Single people who want children will be classed as infertile.

[quencher]

This is a guideline according to the WHO. They say it's a right for everyone to have access and should be treated and classed in the same category of those who are infertile because of medical issues.
I don't think the NHS can coupe with this. I also, don't think that not having a partner makes you infertile.

Please help me see where the WHO is coming from and why they have come to this conclusion.

I have managed to find a link which sort of explains it.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/single-men-will-get-the-right-to-start-a-family-under-new-defini/

When you say the nhs can't cope with this, what do you mean? What is it you are expecting the NHS to do?

The NHS is already catering for infertile couples. They are given three rounds of ivf. What would happen is if the WHOs guideline is to be accepted by the NHS, or a court case where a single person wins the right to have a child through the NHS because they can't find a partner. I don't think the NHS will be able to cope financially. The other thing I see happening is cuts will have to be made on the rounds of ivf couples can get in order to cater for everyone else.

Single people wouldn't necessarily need IVF though.

If they can't get pregnant through sperm donation, why should they be ineligible for IVF if they don't have a partner?

I wonder if the NHS started doing sperm if you would just have to take what was offered to you? As far as I am aware don't you get a choice when you pay for it, look through donors for one that matches your wants for the child...

I hope this isn't something the NHS would take on. It's bad enough with some of the things they have already taken on and IMO wasted money on.

The NHS would have to pay for the sperm donation. It would be the right of the single people to have access to treatment on the same way you would have someone having ivf. Both would have rights of equal measure because by definition, which they have given, being infertile is not just a medical issue but including those who just haven't found a partner.

I think that payment should be brought back for sperm and ova donation. Making sure that lesbians don't get AIDS from unreguated donors is cost effective. Possibly the couple should pay or the sperm / ova donation.

The idea of commerical surrogacy is ahorrant. Maybe one day it will be possible to grow a baby in a lab.

ReallyTired you just gave me a really weird mental image of rows of jars with baby's floating in them with parents visiting them, pressing their noses up against the glass like a kid at an aquarium

Oh! I have made a mistake there by not including, surrogates for men. This is the only way a can see them having access to having a child. The government would have to have a proper legislation on surrogacy compared to what they have now.

The guideline may be 3 rounds of IVF on the nhs but the practicality is that there is rationing. I know couples who have had one 'free' and if it fails they have gladly paid for additional rounds. Since when has 'infertility' been re-defined as not necessarily a medical condition that needs treating but a social concept of not having the wherewithall to conceive. If those who want IVF because they are single or not with a partner of the opposite sex (sorry gender) on the NHS they should pay for their choice (the NHS cannot do everything for every one )

Here's my take.

I have watched my two dearest friends deal with the possibility of not having children for different reasons, and for both it has been heartbreaking.

The first is married, in a stable relationship and was infertile for medical reasons. It was awful for them as a couple. However she was able to access IVF on the NHS and now has two lovely children.

The second had a ten-year relationship break down in her early 30s. She hasn't been in a long-term relationship since, though not for want of putting herself out there. She wants children. She is now 39 and the reality that it increasingly likely she will not be a mother is very, very difficult to deal with - I'd say as hard as my friend who was medically infertile albeit without the monthly rollercoaster.

My friend is considering whether to try assisted conception alone, and particularly whether she has the emotional resources to be a single parent. It's not an easy decision so I'm not sure the impact on the NHS would be as great as people suggest.

At the end of the day, neither of my friends would/will be mothers without medical intervention. I'm not sure why one would be considered more deserving because she has a partner.

My friend is considering whether to try assisted conception alone, and particularly whether she has the emotional resources to be a single parent. It's not an easy decisio
Jassy your examples are great. This is the thing though, would you call your single friend infertile? That is what the WHO has just done, classed your friend as infertile and on par with your ivf friends.

The idea of an artificial womb or ectogenis is not that far fetched. Neonatal intensive care is getting better all the time.

www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/12/artificial-wombs-the-coming-era-of-motherless-births/

I think the idea of being able to have a biological child without getting pregnant could be attractive. Women would not have to choose between motherhood and the impact of taking maternity leave on a career. Or we could take off 6 months for the nice bit rather than being on medical sick leave because of a shitty pregnancy.

We just have to make human breast milk by genetic engineering.

Jassy your examples are great. This is the thing though, would you call your single friend infertile?

I'm not sure the semantics are terribly useful. However we get hung up on words - medically or situationally infertile; and of course my situationally infertile friend could also be medically infertile - the outcome is the same. People who want to have a baby, but cannot have one.

I'm not sure why the choice (to use mollie's term) to want to be a parent is less valid for one than for the other.

Hmm I haven't read the who statement. Could it be that they are advising single people shouldn't be discriminated against in offering fertility treatment, because they are single?
So for example not restricting donor sperm to married couples. Or if a woman is having difficulty conceiving offering her IVF regardless of her relationship status.
I can well believe there are places where unmarried people won't be offered the same treatment as married couples even if they are in a LTR or gay relationship

The world health organisation looks at health care on a global level. In most countries people pay for health care. What the WHO is saying is that no moral judgement should prevent access to IVF. In some countries it's illegal for unmarried or gay people to access IVF even if they pay for it.

I think it's fair to allow single women or lesbians access to safe sperm. Possibly it would make sense for them to financially contribute to the cost if they want to select the appearance of a donor.

To say that IVF is available on the NHS to couples who have tried to conceive by other means for a set period is not homophobic. I don't think that WHO is suggesting that women should have IVF for free as the first step in conceiving a child. The health risks of IVF as considerable.

As for gay couples who want a baby. It's possible to recongise their pain of not being able to have a child even if there is little that can be done about it at the present time.

I think gay and lesbian couples already get help on NHS or are about to, being considered. The issue is more on the couples who choose or are unable to find partners to have children with.

I see little difference between a single woman wanting help or a lesbian. I can see someone wanting artificial insemination lightly.

I see little difference between a single woman wanting help or a lesbian. I can see someone wanting artificial insemination lightly.

I totally agree (I'm assuming the can see was a typo for can't see).

Why would they need ivf? They surely use a sperm donor or a surrogate. Ivf would only be if there other fertility issues. Most same sex couples do not go to the NHS for help having children, they tend to sort it out themselves. You have made a lot of leaps in your thinking op that this will be a massive burden on the NHS. If it is, adjustments to funding will pr sumably be made which will apply to all whether gay or straight, single or in a relationship. I say this as someone who paid privately for 4 ivf cycles, no other children, it was before it was available on NHS. So I do know th cost/stress etc involved.

You are right I should have written "can't"

Even if cost is not an issue IVF would not be the first line of attack. Artificial insemination is safer and simpler.

What the WHO is recongising is that the pain of not having children is experienced by people from all walks of life. I don't agree with surrogacy for anyone, but gay men should be allowed to apply to adopt a child.

NHS treatment is based on 'free at the point of need'
It does not suggest 'free at the point of want'
The NHS is supported by tax-payers and we all know it is not a bottomless pit of money and resources. There are more important things it needs to focus on .

As the WHO is a global organisation it does not take account of the situation and availability of health resources in every country in the world

Do WHO policies have any legal status? I would have thought not.

Wouldn't the same rules apply for people without an opposite sex partner - infertility has to be proved before access to IVF? It seems a leap to give somebody unnecessary medical treatment.

Also, the NHS doesn't pay for all medical treatment now - many things are excluded on the basis that they aren't an effective use of resources.

No, WHO doesn't have legal standing. The article says the NHS would be under no obligation to implement any guidance published by WHO.