Is assisted fertility a "right" or a "privilege"?

Since most insurance won't even cover it, I'd say it's a privelege that should only be paid for by the users.

I saw the cost of the babies hospital stays will be HUGE, the taxpayers of CA should be irate.

I would class assisted fertility as a privledge... for those who cannot have babies on their own, it is a blessing.

That said, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should or that it is right.

Having children is more than just conception/carrying the child/delivering. It is bringing another human being into the world.... and if you don't have the means to support the child (children) then I don't believe you should be able to go through IVF, etc.

These octuplets, I have a strong feeling that mom did this for attention. Which is NOT a good reason to have children

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,488627,00.html

Apparently she was "lonely" as an only child. And had a nice insurance payoff at the expense of the State of CA from a work-related injury, from a riot at a mental hospital she worked at.

I personally do not agree with assisted fertility of any kind. My opinion on this is that if you are unable to have children the natural way, that is sexual intercourse leading to egg fertilization, then there is a reason for that. If you still want to become parents, there are thousands of children out there just waiting and hopnig for a family. No, maybe they aren't all babies and no, they won't be your own "flesh and blood" but that doesn't make them worthless.

IVF is just a little to Dr Frankenstein for me.

^ I agree fully with you on that.

I simply don't see the reason for it to begin with. Does your child have to be biologically yours for you to love it? If so, it's rather sad...
Aside from that, it's extremely dangerous. It's not that uncommon in multiples for there to be a child outside of the uterus - this means a fetus possibly attaching to anything.

Also, the amount of money these treatments require - people often say "oh, we'll try this and if it doesn't work we'll adopt". What if there's no funds left for adopting?

I've seen this opinion expressed before - usually by people who have biological children.

If a person has a problem with any organ of the body, say heart disease, or kidney problems, we don't tell them to just live with it. We use surgery, drugs, etc. to try to correct the problem. What's the difference with reproductive organs? Sometimes a few months of fertility meds are all that's needed to "jump start" the organs into doing what they're meant to do. Sometimes it's a minor surgical procedure. Then there are women for whom IVF will be the answer. For some, unfortunately, nothing will help.

It's a basic human desire to want children and to want to experience pregnancy and childbirth. I think we can understand, especially those of us fortunate enough to become pregnant without assistance, what it's like to look into your child's eyes and see a little of yourself there. But it's a leap to assume that people who want this experience think that adopted children are "worthless" or are incapable of loving such a child. I don't know anyone who's ever been through fertility treatments who thought that way, and a few have indeed adopted their children when unable to conceive.

I think everyone has the right to chose how they are going to be parents... There are a lot of gray areas in this subject, and like religion, it is a personal choice, and should be respected. However, the person making that choice needs to be absolutely responsible for it, in all levels, including financially. My biggest dream is to have a child, and I don't because I can't afford it... I know better than to put that burden in someone else's wallet!
I think IVF clinics should run credit applications and reports to make sure that the patient has money not only for the procedure, but to raise and nurture a child. This girl is saying that she is going to college in the fall? Then what? Do her babies have an on/off button? If she was my daughter she would be out of the house so fast, her had would go on a spin!

Well, in my case you'd be wrong on two counts 1. I don't have children and 2. I personally have no desire to have them, so does that make me not human?

Also, there's a very big difference between medical procedures designed to prevent death as in heart problems and kidney problems, and unnaturally creating children. IVF in my opinion is unnaturally creating children.

I'm not Christian, but perhaps if I were and I wanted children and couldn't conceive, I would think that perhaps God were telling me that my mission in life was to adopt

IMO, that's unfair to people who aren't able to conceive. With that logic, since there are so many children who need homes in the world, no one should be having natural children anymore. Just take the ones who are already out there. Force everyone to use birth control and adopt when they decide they want children.

It's a shame to me that people who are in loving relationships and really want to experience the whole package (conception, pregnancy, childbirth, infancy, early childhood, and so on) are unable to conceive. And then any drunken idiot who doesn't know how to use birth control can have a one-night stand and experience what those others can't, and often pretty much throw it away by neglecting their children.

In most cases, all assisted fertility is doing is compensating for what part of the body is unable to do. They are not (yet?) creating eggs and sperm....they are just putting them together, which is exactly what naturally happens in a reproductively sound couple.

