Suing the NHS to gain access to ivf treatment

[AliceIdentifiesasaCamel]

Supposed to be getting ready to do school run, so dropping this here, will return later. When I can organise my words into something coherent

news.sky.com/story/nhs-sued-over-transgender-fertility-treatment-11509918

The NHS is being sued, so this is an active issue right now. Its ridiculous to say we shouldn't talk about it.

No one has the right to IVF or to have their sperm or eggs stored. Not cancer patients or people who are infertile, or people serving in the armed forces or police.
The services to store eggs or sperm or for IVF exist, but people have to pay. It shouldn't be any different for trans people.

I said this before on this subject, but how the hell is this supposed to work?

A great number of scenarios would involve surrogacy as far as I can see, so more ethical conundrums.

Plus, this is surely making yourself voluntarily sterile. Therefore it should be up to the individual to pay. When women can't get ivf if their partner had children in a previous relationship, this is inappropriate,

This will end NHS IVF for everyone. It hardly funds any right now.

That way no one will be able to claim discrimination.

Bit shit for everyone whose infertility wasn’t caused by self diagnosed conditions.

Still, once T May has had transgenderism uncoupled from gender dysphoria, there will be no NHS treatment for trans people at all.

That’s what self ID will get you.

Oh, and when children are being forced into this before they even hit puberty, they don't get the option to be fertile. I'd support them suing the organizations like mermaids who robbed them.

This will end NHS IVF for everyone. It hardly funds any right now.

I wondered that too.

From a thread in August when this was first announced:
I think this would mean egg collection & storage, some anticipate surrogacy There are quite a lot of youtube videos with this being discussed:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjG08N7xkUM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMCt2yZr8uA

see also:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3333708-NHS-faces-lawsuit-for-not-funding-fertility-services-for-transgenders-who-want-kids

Recent complaint about prioritising of mastectomies for those women with cancer over those transmen having elective surgery. There was talk of a protest being organised for yesterday about this somewhere in London:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3368777-To-think-that-in-the-current-dire-state-of-the-NHS-finances-its-a-no-brainer-that-first-priority-for-mastectomies-goes-to-cancer-patients

Yes I agree that this will just mean the nhs will decide not to fund it for anyone. Can’t be accused of inequality then can they?

Nobody gets ivf regardless of reasons. So who suffers because of trans ideology? Women! Surprise!

This has at least peak-transed a friend of mine who is completely horrified by this story.

Apologies, this is the main thread discussing the issue which should have been linked with the videos above (worth reading):
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3326933-NHS-told-give-trans-patients-equal-access-to-fertility-service

Yes I agree that this will just mean the nhs will decide not to fund it for anyone. Can’t be accused of inequality then can they?

They are specifically seeking parity with the fertility treatment protocols for people diagnosed with cancer.

Do they anticipate lots of future willing surrogates?

Putting the moral issues of vessel-using aside, surely there aren’t many women who are both willing and able?

There is no way I would risk another pregnancy, especially not for a child I wouldn’t keep. Perhaps at one point I would’ve been willing to do it for my sister, but my own kids took such a toll on my own health (and the well-being of the entire family while I was incapacitated/recovering) there is no way I would agree to it now.

Plus yes, anyone that had puberty blockers and then cross sex hormones will have no viable gametes to store anyway.

The difficulty may lie in the anticipation that IVF in such cases would draw on the special fund - the one that is currently targeted at people with rare genetic disorders; those whose fertility is compromised through cancer etc.

The special fund is limited and there are many calls on it. Expanding the numbers of groups who can call on it might lead to it being largely withdrawn as unfundable given the expansion in the numbers with the scope of need.

Two women in the UK are killed every week by their cis male partners/former partners.

Maybe that's a better starting point.

We mitigate this by providing women's only spaces, such as women's shelters.

The 'Cis-men do this too!' argument isn't the trump card TRAs think it is, especially if we reject the genderist cis/trans distinction and treat all biological males as male.

Of course this argument is going to end up being the usual we will all kill ourselves if we don't get what we want.
And if everyone threatened this, MH services would fall over completely, there's already fuck all funding for it. Except in the case of TRAs threatening it, it's simple emotional blackmail.

I'm really harsh on this, I know most of you won't agree with me. But one could claim feeling suicidal about breast size, a big nose, going bald, not having children, being fat, being too hairy, etc etc. There are people who are genuinely distraught about these and other issues. Im not going to comment on or rank any of those concerns. However using the threat of suicide to jump a queue is manipulative. If I go into the housing office and threaten to kill myself if they don't find me a flat, they'd laugh me out the place. There's a long waiting list and I don't even qualify in terms of need. Housing issues can be horrendous, but why is that response expected but the NHS response is expected to be affirmation affirmation affirmation?
What I'm trying to say is that we accept the right of certain government agencies to say no but not the NHS. Why is that? Is medical care a more emotive subject?

It's not harsh it's realistic. Many people become depressed and suicidal over a huge range of issues. Most do not use it as leverage to get their own way.

The way this often gets reported on and trotted out as an argument is a massive affront to the Samaritan guidelines on responsible messages around suicide.

A friends husband has just been diagnosed with testicular cancer. He will have his testicle removed and the chemotherapy could possibly leave him infertile. The NHS won’t fund the freezing and storing of his sperm, and what with him having to give up his job to fight this disease, they can’t afford to pay for this themselves, let alone the ivf cycles that will follow. At the ages of 27 and 29 they know that they will most probably be childless.

He didn’t ask for this.

If there’s funding available, it should go to him, not people that choose to become infertile

How is it possible for trans people to have biological children if they’ve moved directly from puberty blockers to hormone treatment? Doesn’t no puberty mean no viable eggs or sperm?

People who threaten suicide are statistically more likely to commit homicide than those who do not.

This is why threats of suicide are a red flag in a romantic relationship.

The way this often gets reported on and trotted out as an argument is a massive affront to the Samaritan guidelines on responsible messages around suicide.
That's a good point.
It all leaves a bad taste in my mouth

People who threaten suicide are statistically more likely to commit homicide than those who do not.
I didn't know that. Makes sense. Is it related to the all or nothing personality type? I don't know the right name for it sorry

All this will result in is trans people getting access to fertility services on an equal basis to women.

And given that in my area no women get access to fertility services on the NHS that's a 0 x 1 equation.

This will simply be expanded to other areas despite NICE guidance.

I'm sure that people taking the legal action know that this is the case in practice. Anyone with half a brain would understand this - and I expect lawyers to be giving advice with half a brain.

I therefore regard the purpose of this legal action, not to be about trans fertility but to be about ending the role the reproductive role of as many women as possible.

And yes it's correct that women do not have a right to IVF under the NHS as it stands.

Not sure Turph - here’s British study on it: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41887-017-0009-8

And here is the Staffs police leaflet on coercive control, suicide threats are listed on page 6:

www.staffordshire.police.uk/media/4785/Controlling-or-Coercive-Behaviour-Help-Guide/pdf/Coercive_Behaviour_Brochure_A4_v10.pdf

(Apologies for the digression, y’all, just wanted to back up my assertions!)

All this will result in is trans people getting access to fertility services on an equal basis to women.

The legal challenge is (I am pretty confident) seeking parity with protocols for those diagnosed with cancer.

They are discussed in the thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3326933-NHS-told-give-trans-patients-equal-access-to-fertility-service

this may also become relevent with regards possible surrogacy.