Do you find this insulting?

[Baby Angels]

I need to use assisted conception, I ve used IVF and was pregnant with Twins unfortunately they did not survive. I do not find it an insult for naturally healthy men or women to use IVF for twins because I do not have a right to dictate what other people do or do not do and as long as those babies are looked after and loved then why would you have an issue with it. Now all those children who are mistreated.... now there is soemthing to have an issue with.

[Liz]

Going by the definition of insulting, no I don't think it's insulting. I agree with Sarah - I think it's crazy! But if anyone wants to put themselves through it all and the risk of a multiple pg, well.. that's up to them. Don't see how it impacts personally on anyone else.

Is it really using up resources? Is there a waiting list for IVF? (not asking rudely - I really don't know) If it stops couples that need it, then I don't think that's right, but not insulting.

The other thought I had is I would assume that the emotional side of IVF would be less, or at least vastly different for fertile couples, as it's not their only way of having -any- children.

[Sair]

As I am now reading the posts, I realise how little I actually know about IVF.

Thanks Sushee, yeah I probably would be better off trying naturally.

If there was a guarrantee I would go for it but as others have said it doesn't work that way If only it did so everyone could have their families.

[~Aveta~]

as a theoretical excersise...

having had natural twins with no family history at a young age, i am aware of the risks associated with a twin pg.

i can see the point of an older couple wanting to increase their chances by having two or more embies transferred, weighing up the associated risk/financial cost of IVF and multiples.

i don't, on principle, agree with designer babies but fully support a couple's decision for genetic testing of embies/gender specification in cases of family-associated genetic issues. (eg hemophilia, CF)

although i personally wouldn't do it, i also support the decision of individuals to do IVF with donor embies.

i absolutely support IVF for single women and same-sex couples who will be financially supporting their kids.


but i do find the notion that an otherwise healthy couple with no infertility issues would choose IVF a bit odd, if not personally insulting.

[diva det]

I think IVF should be kept for those that genuinely need it.[/QUOTE]


as we are all adults and this is just a healthy debate- i was just wondering who decides on who needs IVF and who doesnt- and what difference does it make. They are not stopping other couples using IVF. There isnt a set number of places or quota- its endless.

And where do we draw the line at- people who want to freeze their eggs for when they are older and more financially secure? only hetrosexual couples? only married couples? Only couples with incomes over $100,000? WHERE DO WE STOP!!!!


As we all know, the further IVF progresses and the more people that do it- the better the specialists get at the whole procedure. So by getting 'fertile' people to do IVF- it helps bulk up the numbers and the methods get refined more quicker.

so i say whoever wants to put their bodies through IVF- hey then go for it! After 7 cycles of IVF- i wouldnt call it a great past time activity- !!!

Odette
btw can you tell that i am starting to get a bit passionate about this topic lol

[{sarah}]

Is it really using up resources? Is there a waiting list for IVF? (not asking rudely - I really don't know) If it stops couples that need it, then I don't think that's right, but not insulting.

There is kind of a waiting list for IVF, but not really - because the clinics are so busy you do have to wait a while in general to get an appointment. That said, I don't think having a fertile couple going through a cycle would make too much of a difference. The only resources that would be used are the doctors, nurses & scientists time, the drugs are readily available as far as I know so there'd be no issue there. The only time they'd be using up resources if they were to use donated sperm, eggs or embryos. If that was the case I'd be outraged that a couple not genuinely in need of those things would take them away from another couple that did need them.

[totalbabe77]

i don't find it insulting exactly, but my thoughts are that it is a 'waste' of resources on people who can conceive naturally which may disadvantage people who need IVF, in that it may make it more difficult to get into ob's and fertility clinics etc..but as a previous post said, as long as those babies are loved it can't be too bad..just wouldn't want anyone to miss out..

[briggsy's girl]

as we are all adults and this is just a healthy debate- i was just wondering who decides on who needs IVF and who doesnt- and what difference does it make. They are not stopping other couples using IVF. There isnt a set number of places or quota- its endless.

unfortunately, it's not endless. there are only so many clinics, the wait "can" be months to get an appointment. if you don't live in the major cities, you have to wait for regional clinics, where available, and there ARE limited places available. i haven't been denied a place at the local clinic as yet - but i know they have squeezed me in when they really shouldn't have. they've also now had to extend the local clinic to span 10 days instead of five. this take the FS, nurses and embryologists out of their city clinics for extended periods, and means that people can't receive their treatment from that FS for those periods of time. i share an FS with a Melb BB girl who knows when i will undergo treatment, as she is unable to cycle at the same time.

As we all know, the further IVF progresses and the more people that do it- the better the specialists get at the whole procedure. So by getting 'fertile' people to do IVF- it helps bulk up the numbers and the methods get refined more quicker.

i would have to disagree with this theory completely - getting otherwise fertilie indivduals to undergo IVF doesn't help with the techniques at all. yeah, it gives them more people to churn through (anyone want to be "just another number"?), it bumps their success stats for sure - but it takes away the ability for specialists to treat people with REAL fertility issues. how comfortable would someone like me be dealing with an FS who, half the time, is dealing with fertilie couples wanting a certain family structure, and losing the ability to treat someone with PCOS, severe endo, male factor infertility. treating otherwise fertile couples won't help to refine anything that will genuinely advance IVF technology, except the mentality of "just another patient".



