Article in the Guardian. Fertility discrimination.

[SpringCrocus]

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

@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 often wonder if there is a hidden agenda to the supposed crucial and “life saving” use of drugs and surgeries which result in sterilisation of teenagers for gender identity affirmation while transitioners in their 40’s, 50’s and older can just wear different clothes, change hairstyle, name etc without the need for medication or surgery.

Breaking down barriers to using women’s bodies to make money, dehumanising women commodification of human beings, not thinking of what is best for babies.

It does seem that there is a push to redefine infertility not as a medical condition but as something else, not having a baby perhaps?

Strangely there is an anti abortion movement appearing among certain groups of young LGBTQIA++ activists and I fear this may be connected too.

So the idea is emerging that the NHS or the state should provide people with a newborn baby? A right to a baby for all adults? That “uterus havers” (and “sperm producers”) or intact and healthy women and men should be recruited for this. It is a bit disturbing.

I was surprised to see Stonewall involved in this too tbh but maybe Stonewall see this as a chance to show publicly that they’re not actively undermining lesbians all the time and that they are willing to listen to (cherrypicked) issues that affect lesbians, once in a blue moon maybe? Hard not to be extremely cynical of their involvement.

[quote SinoohXaenaHide]@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.[/quote]
Round here, you can get fertility tests on the NHS to establish whether IVF is needed. I'm not sure whether there needs to be likely infertility (eg. gynaecological condition), or whether it's just standard for lesbians/single women. But you definitely don't have to prove attempted conception beforehand.

I don't know enough about the tests to know how reliable they are though. But this is surely an option before a lesbian couple opt for IUI or IVF?

The NHS doesn’t provide donor gametes or sperm to heterosexual couples and it shouldn’t provide the same to same sex couples. The NHS also doesn’t allow women to have IVF if their partner has any surviving children, so it’s wrong to say only gay and single people are discriminated against.

Arguably, they could qualify for IVF after 6 months (vs 2 years for heterosexual couples) if both partners did IUI each month.

The reason these ladies are pushing is because they want reciprocal IVF where one female partner supplies the egg, the other the womb, and donor sperm is used for conception. It’s a choice rather than infertility.

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

To be fair to the guardian they’re mentioning what someone else stated. Though I wouldn’t put it pass them not to use this term to describe a group.

Not to derail but I don’t get what’s wrong with the term “female”. The same crowd who use terms like “people with wombs” go on about how sex and gender are different but they don’t like using sex specific terms for sex issues.

Neither of them is infertile so I don’t see why they need infertility treatment. Anyway infertility isn’t a disease so I don’t think anyone should be getting free IVF on the NHS.

Well that is a puzzle. If you’re a lesbian, how to prove infertility? I don’t think it’s discrimination to require that, before the taxpayer spends many thousands of pounds on IVF (which costs £5-10k per attempt and on average takes 3 attempts), the woman asking for it should at least have tried to get pregnant without taxpayer help. I would have thought the obvious option would be to buy donor sperm and keep trying a DIY effort.

It’s a funny old world.

Don’t like how the guardian implies this is about sexuality, nhs fertility treatment has always been discrimatory, for example some postcodes get 3 ivf attempts some do not, some fund ivf for those with stepchildren other nhs areas do not…

Feels like more Stonewall agenda-pushing in media when actually the elephant in the room on that story is that the country is broke, the nhs is underfunded and overstretched l, and maybe the top funding priority for tax payers should not be sex changes for people with confused feelings and impregnating people who aren’t willing to first try conceiving without taxpayer money.

@Flubbah

Neither of them is infertile so I don’t see why they need infertility treatment. Anyway infertility isn’t a disease so I don’t think anyone should be getting free IVF on the NHS.

The WHO disagrees with you. It is a disease.

www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infertility

Infertility can be caused by disease or damage to the body, so it isn't functioning properly. So, a medical issue, in such cases.

There's a reasonable question, though, whether providing donor gametes is really the same thing as solving the medical problem.

There's a reasonable question, though, whether providing donor gametes is really the same thing as solving the medical problem.

I agree with that. I really don’t think the NHS should provide donor eggs or sperm, and that’s as someone who looked like I needed them at one point.

The stories of how adult donor conceived children feel about their genetics can be heart breaking & it shouldn’t be normalised.

Anyway infertility isn’t a disease so I don’t think anyone should be getting free IVF on the NHS.

Infertility can be the result of cancer, its not unusual for young people about to undertake treatment to have sperm / eggs frozen for a later date.