Maybe I feel this way because I've always had an inkling that I will one day have difficulty with this. I'm not sure why I feel this way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened (I'm not willing to test the theory at the moment, though ). I've thought about adopting, even if I was able to conceive. However, I would like to experience the whole process at least once. It's not so much about the child as the experience. I am positive that I would not feel any different about an adopted child as a biological child, but I would like that experience if possible - even if it took a little help.


That's just my 2 cents!

As for the OP....I think reproduction is a right, and assisted fertility is a privilege. But not a privilege in the sense that it can be taken away, moreso as in "if you can't afford it, you don't get it." So, I guess if this woman could afford it, she can have it. You wouldn't be able to tell a woman on welfare with 6 children not to have another, so I don't really think you can take that right away from this woman either (the right to reproduce). However, there are DOCTORS doing this...it should be in their discretion to "prescribe" proper treatment, which does not sound like what happened in this case.

You'll note that I said people who express the same opinion which you have, "usually" are parents of biological children. I did not assume that you, in particular, were a parent.

Obviously, people are free to decide if they'd like to be parents or not. I'm not sure how you've concluded that because I stated wanting children is a basic human desire, that not having that desire means you're not human. We both know that wasn't what I was saying.

Not all diseases of the organs, including heart, kidneys, eyes, ears, skin,etc. are life-threatening, so there is no difference between treating those organs and the reproductive organs. For example, a friend of mine has mitral-valve prolapse, which is a heart condition, but is not fatal. She experiences heart palpitations because the valve doesn't always work properly. She can live with the palpitations. But there's the option to take meds for it, or have the valve repaired or replaced through surgery. Can we say that either of those options is "natural"? What's the difference between replacing a faulty heart valve with a steel one, or one from a pig, and having for instance, a minor surgical procedure to clear a blocked fallopian tube? The aim in both instances is to restore the organ to function as it should.

As far as God telling you it's your mission in life to adopt if you're unable to conceive, that's certainly fine if that's how you interpret it.

Very well stated!

Since you quoted me while saying that those that have that are opinion are "usually" parents I naturally thought that you were directing the thought at me As for the 2nd point, you said basic human desire, to me, basic human desires are those for food, water and shelter. The desire to have children is not something everyone desires so, IMO, is not a basic human desire....but I'm splitting hairs

Fixing a blocked fallopian tube and taking eggs from a woman and sperm from a man and fertilizing them in a petri dish are 2 very different things. After the blocked fallopian tube is fixed than if pregnancy can result, that's fabulous. I thought this discussion was specifically about IVF?

As for other medical problems, I, for example, have high blood pressure. Sure, I could live with it, but it could kill me, so I take meds. I can't articulate exactly why I feel that IVF is playing god and transplants and artificial organs are not, I just feel that they are very different

Sorry, but biologically speaking, everything revolves around reproduction. For animals, for survival of the species... It is the cycle of life: you are born, grow, reproduce, and die. It is a primal/core instinct. By you not having, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your whole life revolves around reproducing - puberty, hormones, cycles, menopause... When you are fertile your brain and body works in completely different ways, even putting out different pheromones... There is no way to say that having children is not a basic human desire... We live in a society, but wanting or not, we are still animals...

Desire is one thing, but it certainly is not a need. Food, shelter, water are needs. Reproducing is not necessary to survive as a single organism in the society we currently have.

IVF is absolutely NOT a right. Neither is plastic surgery, or gender reassignment. No matter how much you want something, that doesn't make it necessary. There's a reason that IVF isn't even covered under most insurance policies. It's a privilege reserved for those who can afford the very expensive procedure. Each procedure costs thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. If you can't afford it, don't get it done.

The unfortunate thing is that it costs just as much to adopt a baby or child who has nothing. A friend of mine adopted a baby girl from China about 10 years ago and it cost her about $40,000 to do it. I know even "local" adoptions cost around $10,000 on up. But you can, of course, get drunk and have the one-nighter pregnancy for free. Somehow that doesn't seem to work for those who desperately want children but can't have them for whatever reason. Only if you don't want them, apparently.

If your kidneys fail and it's not treated, you die. There's no if, ands, or buts about this.
And while some disease may not be that life threatening, they do have life threatening risks - take vascular EDS, for example. A person may be fine aside from some minor symptoms but they have a very very high risk of arteries rupturing and bleeding to death in circumstances that wouldn't threaten a normal person.

