Article in the Guardian. Fertility discrimination.

[SpringCrocus]

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/07/married-lesbian-couple-launch-discrimination-action-against-nhs

Isn't there some middle ground between having to prove infertility and needing ivf? Presumably most lesbians aren't actually infertile, so shouldn't there be some other option to help them get pregnant?

apparently, it hasn't worked so far...

I saw this earlier - I’m not sure they can say the rules discriminate against lesbians, the same rules apply to a single woman.

I don't get why they think it's a case of discrimination? Neither of them is male. Therefore it's not the case if being "infertile" as it is with the heterosexual couples. It's a case that two women can't make a baby. It's not a medical isse to treat, so why is it something that the NHS should deal with? This just seems really entitled.

Add in the "people with wombs" comment, and the reference to

" the majority of cisgendered heterosexual couples, including Megan’s sister, are required only to try to conceive for two years."

I'm not sure what the Guardian are saying, here, tbh. But yes, it seems that there is a fair level of entitlement going on.

This isn't about infertility though, mainly it's about wanting the NHS to supply them with sperm so they can produce a child who will never know 50% of their own biology.

I this is successful, could it path the way for two men to argue that they also have a right to be provided with an egg and host to gestate a baby for them?

Not being able to conceive a child the traditional way because of your sexuality is not the same as being infertile though, so infertility treatment isn't necessarily appropriate. Sorry to be crude but the 'turkey baster' method would not need all the drugs and medical support that goes with IVF unless the woman who planned to carry the child had known fertility issues.

Unless they can say that they have been trying to get pregnant (with male involvement somehow) then how can they say that they have problems getting pregnant or carrying a baby to term?

They are complaining that a male/female couple has to try to have a baby for two years. They do know how this works don’t they? If a (gay or single) woman has been trying to have a baby in a ‘non traditional’ way (‘friend with benefits’ or sperm bank) then they would have an idea if there is something physically not working? Then they they can try fertility treatment (although the male element will still need to be acquired).

Such entitlement, such bloody entitlement. Isn’t it also possible for gay male couples to get surrogates on the NHS in Scotland? Did I imagine that?

And as for the flipping guardian and it’s ‘women and people with wombs’ and c*, they can get lost.

@Jasmine11

Not being able to conceive a child the traditional way because of your sexuality is not the same as being infertile though, so infertility treatment isn't necessarily appropriate. Sorry to be crude but the 'turkey baster' method would not need all the drugs and medical support that goes with IVF unless the woman who planned to carry the child had known fertility issues.

My sisters godchild was conceived via a gay male friend contribution and that DIY method. That’s what lesbians did back in the day...

@Kendodd

This isn't about infertility though, mainly it's about wanting the NHS to supply them with sperm so they can produce a child who will never know 50% of their own biology.

I this is successful, could it path the way for two men to argue that they also have a right to be provided with an egg and host to gestate a baby for them?

This is my concerns too.

I think these lesbian stories are a Trojan horse paving the way for couples where neither is a "uterus-haver" to claim their "rights" to parenthood.

There are already rumblings about NHS or state funding for surrogacy (aka putting women's lives at risk to carry babies for strangers) and calls for organ transplants for would-be parents born with the "wrong" body-parts.

It's a variation on "I want what they're having and I want someone else to pay for it."

I expect the legal bills could well have paid for cycles of IVF, this is a profile raising exercise.

However gay and lesbian couples pay taxes too, so maybe we need a rethink on how these resources are allocated. It’s only fair, but it’s not the same problem is it? I mean maybe one or both of them have fertility issues, however surely it’s not a like for like comparison?

I’m afraid I’ve read the article, and feel I must be missing something crucial.

I see it as a separate issue to infertility treatment. Perhaps it should be funded Perhaps it shouldn't? But I don't see the equivalency they are claiming. It'll be interesting what the courts say.

It’s an interesting dilemma that does need some kind of legislation, one for ethics committees to consider but hindered by local commissioning priorities and lack of available donated sperm and possibly Brexit? People used to travel to other EU countries and the comparator would presumably be a single woman who wanted to bear a child or a couple where the man’s infertility has been clinically proven

@Kendodd

This isn't about infertility though, mainly it's about wanting the NHS to supply them with sperm so they can produce a child who will never know 50% of their own biology.

I this is successful, could it path the way for two men to argue that they also have a right to be provided with an egg and host to gestate a baby for them?

Yes. Reproductive injustice (on several fronts and leaving aside the issue of infertility) is making headway as a campaigning issue with healthcare payers and systems.

