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.
I don't believe couples should be given a cut off point. This is their only chance at becoming parents, and you don't always get the right mix of everything first, second or even third time round. Drugs (before and after EPU) are tweaked or changed, not everyone reacts the same way to a drug. Couples could reach their cut off point before they have even worked out what works for them and their bodies! Being told that their chances for conception after a certain point are slim, is just wrong. Like I said, not everyone is lucky to have IVF work first go.

I don't beleve limiting tax payer money to IVF is the right option either. IVFers are paying their taxes too! As if it isn't emotional and worrying enough! Suggesting that limits be put in place would just place even more pressure on infertile couples to conceive!

Discriminating against couples who are well off as opposed to the not well off ones is wrong as well. Like I said, there are so many factors when going through IVF. We had a 400klm round trip to see our FS for appointments and ultrasounds AND to pick up my drugs. We then had a return trip of almost 2000 klms for our egg pick up and transfer - as well as fuel, food, accomodation costs, all on top of our IVF cycle, specialist fees and drugs for the first 3 months of my pregnancy!

Telling couples that there are limits to their chances of conception is wrong, I'm sure fertile people wouldn't appreciate being told that they are limited to a certain number of children, or people like me who a secondary infertility couples, that because they've had one, that should be enough!

Sushee, I couldn't agree more...my DS is the fittest, he swam to my little eggie faster than his little swimmer siblings, even if it was in a little dish.