Article in the Guardian. Fertility discrimination.

[SpringCrocus]

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

As I understand it, it's not uncommon to want a sort of "deluxe" package where an egg from one parent is implanted in the other.

This is totally unnecessary, and potentially risky, but as this site says

The biggest benefit of reciprocal IVF for lesbian couples is to enrich their experience building a family. It gives each woman the opportunity to contribute to the conception and birth of the couple’s child.

Lesbian couples have undergone dual reciprocal IVF at the same time, so each woman carried her partner’s child simultaneously. Other couples have undergone the entire process once and then reversed roles to have a second child.

I'm not sure this is really beneficial to anyone. I can see why private providers might want to do it - it's money for procedures.

Is the point of this case to try to get the NHS to pay for it?

There's been some progress in the science for that @Dervel. www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-slow-march-toward-the-first-same-sex-couple-to-have-a-baby

Among my acquaintances there's a lesbian couple whose babies were conceived via DIY methods with the sperm donor being the brother of the non-gestating mum, so there are ways to achieve a genetic link but obviously that depends on having accommodating relatives.

Aren’t they ‘celebrities’? Could be a celeb thing for publicity. And yes - who is helping them?

@SinoohXaenaHide that sort of scenario sounds rather lovely if it can be achieved, but surely such things aren’t a given?

@Dervel another common old fashioned way is for a gay couple and a lesbian couple to sort of share with the men providing the sperm to the women. A couple of my parents friends have done this.

Indeed they aren't a given. And crucially, the possibility of such arrangements isn't a human right or entitlement but rather that some couples have more fortunate opportunities than others. It's not the NHS's job to make up for the lack of such fortune for less fortunate couples.

The material reality is that same sex couples can't ever make a baby without some kind of outside assistance. Material reality isn't being discriminatory, it's just the facts. Whilst some might be able to gain access to such assistance it's not something that the state should be getting involved in or paying for. The state certainly should be involved in making sure no one is being exploited or harmed in such arrangements (e.g. legislating to ensure vulnerable women aren't being coerced, and that the wellbeing of the children born of such arrangements is prioritised over the desires of the adults) but otherwise it should quite rightly be down to the adults to make and pay for their own arrangements. If infertility is proven to be an issue then yes they should have the same access to ivf treatments as heterosexual couples do - and I mean the same so therefore patchy, inadequate and somewhat a postcode lottery with far too many burdensome hurdles to get over, and only when there is incontrovertible evidence that they've done their best to get a sperm and egg together without IVF. The article is headlined that this couple think they are being discriminated against but its clear from the detail that the problem is that they aren't being accorded the privilege and exceptionalism that they wish to be entitled to.

@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.

I agree, although the fact that Stonewall is involved also seems to fit in terms of stirring up hate and resentment for lesbians among the general population.

When young (homosexual-type) lesbians see how controversial it is to say that the NHS owes them a child, it gives another strong argument for having sexual relationships with transwomen, as that's 'socially' acceptable and a more 'natural' way to conceive, whereas being an actual real-life lesbian clearly isn't.

Stonewall wins either way - either the couple win their case and it opens the gate to free fertility treatment for all (unlikely) or they lose and everyone sees homosexuals as selfish, impractical and unreasonable, Either way, it's one step closer to eradicating genuine homosexuality.

I can well imagine there is discrimination against lesbian couples and single women. Natural lack of capacity doesn’t always mean we’ll do nothing to help people who struggle with that lack. Most people will want to have babies at some point but lesbians and single women (and gay male couples and single men) often have to pay for something that other women, men and couples can access freely and at no cost.
If women want safe, screened, traceable sperm through a clinic to get pregnant then as a society we should support that. The answer isn’t doing nothing and driving women who don’t have deep pockets towards dodgy blokes online wanting unprotected sex and posing as ‘donors’. I think the issues are different for men wanting babies without a female partner but that’s for a different thread.

If many more men were willing to be sperm donors then the supply would be less scarce. The relationship that donors will have or not have with the children needs to be better understood, the legal side and the emotional side. It would be great if the NHS could take over a bigger role in bringing in new donors, testing and redirecting the donations they get without financial cost to women.

If many more men were willing to be sperm donors then the supply would be less scarce. The relationship that donors will have or not have with the children needs to be better understood, the legal side and the emotional side. It would be great if the NHS could take over a bigger role in bringing in new donors

I don’t think it’s the NHS’s role to recruit sperm donors. And I can absolutely understand the reasons why a man wouldn’t want to donate sperm, there shouldn’t be any sort of drive for donors.

Single straight men and gay men don't have 'access' to a woman for her eggs and womb, so the same applies there too right?

(I paraphrase David Watkins, a gay single man who used two women - one for her womb, her name was Faye Spreadbury, and another anonymous woman for her eggs - to have his son.)

Surrogacy is being labelled as a 'fertility treatment' and 'fertility equality' can also come under the name of 'financial infertility'.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CV6JdRnoENH/?utmmedium=copyy_link

I think there are quite different issues between men and women and the solutions need to be different, including specifically because the issues between men and women of pregnancy and birth are obviously not equal between men and women. That’s obvious but a lot of people will argue these issues as if men and women’s part in the reproductive processes were somehow the same. Which usually means vastly trivialising what women take on and go through.

@Lockdownbear

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?

