LGBT couple's petition to get "equal" fertility treatment

[GlummyMcGlummerson]

An LGBT couple have launched a petition for gay and lesbian couples get the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to fertility treatment. Currently most heterosexual couples, after 2 years of being unable to conceive, would likely qualify for 2-3 rounds of IVF (depending where you live) on the NHS. This LGBT couple think it's discrimination that they don't get the same right.

My lesbian friend has asked me to sign it.

I'm not signing it simply because I don't think it's discrimination because heterosexual couples don't need to use an outside source for their conception when offered IVF. The outside source being an actual human being.

I'm actually pretty furious that ANYONE thinks it's their god given right to use a man's sperm and even more furious that they think they'd be entitled to a woman's egg and body (with men using a surrogate). Do these people realise men and women are human, and that there'd be implications for the baby? My friend is donor conceived and has gone through hell and back WRT (accidentally) finding her birth father, and having the complications that brings (and sadly the eventual rejection) 1 all of which is common now thanks to the likes of ancestry DNA. She always says she wishes her mum, adoptive dad and bio dad would have thought of her and the impact on her when they were going through all this.

Assuming that there was "equality", and gay and lesbian couples qualified for free fertility treatment - where are all the sperm/ donors and surrogates going to come from? And how will the NHS take care of them and the children they conceive? Sperm donation is way more tightly regulated than it used to be, thank god, due to the impact on those conceived - how will this all be regulated and who will foot the Bill? To me, it's just a short cut to normalising surrogacy and creating a market for commercial surrogacy.

Equality doesn't always means "you get exactly the same" especially when circumstances are so different.

https://www.change.org/p/matt-hancock-stop-discriminating-against-lgbtq-families-in-the-nhs?utmcontent=cllsharecopy254207899en-GB%3A0&recruitedbyyid=5e4a1470-278c-11eb-8dba-0dfc9da35170&utmsource=shareepetition&utmmedium=copylink&utmmcampaign=psfcombooshare_initial

Infertile people get health care for that because it's their body not working right.

Insofar as the treatment is actually able to fix the problem, I think it's validly described as health care, though whether it's funded health care will depend on all the other factors that go into decisions about funding different procedures and drugs.

A gay or lesbian couple aren't unable to conceive because their bodies are working improperly. They are unable to conceive because they are working the way they are supposed to.

I don't really consider gamete donation as having anything to do with solving the problem for anyone, any more than adoption would. It's different than something like an organ donation or even an artificial limb, which make life more functional in an immediate way for the individual - it mitigates the immediate health problem albeit imperfectly.

Apart from that, I think gamete donation in the end comes down to the creation of children to sell or give away - it creates them as a product, however much they are loved and wanted, and that's a problem on a society wide level and affects how we think about children. Goodness knows there is a lot of push to consider them as products already.

From my perspective it shouldn't be funded, or allowed on the market, for anyone.

"Infertile people get health care for that because it's their body not working right."

Absolutely agree with this @Goosefoot
It explains the need for ivf in a clear way to me. We treat for other issues that may not be diseases or killing people, but just that a part of their body isn't working right biologically/medically and needs assistance.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

There's a huge difference between a lesbian couple having ivf using donor sperm for one of them to conceive a child

Unless there are female fertility problems, a lesbian couple don't need ivf and I don't think it should be routinely offered. They would need artificial insemination, but I don't think that needs to be done on the NHS unless the male donor/co parent has sperm issues.

A lesbian couple may not need IVF but that is something they may opt for. My girlfriend and I are, as we are doing reciprocal IVF. All privately funded, using donor sperm, and despite many people on here suggesting that is wrong, donor sperm is the only way we would be able to have a family.

I think this has got a little off topic and is now verging on saying that same sex couples shouldn’t really have children as ethically it isn’t right.

I think this has got a little off topic and is now verging on saying that same sex couples shouldn’t really have children as ethically it isn’t right.

It’s not about same sex people as parents. The ethical concerns are around the use of donor gametes and surrogates. 2 very different issues.

Circus is right.

It's also not about whether same-sex couples should have access to IVF treatment (they have access to testing, they might need to pay for it privately just like hereto couples) it's actually about whether the NHS should pay for it...and if the NHS is to pay for it then they should pay for it for hereto couples too, otherwise that would be discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation.

It works both ways and ultimately the NHS can't afford it anyway, even before anyone considers the ethics of egg donation/retrieval and spent donors and surrogate mothers.

@Circusoflove

I think this has got a little off topic and is now verging on saying that same sex couples shouldn’t really have children as ethically it isn’t right.

It’s not about same sex people as parents. The ethical concerns are around the use of donor gametes and surrogates. 2 very different issues.

