Article in the Guardian. Fertility discrimination.

[SpringCrocus]

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

The NHS fixes medical issues. Lack of unprotected PIV sex isn't a medical problem

@NorthSouthcatlady

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 totally agree about not getting any fertility treatment on the NHS. It actually doesn't really matter what NICE say - waiting lists in our area have been closed for years - there is no NHS funded IVF.

So I adopted. And our children are OUR children - just not our birth/biological children. Which might seem like semantics but I would hate for my children to see that phraseology even though I understand your sentiment completely - adoption isn't for everyone.

Even for The Guardian, that piece of 'journalism' hit new lows. Leaving aside the offensive language (cis, people with wombs), it contained no explanation nor attempt at one about why the NHS requires certain people to self-fund in the first instances. The article made no sense, and without knowing why the policy exists, it is impossible to offer a sensible critique of it.

Also, turning this into an LGBT+ issue, when it equally applies to single women, served to erase single women from the picture.

It was as intellectually offensive as it was socially offensive. Go, Guardian!

@RepentMotherfucker it is the ultimate postcode lottery. Very unfair as we all pay taxes

It’s totally not for me, partner is more open to adoption but it’s a hard no for me. I know adoption works really well for lots of people

It actually doesn't really matter what NICE say - waiting lists in our area have been closed for years - there is no NHS funded IVF.

Exactly. NICE issues guidance. What actually happens in your local area is up to your CCG.

Even for The Guardian, that piece of 'journalism' hit new lows. Leaving aside the offensive language (cis, people with wombs)

I don’t see why cis would even need to be mentioned at all. Gender is completely irrelevant to this issue. This couple aren’t trans and are still affected by the rules. If the couple was two females, one of whom was a transman, they’d have to follow the same rules. Their gender has nothing to do with it. The rules are written around sex.

@Krakenchorus

Even for The Guardian, that piece of 'journalism' hit new lows. Leaving aside the offensive language (cis, people with wombs), it contained no explanation nor attempt at one about why the NHS requires certain people to self-fund in the first instances. The article made no sense, and without knowing why the policy exists, it is impossible to offer a sensible critique of it.

Also, turning this into an LGBT+ issue, when it equally applies to single women, served to erase single women from the picture.

It was as intellectually offensive as it was socially offensive. Go, Guardian!

Yes, this!

@SickAndTiredAgain

Even for The Guardian, that piece of 'journalism' hit new lows. Leaving aside the offensive language (cis, people with wombs)

I don’t see why cis would even need to be mentioned at all. Gender is completely irrelevant to this issue. This couple aren’t trans and are still affected by the rules. If the couple was two females, one of whom was a transman, they’d have to follow the same rules. Their gender has nothing to do with it. The rules are written around sex.

And this. Perfectly states my visceral response to this article.

I don’t even see how this is discriminatory - even leaving aside the fact that IVF is not available to anyone in many places. Surely if a heterosexual couple failed to conceive in two years but were not having PIV sex they also would not be eligible for IVF.

Unbearable to read - “people with wombs”

The Guardian’s become embarrassing now.

@Clymene

The NHS fixes medical issues. Lack of unprotected PIV sex isn't a medical problem

Agreed. Sorry and all that but perhaps some people just need to realise you don't get everything you want and that's just life.

The NHS absorbs vast amounts of cash- taxpayers aren't actually a bottomless money pit. We aren't running out of people.

I think Cactu has it.

There's not enough funding for IVF as it is. What there is should quite rightly be restricted to those who have medical issues not those who just want it. Turkey baster DIY doesn't have to cost a lot surely?

As per PP I would be very uncomfortable with a ruling for lesbian couples which paved the way for a couple in which both partners are male to start demanding they have a legal entitlement to rent a womb (or have one rented by the state at no cost to them) which would be totally unethical.

Everyone with a womb has an equal right to attempt to conceive and gestate a child, and there is no need to have sex with a man to do so if that's not your bag.

Everyone with a medical issue that stops their womb from functioning as required should have an equal right to help with that, and I don't think there's an ethical problem with there being gatekeeping to ensure that those applying for such help have done their level best to conceive without medical help.

No one who doesn't have a womb, or doesn't want to use the womb they have, should have the right to borrow or hire the use of another human's body.

The couple in the article are calling for Lesbians to be a special case who don't have to try to see if their biology can do its thing. That redefines fertility treatment from being about fixing medical issues to being about paving the way for any couple of any biological combination to have state-funded assistance to make a baby. That is not a precedent I want to see being set.

Surrogacy I hear you say?

“The NHS has done everything from start to finish pretty much. We were prepared (to go private) but then we thought, ‘Actually we pay in like everyone else, why wouldn’t we get something out?”

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scotlands-first-gay-couple-access-21968033.amp

@KittenKong

That article is one of the worse things I've ever read. The state using women to provide babies to people.

Stonewall’s involvement?

Create a medical issue of infertility in children who make life-altering decisions before fully understanding the impact of those choices.

Secure fertility treatment, surrogacy, etc as of right for “all”.

Another objection countered?

[quote KittenKong]Surrogacy I hear you say?

“The NHS has done everything from start to finish pretty much. We were prepared (to go private) but then we thought, ‘Actually we pay in like everyone else, why wouldn’t we get something out?”

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scotlands-first-gay-couple-access-21968033.amp[/quote]
My husband has "paid in all his life too". Currently he needs a cataract operation. The waiting list to even see an NHS consultant in Scotland was 74 weeks. Fortunately we have BUPA cover so one eye will be operated on in December and the other in January. The Consultant also recommended some additional treatment (I don't fully understand but it should prevent the need for further treatment) BUPA won't cover it, so that's £2,000 to pay.

That surrogacy article is ghastly.

But what I find even more scary is that a school teacher can, in all seriousness, say to a national newspaper:

I think a lot of same-sex couples, male and female, don’t know that this exists, like we didn’t until we found out about it

Ridiculous. And entitled.

How long before the NHS pulls the plug on fertility treatment?
Or decides that it will only treat infertility if its a genuine medical issue ie blocked tubes, pcos etc?

Re: the ‘I’ve paid in’ narrative: The NHS is not some kind of medical savings fund you can cash in to pay for your own personal healthcare needs. If you want that, get a savings account.

General taxation is not a guarantee of specific medical provision.

One word.
Loretta.

Whilst I do understand the point that adoption is not for everyone surely ALL homosexual couples have to wrestle with the reality that by definition 50% won’t have any genetic link to their child?!

I don’t think they’re serious about having a child. This stinks of being a challenge for the sake of it and likely Stonewall is funding it