PCOS, fibroids, endometriosis, anemia are all diseases, thyroid and liver problems can also interfere with a womans ability to conceived some of these will be resolved by drugs rather than IVF.

So I don't have a big issue with fertility investigation being on the NHS, nor do I have an issue with IVF being used.

I think it would be pretty shit to be the Doc to tell a 20 year old, you have cancer, we think we have it early enough, treatment will make you infertile, we can store your sperm / eggs but you'll need to fund IVF yourself later.

Should donor sperm / eggs be available on NHS. I don't think so. Should they be allowed at all I think that's an ethical question that should be debated.
People might look back and think that people were playing God with some of this stuff.

You won’t be ill or die if you’re unable to have children. You just won’t have children. I don’t think the NHS should be funding anything that doesn’t cause illness or death.

@Flubbah

You won’t be ill or die if you’re unable to have children. You just won’t have children. I don’t think the NHS should be funding anything that doesn’t cause illness or death.

So you are against most orthopaedic surgery then, even if loss of the use of a joint substantially diminishes your quality of life or ability to work?

The NHS provides many treatments that aren’t disease related that otherwise substantially improve QOL for the recipient.

The WHO disagrees with you. It is a disease.

Then is age a disease?

Women who seek fertility treatment due to being outside of the prime fertility window must have a disease then, according to the WHO...

I believe it was Julie Bindel who found that the WHO also considers single men to be infertile. I guess they have the same disease, only it's not down to age, for them it's because they are male and, like the couple in the OP, lack the biology in a partner (being single he would have no partner) to conceive.

So by this argument single people and same-sex couples are inferior in the same way a heterosexual couple outside of their fertile years are, in the same way that a woman who survived childhood cancer is.

The WHO, queering infertility for 2021.

*infertile - NOT inferior.

Just wanted to be clear that this was a typing error and not a personally held view.

@Flubbah

You won’t be ill or die if you’re unable to have children. You just won’t have children. I don’t think the NHS should be funding anything that doesn’t cause illness or death.

But lots of things they fund can have damaging psychological issues if not treated as the person’s quality of life is lowered.

The NHS has been buckling for years, and ivf is costly.

I don’t know what the cis word is doing in a debate about ivf. Why is it even there? This seems framed by another agenda.

@Flubbah

Neither of them is infertile so I don’t see why they need infertility treatment. Anyway infertility isn’t a disease so I don’t think anyone should be getting free IVF on the NHS.

I agree

But lots of things they fund can have damaging psychological issues if not treated as the person’s quality of life is lowered.
However there should be very robust evidence about harms. So for example mental illness is still woefully underfunded. Quality of life is measured on scales and often there has to be a clear clinical need. For this reason almost all cosmetic surgery is not funded even though many people feel that they have a high need for it.

I think it's all a bit daft when you actually read into it. They are entitled to help. I'm not sure why anyone would choose ivf as it's not an east option so any alternative should be considered first if you are not actually infertile.
As pp have said it's only a matter of time before this is launched into a huge episode of why non uterus havers should have access to one. I am very much opposed to surrogacy in most circumstances.

The NHS won't fund age related infertility or obesity related. Age must be under 40, and BMI under 30.

I don't see an issue with funding IVF for someone who's had cancer etc.

The solution for PCOS is often go on the pill. Which of course is counter productive for someone TTC.

I think where I'm coming from is I had fertility treatment on NHS albeit unsuccessful and ended up going private for IVF.
I know at least 3 babies successfully conceived via clomid (really cheap) or IUI middle of the road cost wise. I also know others conceived after a prescription for thyroid issues.

I have to support a couple getting help if needed however I cannot support donor eggs or sperm or treatment because of lifestyle choices.

The notion of 'social infertility' seems to be gaining traction. It seemingly applies to couples in same-sex relationships, as well as single people ie those who have no possibility of conceiving naturally. It troubles me, as it is stretching a definition too far. People in same sex relationships and single people aren't 'infertile', that is just their particular circumstances. Sure, they may need help to conceive, but call things what they are - words have meanings!

@GCmiddle

The notion of 'social infertility' seems to be gaining traction. It seemingly applies to couples in same-sex relationships, as well as single people ie those who have no possibility of conceiving naturally. It troubles me, as it is stretching a definition too far. People in same sex relationships and single people aren't 'infertile', that is just their particular circumstances. Sure, they may need help to conceive, but call things what they are - words have meanings!

Yes that’s not “infertility” that’s inability to have a child due to biological reality of needing willing people of 2 opposite sexes.