Reproductive injustice may well work towards the provision of surrogacy on a number of grounds.

@Kendodd

This isn't about infertility though, mainly it's about wanting the NHS to supply them with sperm so they can produce a child who will never know 50% of their own biology.

I this is successful, could it path the way for two men to argue that they also have a right to be provided with an egg and host to gestate a baby for them?

I can't see how it wouldn't mean the NHS would be required to do so, in the sense of paying for those things.

If we are that accepting the material reality of healthy sexed bodies is discrimination, then what difference would it make if they were male or female?

@GeorgiaMcGraw

I don't get why they think it's a case of discrimination? Neither of them is male. Therefore it's not the case if being "infertile" as it is with the heterosexual couples. It's a case that two women can't make a baby. It's not a medical isse to treat, so why is it something that the NHS should deal with? This just seems really entitled.

Totally agree. It's a matter of basic biology, not a medical condition.

Stonewall’s apparent involvement in this rings alarm bells. After all, this is ostensibly an issue affecting only those old fashioned same-sex lesbian couples that they don’t really like to talk about anymore.

What this is really about is changing the meaning of infertility from being a medical problem to a social issue. Why would Stonewall want to do this? Well they’re lobbying for childhood medical transition which causes infertility.

If we can say that infertility is not a result of something going wrong with a person’s body but is in fact caused by a lack of access to resources - surrogates, gamete donors and so on - then it becomes not a personal tragedy for those young people but instead a societal failure to provide for them. Which lets Stonewall off the hook.

I can't see how it wouldn't mean the NHS would be required to do so, in the sense of paying for those things.

Lady Hale's judgment in re: purchasing surrogacy services in the US for a UK woman has made me very apprehensive.

policyexchange.org.uk/unlicensed-law-reformer-lady-hale-and-the-law-of-surrogacy/

Bad news is lots of people face fertility discrimination and they don’t have the monopoly on it. My fiancé and l have been trying for 3.5 years but nothing. We got 1 bargain basement round of IVF from the NHS which was a half arsed lazy disaster, we did our bit but not sure much about the clinic. The NHS hates paying for IVF and puts lots of barriers in the way e.g. try for 2 years but NICE guidelines say 6 months for over 35’s and 12 months for under 35’s. They must have been annoyed when l turned up to hospital appointments with a BMI of 25, a non-smoker and neither of us had any children. As there are other barriers. Ironically we are both nurses and worked for the NHS at that point

Then you have people on here who say “why not adopt”. Well, because like you we want OUR children. Or the other classic if you can’t afford IVF, then you can’t afford children. We need £16k for the type of IVF we need. Both paid taxes for years and very healthy, we fall into the category of “unexplained infertility”. Which is a none diagnosis and basically means doctors can’t work out our issue (s)

I’m afraid I’ve read the article, and feel I must be missing something crucial.

Yep, I don't see what the difference is between a single woman and a lesbian couple - "I find it difficult getting pregnant because I don't have a male partner".

Indeed, the lesbian couple is better off because they have redundancy - it's unlikely both women will have fertility problems.

If they were to get better treatment than a single woman, then a single woman would have grounds to complain of discrimination versus the lesbians, surely? Why should a lesbian couple have more right to a family life than a single woman?

@NecessaryScene well, exactly. I knew a lesbian couple, one of them was critical of me and my cynicism of IVF and it’s success rates. Well, probably as we have genuine fertility issues but neither of them do. It’s not a fair or like for like comparison

The lesbians I know buy in sperm and got pregnant that way they have reserved more sperm from the same doner to have another baby with so they have the same father

@Cactu

Stonewall’s apparent involvement in this rings alarm bells. After all, this is ostensibly an issue affecting only those old fashioned same-sex lesbian couples that they don’t really like to talk about anymore.

What this is really about is changing the meaning of infertility from being a medical problem to a social issue. Why would Stonewall want to do this? Well they’re lobbying for childhood medical transition which causes infertility.

If we can say that infertility is not a result of something going wrong with a person’s body but is in fact caused by a lack of access to resources - surrogates, gamete donors and so on - then it becomes not a personal tragedy for those young people but instead a societal failure to provide for them. Which lets Stonewall off the hook.

This.

I don't think it's right that different NHS trusts get to set their own rules on how many rounds of artificial insemination lesbians need to self-fund before it counts as a fertility issue - if they set it as standard across the country, it wouldn't invite the comment that the rules are arbitrary in the first place. It does make it far more unfair than it needs to be.

And more importantly - that's the most awkward photo of a couple supposedly on the same page I have ever seen.