NHS told: give trans patients equal access to fertility service

[miri1985]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/04/nhs-trans-patients-equal-access-fertility-services

Anyone betting the EHRC don't take the same action to force the NHS to give women access to laser or electrolysis brought on by PCOS or menopause

Wait until the trans children change their minds in a few years and sue the NHS for allowing to them to do this - that will destroy the NHS.

Yes I think the nhs will soon start to ration ivf and this will speed up that decision.

Locally my Gp surgery have stopped doing ear syringing. The receptionist quite clearly told me the local commissioning body has stopped paying them to do it so they’ll no longer do it. They’ve stopped funding it as it’s not considered a medical necessity. I have small, waxy ears which frequently get blocked to such an extent that it makes me feel dizzy and sick and affects my balance. So I now have to pay privately.

I don’t mean to compare ear syringing to ivf treatment but just showing it as an example of how commissioning groups are looking at stuff. For how much longer will they say ivf is a medical necessity?

This is crazy.

As highlighted above, either these children are or are not capable of fully understanding the consequences of the decision that they're making. This illustrates once again that of course they ARE NOT.

Nobody actually has the right to have children, IMO (I am infertile and have no children myself, so not being a hypocrite here). This is another delusion being encouraged in vulnerable children by adults who should bloody well know better - that whatever you want in life, you can just have, science and the NHS will deliver.

On the BBC now: www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45073576

A watchdog is threatening NHS England with legal action if it does not begin offering fertility treatments to transgender patients as standard.

Threats seem to be very standard in all of this.

Thanks for the clarification, miri1985.

Even though I confused the organisations, I still think it all stems from the idea that affirmation is a human right. A human right which appears to trump all other human rights.

YYY to all the above :(

Isn't it strange that the ECHR has never stepped in to decide that the postcode lottery of IVF and cancer treatments (plus many others lke joint replacement) are unfair and discriminatory.

Children who trans as early as mermaids want will not have nature sperm or ova to be able to be banked.

While girls are born with all their eggs, ova do not mature until part way through puberty. Most boys have sperm in semen by 13 but there isn’t a specific cut off age- it’s more to do with pubertal progression.

So a child who is, as mermaids advocate, given blocker pre onset of puberty then cross sex hormones will not have mature gametes to save.

The good news is that the more publicity this sort of stuff gets, the more the general public will start to say wtf, especially those who perceive that they themselves will be affected, in this case people struggling with infertility.

Bowl, so essentially, this action wouldn't have any effect on retaining the fertility of children being processed into the blockers/hormones route anyway? It's entirely for the benefit of adult transitioners?

We are told that being transgender isn't a mental illness .The NHS is being stretched to its limits (and beyond) so why on earth should it fund this? The NHS cannot afford it, simple.

YY Bowl, and I found this quote from the article very poignant, from the parent of a trans child

it isn’t realistic to expect a child to want to be able to have their own children

It isn’t realistic to expect children to have any understanding of how they will feel about having their fertility compromised, no.

I do support preservation of fertility because I don’t think that option should be closed off for children who aren’t capable of understanding the magnitude of their decision. However, that also applies to the removal of their fertility.

I’m also very concerned about how it is being sold to them. Does a young girl who goes through the brutal process of having her eggs harvested think this will pretty much mean she’ll be a biological parent? Because it really, really doesn’t.

I’m also concerned about the possible roll back of surrogacy laws. You can bet the TRAs will be pushing for this.

Bowl, so essentially, this action wouldn't have any effect on retaining the fertility of children being processed into the blockers/hormones route anyway? It's entirely for the benefit of adult transitioners?

It’ll depend on the age of the child. If they’ve started puberty or just gone through it there’s a possibility of mature gametes. If they’re been given blockers pre puberty or at pubertal onset they will not have mature gametes to save.
So the primary population who will benefit are adults. A child put on the blockers/hormones route as puberty starts is going to be sterile. Full stop.

I’m sure I don’t need to tell anyone on the thread this, but I’ll say it for anyone lurking - harvesting sperm is pretty easy but harvesting eggs is a very unpleasant process for a woman - and also has health risks of its own.

Isn't it strange that the ECHR has never stepped in to decide that the postcode lottery of IVF and cancer treatments (plus many others lke joint replacement) are unfair and discriminatory.

I can also testify that the protocols for those diagnosed with cancer being referred for fertility guidance and possible treatment is also a postcode lottery.

I have experienced all three. IVF options were very poor relative to other areas. I was then fortunate in that both cancer treatments and fertility protocols were amongst the better postcodes.

I was aware that the lobby might be pushing for parity with regards fertility options for those diagnosed with cancer.

Its incredibly difficult to even begin to talk about this having both been affected and knowing many others who have had cancer diagnosis.

I think the leverage for this comes from the NHS report published earlier this year about transgender healthcare.

This wasn't the only area where equality of treatments was been sought.

From the BBC article:

The equality watchdog sent a pre-action letter to NHS England on Friday, which it said was the first step towards a judicial review, and asked them to make gamete extraction and storage available to anyone having treatment for gender dysphoria.

All the more reason for the government to support self-ID.

ROwan

Article in the Times highlights the contrast between this and cancer patients at risk of reduced fertility ‘now not automatically being offereed the option to freeze their reproductive cells.’ Am finding this a bit shocking - especially in contrast to the nhs being told it must make this offer as standard to trans patients.