i have to clarify my stand in case it's not been clear - i find the media BS insulting - simplifying IVF into a one-liner in their story for a bit of hype, and another way to sell some trashy mag. i find the thought that people would go through IVF just to have twins goes to show how truly un-educated they are about the process - no offence to anyone who's thought it - but really, do some reading and find out what IVF is really about - it's not easy, and it is far from guaranteed! within AU, you won't get a GP referral to an FS for treatment just cos you want twins, so not only are you using resources that some of us really do NEED, you're going to be out of pocket thousands of dollars as it won't be medicare rebatable - and potentially, you'll end up with a negative result, or more than likely a singleton pregnancy - which you could have achieved in the comfort of your own bedroom (or wherever the urge takes you! )

[Cazz]

File this under "Things other people are doing that don't affect me". Why should I care if a healthy person wants to go to through the trouble, expense and discomfort of IVF when they don't strictly have to?

[maz]

All in all

its just another case of money talking

Look at how quickly the superrich adopt their babies....I know a couple that had to wait 10 years......

[Batcoat]

I need IVF to conceive & find it insulting.

I think IVF/Assisted Conception should ONLY be for people who have trouble conceiving or who have a genetic condition.

It $hits me how people think they can use IVF for gender balance in their family or because they think twins are cute & want them.

[sushee]

I don't necessarily agree that IVF should only be for those who cannot conceive. That would exclude single women and lesbian couples, who I personally think should have as much access to IVF as anyone else.

[dust]

any pregnancy single or multiple is a risk, so lets put it straight no pregnancy or birth is "risk free".. if they opted for some sort of miracle 'risk free' pregnancy wouldnt they cop the flack about that too.
Not so long ago there was a case of mums suing over a twin IVF which alot of people felt they had a right to judge all involved..
i dont need ivf, i dont find it insulting... nvm never being able to afford it.

[briggsy's girl]

All in all

its just another case of money talking

Look at how quickly the superrich adopt their babies....I know a couple that had to wait 10 years......

Australia has some of the strictest rulings in regard to the ethics behind both IVF and adoption. it's a lot harder to adopt in AU than it is overseas. IVF is also much more tightly regulated

[danielle1985]

I havent had to go through IVF, but I dont think its a process that a sane, healthy person would CHOOSE to go through. It sounds emotionally and financially draining.
I guess that if you have unlimited resources, and you really want twins, then you might go down that road. I suppose one argument for it is people who struggle to concieve naturally choose to use IVF to have a baby, so why cant people who struggle to have twins naturally use IVF?
Mindyou I dont agree with it, because I think its using up limited resources that are needed by people that actually NEED to use IVF.
From a business point of view, anyone not needing it shouldnt use it, purely for financial reasons - if demand of a limited resource goes up, supply cant rise to meet that demand, and so prices will go up (because more people want it.... an easier way to explain it is this - remember when the banana's got really expensive? that was because there werent enough of them, but there was still the same amount of people wanting them, so they increased in cost.... same thing here, just a bit more complicated than bananas).
So if the rich choose IVF when they dont need it, theres more pressure on the limited resources, and it will become even less affordable (if thats even possible at the cost it is now. But thats another discussion.) for the normal income earner. Not really very fair.
I guess if their was a reshuffling of the system, then it could work.
Perhaps if payment was based on income, with the rich paying more, to substitute costs of low income earners. Or alternatively, people that choose to use IVF when they have no fertility problems and are just being picky could pay more, to substitute those that need to use IVF. Or the Government could do something about it. Anyway Im sure theres already an argument about that.
Sorry about the mini finance essay lol. Uni habits, cant shake 'em!
Danielle

[diva det]

BG
i am sorry you have had to wait for appoitments for your IVF
in the 6 years i have been doing IVF- i have never had to wait- even at the satellite clinic. I have also never had a cycle delayed or held back due to them being too busy. When it suits me, i have got in- with no hassles
I guess it comes down to how well the clinic is run and its efficiency. BTW i got through MIVF.

also i have noticed since i did my first IVF cycle in 2002, how much things have changed and the protocol has been tweeked as they have had different success rates with different protocols . The more women they have had through- the better they have got at the procedure.

Also, we have no medical reason why we couldnt conceive naturally. It just hadnt happened for 2 years before we did IVF. I ovulate every month, DH sperm is great- just never happened. So does that mean that i would have been called fertile???? and perhaps not given a place under this definition.

As its turned out as you guys know- we now have conceived naturally as well. But that took 8 years to happen on its own. So what happens now if we want to go back and have more children down the track. Are we fertile or infertile????

That's my point! Who gets to decide who should do IVF and who shouldnt!

odette
btw i love heathy debates!!!!!

[Mumma2three]

Does IVF guarantee twins? I thought you could end up with just one baby, so I can't see that it would really be a viable exercise. However if someone wants to spend the time and money I think it's up to them.
And whether or not it's our opinions on Ang and Brad, I would think that the only reason people are speculating is because of jealousy. I mean, how perfect for them to have a girl and boy twin. But I love that they did, it suits them, it would only happen to them!!

[sushee]

people who struggle to concieve naturally choose to use IVF to have a baby, so why cant people who struggle to have twins naturally use IVF?

Just wanted to point out that if you can't conceive naturally, then IVF is not a choice, but likely your only option.

That's quite different to wanting IVF for the express purpose of having two babies at the same time, and therefore putting both you and your unborn children at exponentially more risk, just for vanity and convenience.