AIBU to think it's unfair same sex couples can get IVF on the NHS but not single women?

[CateB78]

https://news.sky.com/story/fertility-inequality-how-single-women-are-facing-ivf-discrimination-and-financial-strain-12996293

Not due to any ill-will. She moved to the other end of the country to be with her DP and with everyone involved working full time, logistics don't allow them to meet very often.

Yes I think that egg / sperm freezing for people who are about to under go medical treatment such as chemotherapy or have medical condition that makes them infertile should be funded by the NHS but the procedures should be carried out in the private sector ie the NHS should pay a private health care provider to do this treatment.

Agreed. It’s completely irrelevant and total semantics. One is called a “medical condition” and the other a “biological reason”. They are both simply biological realities of someone’s body.

ultimately these semantic distinctions rest on value laden assumptions about “how things were supposed to be” - the way god intended and all!

When a woman has a male partner who can’t get her pregnant, we fund fertility treatment- because after all , we think, “he’s male so he should have been able to get her pregnant, if it weren’t for his medical condition”.

When she has a female partner, however, we think “well that’s not the way things were meant to be”. So that’s just biology.

But if we are making these value laden,(heterosexist) judgements about how things should be/ were meant to be, then really we might as well go back to defining homosexuality itself as a medical condition- it’s not the way things were supposed to be / how biology/ (god!) intended after all!

And if homosexuality is a medical condition after all, then surely we should, by these very same terms, be funding treatment for same sex couples!!

NHS funding is not logical. I would think this is because a lot of historic funding has remained the same and newer treatments are subject to more stringent financial tests.

For instance, thyroid conditions lead to free prescriptions and a lot of other chronic conditions do not.

Having children is a privilege, not a right. If you are so traumatised that you cannot be in a relationship of any kind, then should you really be having children?

They do, that’s what the the funding is for- IUI which is insemination with (in this case) donated sperm.

IVF with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is offered on the NHS, but subject to the same restrictions as infertility IVF.

In my area, that's a maximum of 3 cycles and 1 healthy child - no siblings allowed.

Of course, most people seeking PGD IVF don't have fertility issues - it's literally just preventative healthcare for the future child. The NHS is quite happy to pay for the extortionately expensive medical treatment of as many genetically disabled children as we want to pop out, so long as they're conceived naturally.

It's a complete false economy.

I think she meant traumatised perhaps due to SA meaning they don’t want to/ cannot have sex. Not that they can’t have a relationship.

I disagree. You might as well say that the inability of two men to conceive is a medical condition and that they should have the right to use a surrogate mother. But that raises a lot of ethical issues.
Instead, I think we should accept that complete “fertility equality” is impossible.

You could argue that a lesbian couple having fertility treatment are luckier than a straight couple, because they have more potential options (assuming they can afford them). For example, one partner could provide the eggs and the other could carry the baby.

Same question to you, how do you propose same-sex couples have a baby? Why is an opposite sex couple who can't concieve together more worthy than a same-sex couple?

PP said nobody should get IVF on the NHS.

Anyone who wants it pays for it themselves.

Yes she says she had an overwhelming desire to get pregnant and carry a baby.

1. Why didn't she try a dating website then lots of men out there !! Would have saved her borrowing thousands off her family !
2. I suspect the reason she didn't do this is that the clinic procedures involves an anonymous sperm donor, no contact with biological child until they are 18 and then only if the child initiates it.
3. So really what she is saying is if I went out on a few dates with a man and I got pregnant this guy might get to find out about it, particularly if you live in the same area, when I post all my cute baby photos and 'my story' on my tik tok channel or my Facebook page he might recognise me and god forbid he might want to get in touch with me and want to be in my child's life.

So what she is saying is, I want a baby ! Only a baby !not someone to share my child's life with. My child will grow up with just me and I am not looking any further than achieving my aim of giving birth. No mention at all of how she will explain this to her child when it is older. Women who are that self obsessed are probably like that in other areas of their life too. Lonely life for the child ?

I disagree. You might as well say that the inability of two men to conceive is a medical condition and that they should have the right to use a surrogate mother

no it doesn’t imply this at all, because no straight infertile couples currently have this “right” - to use a surrogate - either.

You are right of course that “complete fertility equality” is impossible (I’m not suggesting it is), but it’s perfectly possible not to discriminate against the funding made available for the exact same fertility treatments based on someone’s sex, sexuality or their relationship status.

I think with IVF, how much of it is:

Infertility, in terms of a medical condition, something not working right...

And how much of it is lifestyle choices, like choosing to advance a career til 38. Choosing to travel and enjoy being a couple. Choosing to get a mortgage and have substantial savings first.

I don't really see how the latter is a medical issue, but hey. It's not really possible to discriminate against one group so it's all or nothing.

The poster I quoted said people who can't conceive for medical reasons should.

Why is one worthy of IVF and the other not?
Both are equally worthy, IVF isn't discriminatory but NHS is only funded for medical needs.

