123 ...

thread: Anyone in VIC done the police check required to continue or commence IVF post-July?

  1. #1
    Registered User

    Aug 2008
    Melbourne
    1,539

    Anyone in VIC done the police check required to continue or commence IVF post-July?

    I'm trying to complete the paperwork for a police records check for myself and another one for DH as one will be required for all ivf patients and their partners after 1 July 09 (at least if the ART Bill is proclaimed in July and thus becomes law - see Monash's site if you are interested in more - it says checks valid from 30/03/2009 will be acceptable). I'm usually pretty good with paperwork but cannot figure this out.

    If someone has successfully done this, can you let me know what you selected for "purpose" - do we have to announce to the police force what we are getting this for?

    Also - is it a record check (which costs $30.70 per person) OR name and fingerprint check ($127 per person)?



    Anyone know how long it takes to get back the check?

    It also says that a Child Protection Order Check is required - yet there's no paper work available to get one - does anyone know anything about this?

    As if AC isn't hard enough...

    This is just so ridiculous!
    Last edited by buliej; April 26th, 2009 at 10:12 PM. : additional question

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Mar 2008
    mid north coast, nsw
    1,644

    wow good luck with that Julie, I am surprised to hear of it (and sorry I have no answers for you)

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Apr 2007
    in lactation land
    3,776

    Grrrrrrrrrrrr having to do this police check makes my blood boil! . Sorry Julie, just taking the opportunity to grumble aloud about such a discriminatory piece of nonsense. It is the ONLY place in the world that requires such a check for IVF. I hope I never have to step into the Victorian system ever again, and I am sorry it is going to affect so many lovely BB people such as yourself.
    *off my soap box now*

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Dec 2005
    6,706

    I wonder if "medical" would be enough of a reason?

    Part of the problem you may be facing, buliej, is that it's in the early stages and things may not be fully established with regards to procedures yet. Do you think your clinic would be able to advise you on what's needed?

    I too can't believe that Victoria actually brought this in! It makes me so angry and looks as though they are trying to make infertility a criminal offence! Grrrrr!!!

    BW

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Aug 2008
    Melbourne
    1,539

    I couldn't agree with you more. If I started writing my thoughts on this I was afraid I'd never stop.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Jan 2007
    Regional Victoria
    2,157

    I know my clinic states that we can get the Child Protection Order through them, but we have to organise the police check.
    I have to admit I couldn't believe it when I saw the signs stating what now needs to be done. Its so very out there bizarre. But I have since heard a story of an abused woman forced to go through IVF so in a way I think it could have benefits.

    I'm sure your clinic would be able to help. I'm certain they are very aware that this is going to be a troublesome process.

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Aug 2008
    Melbourne
    1,539

    BW - we must have posted at the same time. I have called my clinic but the person who is on top of this issue is out today - so I'll have to wait.

    S'rose - I think what you describe is a very unique situation and actually not what this is meant - in theory - to address (I don't even see how this requirement would reveal the situation you describe). I would hope that the situation you describe would become apparent during the mandatory counseling session (and with a good counselor, I think they would begin to sense something and request to speak to the parties independently).

    I think this requirement is highly objectionable. To me, if they require this, then before they let ANY person who delivers a baby leave the hospital (or otherwise go home with their baby), they should require a police check and child protection check - there is no real difference. In fact, the true equivalent would be requiring OBs & GPs to require their patients to obtain these records as soon as a pregnancy is confirmed. Just because one needs help getting pregnant, doesn't mean that they should have to undergo some higher scrutiny. I don't even see how they could argue costs/money - as it costs no less for the state to intervene where necessary when a non-IVF baby is involved than when an IVF baby is involved - and the government provides the same medical coverage for pregnancy-related medical care to mothers of non-IVF babies and IVF babies. AND this is a State requirement - but it's not the State that funds IVF treatments but the federal government!

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Sep 2008
    1,350

    BullieJ: I rang Monash on Friday, when I collected the pamphlet, after I picked myself off the floor. I actually asked the clinic, if they where going to pay for the police check !!!! Why should I, I know I am quite capable of being an honest citizen, and have never hurt an innocent child or animal. My blood is boiling, so I am taking a deep breath right now .......

    Also - is it a record check (which costs $30.70 per person) - Yes, you dont need the finger print check.

    The rep from Monash said, she believes they will post any offences in the last ten years, on the criminal history check. She said they are looking particulary for violence crimes, and of course, crimes against a person, I dont think I need to post the obvious, with regard to there choice of an innapropriate charge.

    As for the Child protection, we sign a release, and they obtain the information from the dept of DHS, so they see it, we dont hand that to them. You have to name any child in your care, there d.o.b etc, to see if there has been an order against you.

    I explained that I will be posting about this on an online forum, and threw in a couple of senarios, like if someone's dh or dp, had had a fight when he was 21, and had a warning, or if he had been charged with D Driving for example, she said, every person, can sit before an independant panel, if they are deemed, not appropriate for approval, and that panel is is independant, and can give approval, if an IVF clinic is iffy.

    Luckily DH had one for work, so I am going to insist they use that, and I will have to pay for my own.

    Where does this jumping through hoops stop !!!!!!

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Aug 2008
    Melbourne
    1,539

    Thanks WLAB - very glad to hear fingerprints are not required - at least it's not over $100 per check, and we don't have to go down to the police station to be finger printed.