It goes hand in hand, does it not? I haven't said that it calls in to question how same sex couples would parent the child, instead that for a same sex couple there is no other option, and to argue that it is wrong to use donor sperm or eggs is saying that if you cannot conceive naturally then in actual fact you shouldn't...

The same applies for a woman who is unable to have her own children due to cancer treatment, or a man who has a low sperm count and needs donor sperm...

In some cases, there is no other option than donor sperm or eggs, or indeed surrogates (all of which are voluntary), and with saying that this is wrong, wouldn't allow anyone to have a child, regardless of relationship or medical issues...

My point is that the petition is about fertility treatment and not about the ethical issues surrounding sperm and egg donation... I appreciate people have their own views, as do I, but I am unsure if Whitney and Megan (the couple who have started the petition) are suggesting same sex couples should be given sperm and eggs free of charge (which I disagree with, as I have stated several times...)

The NHS does not provide or find surrogates for anyone, whether it's a same-sex male couple or a heterosexual couple where the woman has had, say, a hysterectomy.

Infertility treatment yes; IVF sometimes in a limited way depending on postcode (and that isn't fair and needs fixing) but not surrogacy.

Gay male couples seeking equal treatment will not find it includes surrogacy; they must already know that. The most they would get is a sperm count and treatment for any connected issues. Male fertility treatment is notorious for being light years behind the female equivalent.

I remember our GP telling me, "Cross your fingers his count is good. If it isn't, there's sweet FA we can do about it "

It's always been relatively straightforward to source donor sperm, but the female equivalent is exponentially more complicated.

I remember our GP telling me, "Cross your fingers his count is good. If it isn't, there's sweet FA we can do about it "

That isn’t quite true - you can do ICSI with very low sperm counts. But the general point about male fertility being behind (andI am not convinced it is) would fit with the idea that it is the woman’s fault. Historically it was always the case that the woman was considered barren - never the man.

I'm not sure women's fertility healthcare is exactly lightyears ahead of men's! Having been through IVF 5 times, they just kept telling us to keep doing rounds and hopefully one will stick. They had no other advice!

Circus is indeed right: this is not about the fitness or otherwise of any demographic to be parents; it's about the impossibility of asking the NHS to provide surrogacy for anyone. It just isn't going to happen, not until we have Huxley style artificial wombs, anyway, and look what sort of Brave New World that turned out to be. Especially for women. 😳

You simply can't conscript or dragoon adults into giving up a year of their time and risking their lives without their consent, and even if you could you shouldn't.

I admit it's a logical extension of the misogyny that views women as service humans and demands male needs to be centred, but it's simply not going to happen. Not outside a toxic totalitarian state. 🤷🏼‍♀️

The only comparator for 'equality' is surely that a same sex couple has the same 'rights' as a mixed sex couple known to not include both a functioning womb and testicles. The same sex couple may generally be able to skip the sometimes long and painful diagnosis of infertility which a heterosexual couple may have to go through.

I think this has got a little off topic and is now verging on saying that same sex couples shouldn’t really have children as ethically it isn’t right.

Only in the sense that if gamete donation is off the table for ethical reasons, IFV for gay or lesbian couples isn't usually going to be an issue anyway.

It would be equally a problem for anyone else who didn't have access to the right kinds of gametes, be it single people or heterosexual couples with certain fertility issues.

Snuggly I'm not seeing anyone particularly having an issue with sperm donation. Producing semen has no negative physical effect on the person producing it!

You probably won't want to say, but why opt to have children via a route that is way more physical and emotional challenging etc when an easier one is available?

Newlygranny- the USA wants to get their fingers into the NHS.

Maybe acting as a surrogate could be in lieu of paying astronomical fees for treatment for yourself or your family? Say you have an ill toddler that you can't afford to treat. Mum could have another baby and and hand it over as payment? I'm sure that could be painted as a gorgeous win/win story with not to much effort tbh.

Yes I hope that's a silly idea but who knows.

A lesbian couple may not need IVF but that is something they may opt for. My girlfriend and I are, as we are doing reciprocal IVF. All privately funded, using donor sperm, and despite many people on here suggesting that is wrong, donor sperm is the only way we would be able to have a family.

Yes, and you are self funding, so there's no issue. It shouldn't be an option on the NHS. I don't have a personal issue with donor sperm. IVF is different. You don't need IVF to use donor sperm. The NHS is for medical issues.

'Historically it was always the case that the woman was considered barren - never the man.'

This.

See also. Miscarriages. Medical issues in children.