Many worthy procedures are not available on the NHS for that same reason.

Okay, I'm one of these people. I was assaulted when I was 16, and I have never been able to have a relationship since (now 39). I've never had consensual sex. By containing my trauma by not getting into relationships I'm a perfectly happy and normal human being - nobody knows this is behind my life choices, not even my parents. They just think I'm asexual. I'm honestly perfectly 'normal'.

For around 15 years I have absolutely desperately wanted a child. I feel bereft that I can't have one. I earn £30k, live alone in the south east (where all my family are) so there's not a lot left after housing, and not enough to raise a child on without going onto benefits.

I've accepted I can't have one by IVF. Is it fair gay couples can get help when I can't? I don't think it's fair that it's uneven, but life isn't fair, and where is the line? I say I've accepted it - to be honest, it's still fucking hard. And I really worry in a couple of years when I am literally infertile and the option is 100% gone, how I'll feel.

Any judgement about single parents I think really isn't ethical - around a third of marriages fail, more failures in unmarried couples - there's too many other factors that impact whether a family can be stable or not. And financially, plenty of people get pregnant knowing they'll need to receive benefits. What's the difference?

Really, there are no easy answers. Anyone putting a one-line opinion isn't really looking at the whole picture.

In terms to the question of the thread - if they allow fertility treatment for one group of people then they should allow it for all. Straight, gay, single. Everyone should be entitled to it.

IVF on the NHS is to treat a medical condition - infertility. Female same sex couples have to jump through hoops to prove they are also suffering infertility, by self funding rounds of IUI with donated sperm.

Single people and male/male couples are not able to demonstrate they are suffering from infertility and so don't get NHS treatment for it.

But it is available on the NHS for same sex couples though.

ultimately these semantic distinctions rest on value laden assumptions about “how things were supposed to be” - the way god intended and all!
They are not semantic distinctions at all. Medical and biological IS different. It is true that sometimes, it's not totally black or white, that's why the NHS have ethical and legal bodies and processes to consider these.

There is also an economical consideration to treatment. Treatments especially of high values are considered for funding on the basis of costs vs benefits vs chance of success.

Weight list surgery is not funded because the patient wants to look slimmer but because the likely benefit (reduction in calorie intakes) means a reduction in likely need for further medical intervention in the future so meets the threshold for cost benefit.

Single people and male/male couples are not able to demonstrate they are suffering from infertility and so don't get NHS treatment for it
They can to an extent. Sperm tests are quite cheap as are blood tests for women as a start.

But someone /couple who doesnt regularly introduce sperm to egg (single person not having regular sex, lesbian couple not using sperm donation, a male couple, etc) isnt going to fall pregnant due to biological fact, regardless of weather rheres anything medically wrong.

Unpopular opinion especially on a parenting forum but we are so royally fucked as a species anyway that we really do no need to be facilitating more people to have more children "unnaturally" (by which I mean in circumstances where they wouldn't normally - i.e. if they aren't a woman sleeping with a man). I know that's going to offend plenty of people who have struggled with their fertility and ached for a child, and for that I'm sorry - I feel for your pain, I really, really do.

As a species we are a parasite and a fatal liability to this earth. We should not be having as many children as we are, already.

So no, we shouldn't be using the finite resources of the struggling NHS to facilitate more babies coming into the world in general.

I know 2 couples who went through the process very recently and they were told if they adopted siblings they would move up the list quicker... and it would take much longer for a single child.

1 couple chose to do just that for the very reason.

I cant see why there would be more miscarriage from iui.?
yes ivf is more successful but it is because it removes male factor. But same sex and single people dont have that issue, and wha t i just read showed they are both pretty success ful with iui. Although surprisingly the same sex were more successful. (Wonder if th at is std in single women? Or maybe issues from previous pregnancies or abortions or the pill etc?)
Same sex women a re likely to be younger looking to conceive.
possibly 3-4 iui then moving onto ivf.

if ivf is so much more successful we need to tackle male.weight and health factors.a

i hadnt factored in the cost of the sperm donation.

.
A hetero couple.can go along reasonably thinking they with take maybe 6 months to conceive at 30 or a year at 35 etc. Have no prior knowledge of fertility issues.
A same sex female in a couple knows that it will cost and maybe unsuccessful involving ivf and iui. So may save up or try earlier. Time to save up.
A single woman knows fertility declines by 35. Should know clinics take time etc. Has had time to save.

i guess i see the same sex and single a bit like a woman leaving it to late 30s.

unintended consequences: if single women could go straight to paid for nhs ivf certainly a woman in a couple where the man is subfertile might choose to leave him and be more successful with donor ivf. Or those who are around 35 because it would avoid the 2years ttc....

i would probably consider lowering the age for nhs ivf. But ensure wait lists/time ttc was less ..

but long term we want to reduce the numbers of babies born this way (ivf).
ive had 3 general anasthetics. And 4 ovarian stimulations. Turned my ovaries off using the meds that delay puberty - which were shown not to be good for you.