    I feel very badly for anyone who has a minor offense such as the type you describe who has to sit before a panel - this is so hard as it is. Also, who knows how long it will take to convene a panel and wait for a decision. Can you imagine having to delay IVF cycle commencement because of this!

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Aug 2008
    Melbourne
    1,539

    I spoke to the clinic today. The box on the form to tick is ...ready for this one..."Contact with Children"

    They also said they aren't concerned about the police check delaying things as the request form is available and people can get the check now. But, the Child Protection search request form and process has not been finalized and they realize that this could present a problem down the road. They said all the ivf clinics have been meeting with the necessary people as a group to get this part of it worked out but it is still pending.

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Sep 2008
    Sydney
    752

    Girls this sounds so 1984 - I can't believe it - feeling very sorry for all of you who have to go through this...

    Sara

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Oct 2007
    Middle Victoria
    8,924

    I think this requirement is highly objectionable. To me, if they require this, then before they let ANY person who delivers a baby leave the hospital (or otherwise go home with their baby), they should require a police check and child protection check - there is no real difference. In fact, the true equivalent would be requiring OBs & GPs to require their patients to obtain these records as soon as a pregnancy is confirmed. Just because one needs help getting pregnant, doesn't mean that they should have to undergo some higher scrutiny. I don't even see how they could argue costs/money - as it costs no less for the state to intervene where necessary when a non-IVF baby is involved than when an IVF baby is involved - and the government provides the same medical coverage for pregnancy-related medical care to mothers of non-IVF babies and IVF babies. AND this is a State requirement - but it's not the State that funds IVF treatments but the federal government!
    I do not agree with this legislation. I think the argument is that the government is providing funds to assist the conception/pregnancy, and therefore must be seen to be fulfilling their responsibilities by doing the police checks. Parents conceiving without funded assistance are doing it themselves and therefore they assume the responsibility for their actions.

    This argument falls down, when as you pointed out, the State is requiring the checks when they are not the ones funding the assistance. (Unless they administer the funding for the federal government and are using this angle)

    I still can't believe it got through.

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Feb 2009
    Brisbane
    123

    OK, this seems to be a violation of Human Rights under The Disability Discrimination Act of 1992 which makes "disability discrimination unlawful and aims to promote equal opportunity and access for people with disabilities."

    It may also fall under the Sex Discrimination/Equality Act of 1984 which states that between men and women is a principle that lies at the heart of a fair and productive society. It is also the key goal of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which aims to eliminate discrimination and sexual harassment and promote greater equality in all aspects of the Australian community. Thats the same piece of legislation that makes discriminating against pregnant women illegal.

    I cannot believe this has actually happened. If I was in Vic I would be contacting the Human Rights Commission. This cannot be allowed to continue. Procreation is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT and there is NO WAY IN HELL that there should be criminal record checks done on people that are seeking medical help. I am so angry about this I could scream! Sorry about all the CAPS ladies but this entire situation is CRAZY.

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Oct 2007
    Middle Victoria
    8,924

    Is requiring assisted fertility considered a disability? (thinking legally)

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Aug 2008
    Melbourne
    1,539

    This is all very interesting (and it makes me want to scream and type in all caps as well).

    I am not sure of legal definitions but it certain fits under "medical condition" which very well could trigger application of the Disability Discrimination Act (I'd google but I don't have the time at the moment - maybe over the weekend).

    I do not see how it could violate the sex discrimination act as it is not discrimating by favoring men over women or women over men. BUT it is discriminating against people of both sexes who have medical reasons for needing assistance.

    Interesting suggestion about contacting the Human Rights Commission...hmmm...maybe another weekend activity to look into this.

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Feb 2009
    Brisbane
    123

    I think most of the medical conditions that lead to the need for AC could be concidered "a disability" . The definition under the law is:

    "The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities."

    I think for a woman, becoming pregnant is a normal day-to-day activity. (albeit a very special activity lol)
    Forcing women who are unlucky enough to suffer a condition that prevents them carrying out that "normal activity" to undergo the indignity of submitting to criminal record and Child Protection checks is both absurd and disgusting.
    Last edited by sammiejam; April 29th, 2009 at 08:19 PM. : Because I was so mad I couldnt type straight

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Aug 2008
    Melbourne
    1,539

    Sammiejam - sounds to me like you are right - this triggers the DDA. I think that someone would be hard pressed to argue that getting pregnant is not a "normal" activity for a woman...maybe not every day of their life but I think it does fit into normal.

    I couldn't agree with you more about how objectionable this is. Unfortunately, although one can pursue arguing about this, I think that most of us will also go ahead and order the check so as to not delay treatment. Not to say we can't argue at the same time, but I don't think the option of taking a moral stance while arguing with the powers that be is a real option...at least not for an old lady like me! A rock and a hard place I guess.

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Feb 2009
    Brisbane
    123

    Until someone is actually turned away from having a cycle due to the checks, there is nothing to argue. I hope that the first person that this happens to decides to fight it via the HRC. People have won cases for lesser things!

    Its just ridiculous! Where will they stop? Sterillising women in prison? That would only be "fair" under this legislation. (not really but thats essentially what they are doing. If you have committed certain crimes and happen to be infertile then OH-OH, sorry! No right to procreation for you!)

123 ...