I hope that happens.

@SickAndTiredAgain

If many more men were willing to be sperm donors then the supply would be less scarce. The relationship that donors will have or not have with the children needs to be better understood, the legal side and the emotional side. It would be great if the NHS could take over a bigger role in bringing in new donors

I don’t think it’s the NHS’s role to recruit sperm donors. And I can absolutely understand the reasons why a man wouldn’t want to donate sperm, there shouldn’t be any sort of drive for donors.

It absolutely is not the NHS' role.

I'm a bit aghast at the suggestion that more men should be persuaded to donate sperm. Donating sperm is easier than donating eggs but that doesn't justify treating men as walking sperm banks who might or might not have their "children" turning up 18 year's later.

If women want safe, screened, traceable sperm through a clinic to get pregnant then as a society we should support that

Why should "we" support that? Speak for yourself.

Because the alternatives (unsafe situations online and no traceability of the ‘donor’) are much less good options for the women involved or the children they may go on to have?

If women want safe, screened, traceable sperm through a clinic to get pregnant then as a society we should support that

Sperm doesn’t grow on trees (what a delightful image I’ve just created). You can’t say society should support access to sperm without thinking about what that means for donors, or those who might end up being encouraged to be donors.

Are there places online currently that provide safe, screened sperm?
Not free obviously, but as a genuine option as a cheaper alternative to using a clinic and if you don't have a friend willing to help?

Genuine question.

@Taswama

Are there places online currently that provide safe, screened sperm? Not free obviously, but as a genuine option as a cheaper alternative to using a clinic and if you don't have a friend willing to help?

Genuine question.

No it’s not legal any longer. You used to be able to have sperm from a sperm bank shipped directly to your home for self insemination but that is now not allowed.

@SickAndTiredAgain

If women want safe, screened, traceable sperm through a clinic to get pregnant then as a society we should support that

Sperm doesn’t grow on trees (what a delightful image I’ve just created). You can’t say society should support access to sperm without thinking about what that means for donors, or those who might end up being encouraged to be donors.

Or what it means for children conceived that way

@ChattyLion

Because the alternatives (unsafe situations online and no traceability of the ‘donor’) are much less good options for the women involved or the children they may go on to have?

Why should "we" support everything that everyone wants all the time?

@Taswama

Are there places online currently that provide safe, screened sperm? Not free obviously, but as a genuine option as a cheaper alternative to using a clinic and if you don't have a friend willing to help?

Genuine question.

Yes. There are plenty of clinics and plenty of available sperm. Reputable sperm banks will only provide treatment via a fertility clinics you're looking at minimum of £3k for IUI.

Which is obviously not cost free but neither is raising a child.

For those who mention the turkey baster method - I think one thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is that in some areas, it is not possible for lesbian and single women to "prove" their infertility without paying thousands for multiple IUIs (inseminations through a clinic). This is because the old-fashioned "turkey baster" method, or trying for months and months with a male gay friend or something, is not accepted by all areas as evidence of having tried to get pregnant (and therefore, when it fails, of possible infertility which needs investigating). Therefore straight couples need only try via sex for six months/a year/whatever, but a lesbian couple or single woman may be told that her private attempts with a male friend do not "count" and that there needs to be a verifiable track record from a clinic of x number of iui attempts with a donor/friend who is not her partner. To me that seems a bit unfair, whatever one's beliefs about NHS funding for fertility treatment, as a single woman or lesbian couple may well have tried for a year but is being forced down a very expensive privately paid medical route before accessing funding for fertility issues they may well have. It can be difficult for lesbians and single women in some areas to prove their infertility because of the requirement for attempts to be through a clinic. I expect this is for verification/safety (and money?) reasons, but the net result is that lesbian and single women with fertility issues (and they do have exist!) may find it difficult to access any funding or treatment that is there. That said, I can see possible issues with verifying that these informal inseminations have taken place, but it's not an insurmountable problem. It's also not possible anymore to have sperm from a bank delivered to your home address, which means that that route has to be through a clinic.

@KimikosNightmare

If women want safe, screened, traceable sperm through a clinic to get pregnant then as a society we should support that

Why should "we" support that? Speak for yourself.

It's not within the remit of "society" as a whole to support the every whim of every person within it. I'm beginning to hate the way the word support is being changed to mean pandering to every request.

@YetAnotherProcrastinator that's interesting yes. Ok I concede that it is discriminatory if the NHS doesn't recognise the evidence of informal self-insemination efforts failing. They don't require heterosexual couples to prove that they have been at it like bunnies during their unsuccessful TTC after all, they just take it on trust that the couple have been doing their level best to TTC during the relevant period. So yes informal efforts using sperm from relatives or friends should be recognised as counting towards proof of infertility (if those methods fail) when lesbians and single women TTC. What I was arguing against was the idea that there should be a shortcut to IVF for women who haven't attempted to conceive without IVF.

It can be difficult for lesbians and single women in some areas to prove their infertility because of the requirement for attempts to be through a clinic. I expect this is for verification/safety (and money?) reasons

I think this is a good point, but I guess allowing this to be considered would push more women towards the legal minefield of private donation, as well as the safety implications, and the NHS would probably be criticised as irresponsible for encouraging it. The HFEA doesn’t recommend this method without independent legal advice for donor and woman, as well as medical screening of the donor.