At the risk of being terribly unpopular and probably insulting a lot of people, IVF isn't an actual "need" in any circumstance. IVF is for people (or a single person) who WANT a baby. It's not life threatening or even all that biologically important if people can conceive or not. In the wild an animal that can't conceive simply doesn't. The population of the species continues regardless (unless you're a panda, in which case IVF may be a need, but we're not talking about pandas).

.........

Personally, I could never consider IVF at all because I couldn't handle it and frankly I can't afford it. If you're willing and able to go through with it, more power to you. I would adopt, but Brangelina have done that already, so who knows ... why shouldn't they try out something new?
you're right - it's not a NEED to procreate - but it is a biological imperative. to constantly feel empty because you can't fulfil the desire can actually be enough to have people become suicidal. it is psychological as much as physical.

if adoption were an option that were accessible a lot more of us would consider it. but get diagnosed with depression, you can be excluded from the list. slightly overweight, well that will cancel you out too. and dear god - don't have a parent over 40 - never gonna happen!! adoption isn't easy in Australia at all - it takes two years to even be approved to enter an adoption program - and some inter-country adoption programs are closed for several years. it's easy to be flippant when you're not living it.

but that's not really the point of this is it - it's whether people find it offensive for a fertile person to go through IVF JUST to have twins.... i have no issue at all with there being restrictions on accessing subsidised fertility treatment for this "desire"