Do you find this insulting?

[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.

[sushee]

Infertilty has a medical definition, and 'unexplained infertility' falls under this, as you all well know. If you have tried for a certain amount of time without successfully bearing a live baby, you can be classed as infertile for the purposes of Assisted Conception.

Please let's not argue the semantics.

Can we also please get back on topic now?

[diva det]

here here sushee!!!
definately not a choice- but sometimes the only option

[briggsy's girl]

Odette - unexplained infertility is still infertility. we're not talking about people who have been trying for 12 months, 2 years, whatever, who go to the FS due to not being able to conceive on there own - we're talking about people who decide "hell, it's time for us to TTC, but we don't want to try on our own, we want to go through IVF cos we want twins" - there is a huge difference there!

you also wouldn't decide when you want to go back for your next kidlet that you're going to TTC, but you want twins again, so you're going to be referred to an FS straight away. there is a very different mentality for those that have tried themselves, and need referring for extra help, and those that just want to have their family a certain way...

[~ Mylitta ~]

I haven't voted in the poll, because I don't feel comfortable with either of the two options available to me (who has not used IVF). This is partly due to the fact that I don't know enough about IVF resources in Australia.

If resources for IVF were plentiful (clinics, doctors, fertility specialists, nurses etc.) then I wouldn't be concerned if an infertile couple with that was fully informed of what was involved in IVF and the additional risks involved with a twin pregnancy (assuming they would even be granted permission to have more than a sigle embryo transferred) chose to take that path.

If resources are limited, then I don't think it would be fair on couples that were in need of assisted conception to be denied access to, or be put on a waiting list, for IVF, while couples that are able to conceive naturally are using those resources.

Perhaps if "elective" IVF couples were required to pay for their treatment themselves (no medicare support), the increased revenue could be spent on increasing resources, as well as put towards further study in the field, which could potentially benefit those that have a genuine need of IVF...

[Batcoat]

Perhaps if "elective" IVF couples were required to pay for their treatment themselves (no medicare support), the increased revenue could be spent on increasing resources, as well as put towards further study in the field, which could potentially benefit those that have a genuine need of IVF...

That's a very good suggestion Krystie.

[maz]

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

fabo point babe......I wish those people who do the whole 'elective c/s' cause cause they just can would think about this.

After reading some of the posts from you girls who have 'been there and done it' I jsut have to say -

I really do feel for you - this 'debate' has made me see things in a different light for you and can actually feel that it may not be insulting for some but hurtful and I think if I was in your situations..it would feel like someone would be rubbing salt into my wounds. Its painful enough when a healthy, normal woman gets her AF when she is trying, I can never in my wildest dreams imagine the torture a woman who goes through all the medical procedures only to have AF rear that dame ugly head of hers. My heart aches for you all who have been or are in this situation. I also take my hat of to those of you struggling with this on a day to day basis only to come on here and see some many woman talk happily about their babies.

so yes I can see that it can casue your emotions to get stired up that someone who can quiet obviously have children naturally can decided to go down the IVF tunnel.

[butterfly_warrior]

What I find most insulting is the fact that the journalists responsible for spreading this rumour know so little about IVF that it really does seem a feasible and easy option for them to get the child/children they want.

The idea that IVF can be seen as the "easy way" to have a baby is laughable. Given the choice of having sex with my husband in order to conceive over what we went through... I sure as hell know what I'd choose any day!

Some of the highlights of my IVF journey - bleeding constantly for over three weeks, at times so heavily that I nearly needed to be hospitalised; squirting drugs up my nose that gave me constant headaches for two weeks that no pain killers would budge (just to add to it, it didn't even work!); daily injections for over three weeks; becoming so ill as a result of an IVF cycle that I spent a week in hospital and was unable to work for over a month... Easy? Sure! Excuse the sarcasm. That's just dealing with some of the physical impacts of IVF, not even touching on the emotional impacts of failed cycles, miscarriages, and the toll that daily blood tests while cycles are being monitored takes on a person.

If someone is mad enough to go through all of that without the need for it, then I think the only thing that can be said is that they are downright mad.

As I said earlier, the insulting part of it is that people understand so little of IVF that people in society seriously do view it as an easier option than having sex to conceive. It's hard physically, emotionally, mentally and financially. I'm insulted by the implication that what I went through to concieve this child was easy in comparison to someone being able to conceive the natural way.

Even from DH's point of view it can't have been easy. Dealing with an irrational, hormonal and exhausted wife would be hard in itself. Getting intimate with a plastic cup on demand... hell, I can see how that's easier than having sex with your wife! Watching your wife go through hell after egg collections and spending weeks not only working full time, but caring for me either at home or in hospital because I'm so incapacitated that I can barely get myself to the bathroom let alone cook and clean.