As for your friend with MVP, if she ever acquires the ANS dysfunction that many do there could be a potential for life threatening circumstances, ie shock, dangerous arrhythmias (both high and/or low), chemical/drug sensitivities, etc. Arrhythmias such as VT or SVT put some at risk for v-fib, which can result in a heart attack and death.


But, not having children has never killed or made anyone sick. You really can't logically compare illness to infertility just because both require medical intervention.


And for the record, no children, no interest in having children, but slight possibility I may adopt in my mid to late 30s. Personally I think there's enough children being born in the world that I don't need to contribute and people having ridiculous amounts at one time is just wrong.

Well, saying that since insurance don't cover, it is not necessary.... Do you mean that Viagra is necessary? And birth control not? Insurance pays for Viagra, but not birth control? Insurance pays for abortion, is that necessary for your survival? Still doesn't make sense to me.
There are many gray areas on this topic, and it is easy to judge people when you are not on their shoes...

I agree, there are gray areas to all of this.

I've had many different insurance carriers in my life, but all of them covered birth control as well as pre-natal care and childbirth, and none have covered ED treatments (Viagra) or IVF. Sometimes abortion is necessary to survival. Not always, but sometimes there is a medical necessity to it.

Personally I'm not sure if I think it should be done or not. I do agree that if you are unable to have children naturally then there could be a good reason so it may not be a good idea to 'force' it. Additionally in-vitro fertilization bypasses many of the human body's mechanisms for making sure the embryo is viable and is fit enough for implantation. There are a number of steps that a fertilized egg must go through between being fertilized and being implanted in the uterus and if the egg does not successfully complete these steps it is not implanted. Doctors skip these steps and directly implant an embryo into the uterus which may not have been fit enough to get to that point if it was fertilized naturally... A large percentage of (naturally) fertilized eggs do not make it to the implantation stage.

none of my insurances ever covered birth control, yet Viagra was on the approved drug list. In Texas individual health insurance (not gotten through work) doesn't cover any maternity costs - no prenatal or birthing coverage! And believe me, I shopped around a lot when I was trying to have a baby...

I forgot: of course sometimes abortion is necessary for survival... but that is not usually what it is used for. Insurances cover abortion for both cases. BTW - I am pro-choice, I am just pointing out that insurance coverage doesn't always coincide with what is necessary or not.

I'm with the privilege, not right line of thinking here.
Perhaps it has not directly made anyone ill; but let's not forget the emotional aspects of becoming a parent through bearing your own children. I have a lifelong friend who struggled with fertility before conceiving and carrying to term a child of her own. I've seen the depression and mental anguish it caused her to see her dreams dashed. To see her go from elation to despair over a few weeks. But then there are people (I am not directing this to anyone here; just as a general statement!) who don't believe that depression is a real illness or they don't believe that life occurrences really do contribute to mental illness.

Having said this; I still don't believe people who cannot afford things like IVF have a direct right to it; just because they WANT the child. I'd rather see them take steps to move into a place in life where they could before conceiving; whether naturally or through methods such as IVF. But then nothing is certain; just because a person is in a good financial state, etc, to care for a child now, doesn't mean they always will be.

There certainly are a lot of gray areas to this.

I think it is becoming more common for insurances to not cover birth control. I know mine doesn't. It does still cover prenatal care and childbirth; as for the rest I've never looked into it. I know a few other people have mentioned to me that their insurance won't cover BC anymore. You think it might be cheaper to cover the BC than people reproducing 'on accident.'

Well, isn't that the same arguement we use to have people spay their pets? "Too many animals are being put to sleep. Don't let your pets have babies because there are already too many older animals that are looking for a good home." I'm really just playing devil's advocate here because that post just kind of sounds funny on this thread. But, I DO know what you're saying.

I'm still on the fence with IVF. I think it's great for couples that have tried and tried and couldn't conceive. But, I definitely don't think it's a right and part of me thinks it IS playing God, which just rubs me the wrong way.

I can understand the idea of wanting to see a part of you in someone else. I am adopted, and while some people who don't know say they can see my mom and dad in me, I know that's not true. I would LOVE to look at a pic of anyone and say...oh, that's where I got my nose, or eyes or whatever.