Resulting in increasingly Draconian rules about women can or can't do when pregnant. There was something from CDC (I think it was) a while back saying all fertile women should be treated as 'pre pregnant' and so shouldn't drink etc :/

Yes and something in the UK recently that all women of childbearing age had to be asked about drinking before they got pregnant, so essentially the same thing.

@NiceGerbil

Snuggly I'm not seeing anyone particularly having an issue with sperm donation. Producing semen has no negative physical effect on the person producing it!

You probably won't want to say, but why opt to have children via a route that is way more physical and emotional challenging etc when an easier one is available?

Happy to talk about our reasons - I have a strong desire to carry a child, as I am sure a lot of women can relate to. I have for as long as I can remember, however being gay, it is going to be more difficult in a few ways (just in terms of associated cost, planning, logistics etc)

My girlfriend however, has no desire to carry a child, but wants children. I also have PCOS, and do not ovulate, and so using my eggs will most likely not be effective, and therefore we would be paying thousands of pounds to achieve nothing. We have chosen to use my girlfriends eggs, in addition to donate half to an unknown recipient, as we want to allow another couple (straight, gay, whoever) to have the chance to have a baby.

It will be physically and emotionally challenging, as well as very expensive, but for us, the correct decision.

The IVF is due to fertility issues then which does of course make sense.

In your original reply that wasn't clear.

The point about your partner wanting children but not wanting to be pregnant/ give birth is how a lot of women feel tbh! It's not exactly a walk in the park. If course in a het couple it's the female partner or. Surrogacy.

That adds another interesting dimension into the mix.

What if you want children and are female but really don't want to be pregnant. Say you have serious psychological reasons around it for whatever reason... Should a surrogate be provided.

The whole thing is a minefield tbh.

The very basic fact that

Producing semen is totally incomparable to bring pregnant and giving birth

That's just a fact.

Most lesbians end up having IVF rather than IUI because it’s more effective per cycle. IUI is cheaper but if you need multiple rounds it becomes expensive especially as you use a vial of sperm each time. It’s also time consuming. It’s not easy to attend multiple appointments around work.

I expect fertility clinics are quite happy for lesbians to have IVF in preference to IUI as it will be good for their success rates. They’re treating relatively young women with no known fertility issues and top quality sperm.

I mention IVF a few times as that is the only way my girlfriend and I will be able to conceive.

*I have PCOS and do not ovulate, so we will do reciprocal IVF where I carry and we use my partners eggs.

Though I’m sure there will be some opinions as to the ethics surrounding it, that is going to be the most cost effective way with the best chance of success (aside from my girlfriend carrying, which she has no desire to do)*

You’re having IVF because your girlfriend “has no desire” to carry a baby?! I really hope it’s privately funded.

Apologies just read back and seen you are self funding.

Hi Asnuggly

I'm always interested in the egg sharing side of things as I understand that clinics often provide a discount if you egg share.

As it's a financial incentive I wonder if that breaches the rules about being an altruistic donor as you're not allowed to receive payment for donating gametes.

Also, I wonder, and I hope you don't mind me asking, but any child from you and your girlfriend will also potentially have half siblings. How would you handle that in terms of remaining anonymous or would you want your child to know then, and how would you feel if your treatment was unsuccessful but a treatment for another couples with your girlfriend's eggs was successful. Obviously your girlfriend's eggs would be matched, rather you and her choosing who they go to.

I'm genuinely interested in how you have navigated this as a couple.

(And I'm sorry about your PCOS, that's really horrible for you, particularly as you wanted to carry yourself.)

Snuggly, I think the solution of you carrying the pregnancy started with your girlfriend's egg is perfect! Fingers crossed it works out for you both. 🤞

@minipie

I mention IVF a few times as that is the only way my girlfriend and I will be able to conceive.

*I have PCOS and do not ovulate, so we will do reciprocal IVF where I carry and we use my partners eggs.

Though I’m sure there will be some opinions as to the ethics surrounding it, that is going to be the most cost effective way with the best chance of success (aside from my girlfriend carrying, which she has no desire to do)*

You’re having IVF because your girlfriend “has no desire” to carry a baby?! I really hope it’s privately funded.

Yes - she has no drive, or desire to carry a child... and for that I will not say sorry. Many women want children, but don't want to be pregnant... or can't be pregnant for many medical reasons... and to be honest, even if she carried the baby (which by the way, she will if I have no success, as is unfortunately highly likely) she will carry but this will still require the use of donor sperm (or at least try to) but nobody knows about any infertility until they try.

Of course we are funding this privately - I would not expect the NHS to fund IVF in this way. This is also why we won't use my eggs, or do IUI, as it just wouldn't be worth our while... I can't really say anything else other than that...