I completely agree that Jill Singer's article was extremely poorly-written and insensitive, but I wonder if her argument (which, imo, is a valid one) got lost amongst the warped statistics and comparisons to Darwin's theories?

Clementine Ford wrote a similar blog for Adelaide Now a couple of months back, covering the taxpayer-funded IVF scheme as well as gay/lesbian parenting and surrogacy, which also stirred up some heated debate, but I feel she got her point across more adequately (although, granted, with some insensitive comments that comes purely from having no first-hand experience with the struggles of LTAC - it's not her fault she hasn't 'walked a mile', so to speak, one simply cannot put themselves in the place of another, kwim?). And that point was not that IVF should be banned or that government subsidisation should be taken away from prospective parents - merely that there should be some limit to how much taxpayer money is put into IVF, or that there must come a point where a couple say to themselves, 'Okay, we've gone through x amount of cycles at a cost of x amount of dollars, and still nothing - maybe we should pursue other options'. As in, goverment subsidised IVF is great, it's a wonderful option for infertile couples and by all means should be available in order to help less well-off couples achieve their dream, but there should be a cut-off point where the government says, 'Okay, we've helped pay for x amount of cycles and you've had no luck, from here on in you pay for it yourselves because your chances of success are so slim', kwim??

I think Jill Singer's references to 'flawed gene pools' etc were very misguided, and if she didn't stick them in there purely to stir up some controversy, she should have left them out completely and stuck to a *real* argument over the cost of IVF.
GM - should this same argument not then be applied to other "incurable" medical conditions? sorry, you can only have X many rounds of chemo or radiation - after that, your chances of success are slim?

the reality of LTAC is something i wish i didn't understand to the degree that i do, if it takes the average "normal" couple up to 12 months to conceive, for those of us who fail to ovulate, we need to have up to 12 cycles of assisted conception to even come close to the same statistical outcome. you then have to take into account that the lab conditions, no matter how well equipped, are not the same as the uterus, so you add more chance of failure. there is the experimentation that goes with getting your body to respond correctly...


do i PERSONALLY believe there should be a limited number of cycles over a lifetime - no. do i PERSONALLY believe there should be a limit to infertlity treatment based on chances of success - HELL NO - too many of my friends that have been on this journey for years have had babies in the past few months after up to 10 years of trying. do i PERSONALLY believe that perhaps there needs to be a limit to the number of cycles PER YEAR - yes. i don't care how many years it takes, how many stim cycles, how many FET's it takes - the only person who can say enough is enough is the person going through it - but i believe that limiting it to 6 attempts per year (so having a rest cycle between attempts) is reasonable.

no other medical treatment is limited based on statistical chances of success - why should fertility treatment be?