I honestly don't understand the desire to go through the whole pregnancy process, but that's just me. I just don't have that urge in me I guess. Kids are cute....as long as I can give them back!

Back to the original question, I definitely don't think it's a right.

LOL...well if it was TYPICAL for people to have 4-6 babies at one time (as cats have kittens), I might agree with this. Then we'd have a real overpopulation problem. I don't know....I just don't think you can compare humans and pets on this one. As much as I treat my cats as humans, they are not humans. I spayed them as kittens, and I really don't think they are going to "miss" having kittens of their own. Animals are biologically designed to have children. Even humans...we may not have heat like our pets do, but we have all the parts, hormones, cycles, etc. The difference is that cats are RULED by these desires/biological urges...if they CAN have children, more often than not they WILL. Humans, as social beings, are "ruled" by a combination of social expectations, biological urges, and higher level reasoning. MOST of us have a little more of a handle on our reproductive habits than a cat does.

I don't think IVF specifically is a right. It would be nice if it wasn't AS expensive as it is, but I don't think it needs to be covered by insurance or subsidized by the government at all. I also think it should only be used when it is necessary, and then used with caution so these multiple births don't happen (twins/triplets are one thing....octoplets are too much).

I just think it's a shame that people who want children and aren't able to have them have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to have one, whether it be biologically or through adoption. Even those who are in a financially stable situation would still find that a strain on their economics.

As for this recent case, I think it is in a very grey area. Do I think she should have had IVF in her situation with 6 existing kids? Probably not. However, I think if we say that a single mom with 6 kids can't have another, then we're really close into saying that a single woman can't, or homosexuals cannot, or even people of certain races can't. Where's the line? I think it's a combination of a selfish woman, an unethical doctor, and a mother who needs to stop supporting her daughter's actions (she might be frustrated by her daughter's situation, but if her daughter has been living with her, she's not making her face the reality of having 14 children).

Wow this is off topic but I have to ask. How do you know about Vascular Ehlers Danlos Syndrome? This disease is rare and very few doctors have a clue about it. I have veds that is why I am curious. And yes I have had spontaneous organ ruptures.

Back to the topic. IVF is not a right. I feel only couples who have no children at all should qualify for this procedure.

Interesting. I can't say I completely agree with it, but I do think it would solve some problems, such as the case of this woman.

They need to find a way to take away the possibility of multiple births so that people aren't having several children at one time. I don't mean forcing people to abort some of the fetuses, because I don't think anyone should be forced to make that decision. Whether it be implanting a limit of 2 embryos at a time (I'm guessing part of the reason they don't do that now is because of the cost of the procedure...), some sort of medication, or a different technique, there has to be some way to ensure that 4+ babies aren't being born at once.

Because EDS has many different types, including the more benign but annoying variety - plain old hypermobility. And because EDS goes hand in hand for many with dysautonomia (including the vascular type). It was through researching my hypermobility that I actually found a name for what else was going on with me. The vascular type certainly stood out to me as rather frightening.



But back to topic, again, if they could limit it that would certainly help. I see no reason why anyone needs multiple children at once.

And as for the emotional aspect of it making one depressed, that's still not the same thing as organ failure or being crippled from a disease.

From what I have heard it is common practice to do 2 or 3 at a time. In England I believe that is the law. No reason it shouldn't be here.

My insurance covers birth control pills (generic only) if you have a letter from your doctor that it is for medical reasons.

I'm just responding to the title of the thread, not the content. I don't know squat about fertility treatments. But the title caught my eye, as it poses a question that's been rattling around in my head, and that's about rights and privileges. So just as a general comment on rights and privileges, and apply to the topic any way applicable: it seems to me that there's way too much talk of this and that being a person's "right" these days. People don't really understand these days what rights are. They seem to think everything they think they should have is some sort of fundamental right. I suppose an easy definition would be that a right is something you HAVE whereas a privilege is something you are GIVEN. A privilege can be taken away. A right cannot. Legally speaking, the only rights that citizens of the U.S. have are those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. But they're in there not because the writers believed that they were giving us those rights, but because they believed we already had them, and they were making note of that in writing for posterity. I don't recall anything in there about rights to fertitility.