We do IVF because we are broken. Not because it's an easier option.

BW

[SunnyRain]

I acknowledge that my response to this poll seems heartless and inappropriate when positioned within the TTC forum, and I never would have entered this conversation without an invitation in my email.

I realise I seem to have diminished what you're going through, but actually that was not my intention ...I was merely responding to the question of whether it is insulting or not, as an opinion poll and as a question raised for discussion.

As it happens I don't have that "biological imperative" to procreate. I looked into adoption long before I ever considered having my own biological child. It's irrelevant what my situation is, but it's not the same as most women which puts me not just in the minority but quite possibly out on a limb all by myself. BUT I'm willing to stand by my opinions because they are coming from years and years of consideration which resulted in my knowing that IVF would never be the right choice for me.

That does not mean I am against IVF.

I KNOW adoption is not an easy option so I wasn't being flippant about that. I also know that IVF is incredibly difficult, which is why I said I couldn't do it myself because I couldn't handle it. I could not handle it at all.

BTW: I am nearly 32, married for 5 years and our baby is completely planned.

[butterfly_warrior]

None of us NEED to be a mother. But that biological urge is there for a reason. If it weren't there, where would the human race be?

Kuraiza, it comes across as an immense judgement on those who have been through or are going through IVF. We don't NEED to be parents, so why the hell do we bother? We bother for the same reason that most people have children.

There are a number of us that are completely ruled out from being able to adopt before we even start. Does this mean we also shouldn't do IVF? Does the fact that I suffer from arthritis and anxiety mean I'm less fit to be a mother than the drug addict who sleeps around but is blessed with the ability to conceive naturally? By the time we wait the years and years that are needed for approval, we'll be too old anyway.

My history and heritage means that intercountry adoption is not for us. I won't go into why that is, as it could easily come across as a judgement on those who pursue that path, and that's something I certainly do not want to do. We sponsor a child in India - but it's simply not enough to satisfy that biological urge to have my own child.

What you have said is as insulting to those of us doing IVF as it would be for us to tell you that you have no need of being a mother so you should give up your own child for adoption. There's no way in hell any of us would dream of doing that, but perhaps that can help you understand why your comments are so hurtful to those on the other side of the fence.

BW

[Rouge]

Can we keep it on track please people. Keep in mind you are talking to real people here, you may be talking about the actions of celebrities, but right here, right now we are talking amongst REAL people. So please lets not enter into a debate (that is only going to end badly I might add) about whether or not IVF is a necessity for those infertile. The question clearly states: IVF in healthy couples for the sole purpose of twins - do you find it insulting?

So lets answer that question, and move on from any further debate that could be even more insulting than the original question.

[kateB]

So lets answer that question, and move on from any further debate that could be even more insulting than the original question.

Niliac - the issues being discussed here ARE part of being able to answer the question, but I do agree that we need to remember that Brad and Ange are people and all of us here are people too with feelings and opinions that may differ.

Personally, having had a cancelled cycle recently and waiting to start the next cycle I don't necessarily find it insulting, but it does concern me that there ARE waiting lists and it may make infertile couples have to wait longer - and that isn't really fair.

My biggest fear with hearing about 'designer' babies is what about those babies? What if someone wants twins and only one survives? How will that one child be treated? Will they forever feel they have let the side down because the other twin didn't survive? Even if logically it isn't their fault.

i've heard of people in America paying big bucks for the sperm of musical geniuses, stars, etc etc, and then getting upset (and sue of course) when their child doesn't come out playing Mozart (they seem to forget that the child has half their DNA and may have ten thumbs when it comes to playing music!). THAT angers me! Those poor kids will forever know that they aren't 'good enough' in the eyes of their parents.

My DH and I want a child so much, and I just want to meet them and learn who they are and love them. I don't care if its one or two - though only having one embryo transfer makes sense to me as it is less risk to the baby.

As for the conversation about 'needing' have a baby - no its not a need - it's the strongest desire, the most precious gift, and the greatest job in the whole world. We've been told that we should adopt rather than go through IVF - after a few interesting words from me I told them that we are not able to adopt due to medical reasons - same as some of the other girls here. So IVF is our only hope.

Take care all,

[danielle1985]

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.

Sushee - Thats a good point, and I could have worded my writing a little differently... Didnt mean to offend

[sushee]

You didn't offend, Danielle.

Now mod hat firmly OFF.

You're right, Kuraiza, infertilty isn't life-threatening, so by that definition it's not a need. But to compare an infertile couple who just wants a child, and have spent years trying to have a child, to someone who is otherwise fertile wanting IVF to have twins is like comparing surgery to reconstruct a burns victim's face with someone having breast augmentation because their boobs are one size too small. Now THAT, I do find quite insulting.