As others have said the nhs is having to make very hard choices these days, and having to make priorities. Here we have the trans lobby yet again wanting themselves front of the queue - ahead of cancer patients and others. . Not going to play well with the general public.

I’m also very concerned about how it is being sold to them. Does a young girl who goes through the brutal process of having her eggs harvested think this will pretty much mean she’ll be a biological parent? Because it really, really doesn’t
I’m also concerned about the possible roll back of surrogacy laws

Watching some of the YouTube videos of young female born transgender people discussing egg harvesting increases these concerns.

Surely one possible result of this is that the NHS says 'we can't provide fertility treatment so we can't provide hormone treatment'? So effectively the option to transition will be cut off? Or are the so terrified of the TRA lobby that they'd rather sink the NHS first?

It's not a comparable situation in so many ways.

If (& it is a big if) a person diagnosed with cancer has a referral to fertility services, for females, there is often a critical time issue. Starting a process of egg harvesting may require delay of treatment. Also for some cancers, starting the required hormone treatments requires a consideration of risk. Some cancers are hormone receptive. The person diagnosed is also in a state of trauma about their future.
The consequences of all of these factors will likely mean that though there is a protocol and pssiblity for egg harvesting and storage, it would likely be a small percentage of females diagnosed with cancer who go ahead.
Similarly, one has to consider the future reality for those diagnosed with cancer who have stored eggs in terms of whether they choose or are able to go ahead in the future with attempts to then have a child whether through IVF or surrogacy.

There are many differences to the circumstances.

That video that Rowan posted

"I can officially say that I have 10 children in the freezer"

... errr that's not how it works, at all. They'd need to be fertilised, transplanted and gestated (surrogate?), you're probably going to loose some along the way. So they maybe have 1 or 2 children potentially?

Also, how come you can't voluntarily be sterilise when you're young (20s&30s) but old enough to know what you're doing but you can if you just say I'm the opposite sex??

Children who trans as early as mermaids want will not have nature sperm or ova to be able to be banked.

I was just thinking that, Bowlofbabelfish.

I'm not sure this is such a bad news story if it will mean infertility is properly discussed prior to puberty blockers being prescribed. It may mean fewer families take that step. It may lessen the pressure on parents to agree to their child going down this 'totally reversible' route.

Even when gametes can be successfully stored, or donor gametes used, young people and their parents need to be told honestly what 'equal access' to fertility treatment looks like - 0 - 3 rounds of IVF depending on your postcode. I believe there are numerous age and health related restrictions as well. They will need to be told honestly what the chances of success are too.

Surrogacy is (quite rightly) not something available on the NHS. Any suggestions it should be available for trans patients will need countering strongly.

There is currently a government consultation on the equality act which focuses on the role of EHRC. One of the items they want evidence on is:

Whether changes are needed to the Commission’s approach to using its enforcement powers as set out in its policies (such as the strategic litigation policy and compliance and enforcement policy) or as implemented in practice, and the way it identifies and selects legal cases to lead or support;

The other reason EHRC has been in the news over the last couple of days is their report to CEDAW detailing the sorry state of women's rights in the UK. I don't know whether they are doing much with their statutory powers or strategic litigation to counter sex inequality. I intend to find out.

EHRC are one of the organisations that have been found to be using 'gender' instead of 'sex', which is quite shocking given their legal role. They released a statement this week, saying To avoid any ambiguity, we are reviewing our use of language across our website and publications to ensure clarity and consistency.

how Will this tie in with:

Push for demedicalisation if adults? As noted above this will apply for treatment for gender dysphoria - the very condition adults are trying to have removed from the books.

How will it work with our current (very strict, thank goodness) surrogacy laws?

In short - who is going to actually bear these children? Someone who has not undergone puberty and been on blockers and cross sex hormones will have significant atrophy of the Reproductive system. For a male who has had sperm harvested things are easier IF they have a fertile female partner.

How is this supposed to work?

R0wantrees

www.healthline.com/health-news/donate-egg-become-infertile#2

Egg donation is a really serious business - some quotes from the link above:

I felt fully recovered within days of retrieval
Yes, it's a procedure that takes days to recover from (and that's just the retrieval, not even hormones in the lead up to it)

then:

The first sign that something was wrong came when my period just stopped. Months went by with no sign of my cycle. Then when it did return, it was with excruciating pain.

I began running fevers every time I got my period, doubling over in such pain that I couldn’t walk and often vomited because I was hurting so badly. That pain began to extend into my day-to-day life, even when I wasn’t on my period.

It turned out that she had stage 4 endometriosis, likely she had it before without knowing, but the hormones from the egg donation aggravated it to unmanageable levels, and left her infertile. The clinic that took her eggs stopped responding to her calls, leaving her to pay for all of this herself.

No research has been done on this - women are told it's a rare sideeffect, but mislead regarding the safety of egg donation.

On the scales of balance, it seems to me that putting a child through this so they can go on hormones doesn't actually balance. Just like to me, putting them on hormones for this alleged risk of suicide (also un-researched) doesn't balance.

I think 5% (could be totally wrong on that but it’s a few percent) risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome which is potentially fatal too.

In the guardian article the usual line of ‘potentially life saving’ gender affirmation treatment is trotted out. How anyone can justify putting a child through egg harvesting unless they’re facing a life threatening illness treatment is beyond me.

Where the hell are the ethics committees in this?