BG said most adequately what I would have said also.

Eg. my sister took 13 months to fall pregnant naturally. As a perfectly fertile woman at 33 years of age, she took 13 cycles to become pregannt.

It took 13 embryos for me to fall pregnant at 37 years of age. That took 8 cycles of IVF and 13 months as well. So by rights, I didn't actually take any longer than my sister did.

Why is it then that I should be expected to only have 3 IVF cycles all up (which is what the govt was thinking of limiting IVF to at one stage) before I stop receiving financial assistance for my medical condition? Are my chances of falling really slimmer? Because the equivelant is like telling a perfectly fertile woman that if she doesn't fall pregnant within 3 months, her chances are obviously slim to fall pregnant at all. And as we all know, that's not true.

If a fertile woman can have sex as many times as she likes to try to conceive, I have issues with infertile women being told they're only allowed so many chances before they get no further assistance - and a ridiculously small amount of chances as well! IVF is already prohibitively expensive with assistance, and the majority of IVFers will spend masses of money in order to concieve. To make it harder for them based on an 'arbitrary' decision based on a flawed argument regarding their 'chances of success' seems like a poor excuse to try to save money at their expense.