IVF free" before you can even look into adoption. That said however, why is the question not aimed towards families who stop having children at 2 (rather than 3 or 4) and don't wish to extend further by adopting. IVF is not a guaranteed route to a child and neither is adoption.