Do you find this insulting?

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

:

---

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.

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..

:

---

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! :p )

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?

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......

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. :sick:

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.

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.

:

---

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

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

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!!!!!

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!!

:

---

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.

:

---

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.

---

I agree Sush - I think these women should not be restricted from free access to AC and/or IVF - they may not have fertility issues but technically they are not able to conceive unassisted.

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?

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

I've had to sit and ponder a little before I answered, because I need to clarify my thoughts before I know how to explain them ;)
(Still can't guarantee that my dribble to follow will actually make any sense, either :p)

I'm a little on the fence, if there was an option for 'does it raise emotion' rather than insult, I could have perhaps answered a little better... I'll explain!!!

In general, I'm not insulted that otherwise fertile couples want to choose IVF to conceive - it really makes no difference to my situation & my life, so everybody live as they choose and use any resources available... good luck to you :)

To put my heart on the line though, it hurts like hell... so whilst I'm not insulted, the word I could use better to explain my feelings would be envious.

I think any of us who have been on the IVF road can answer differently - depending on where we're up to in our cycles.

We're about to start cycle #5 - 4 cycles of pure hell and we're still going back for more because the desire for a baby just completely outweighs anything else.

I'll use Brad & Angelina for an example - but for me it applies to any fertile couple who have succeeded using IVF when they haven't necessarily needed to....

1) I'm envious that it worked at all for them
2) I'm envious they were ALLOWED 2 embryos with no fertilty issues
3) I'm envious that both embryos took
4) I'm envious that they have a baby or babies in their arms when after more than 6 years we're still trekking on...

BUT - thats because at this point in time, I'm not there yet.

It hasn't worked for us yet, we had to fight like hell & be put through proven failed cycles before we were allowed the option of multiple transfers, and as of yet, we haven't had any embryos take to carry on and result in a baby for us :(

Its a raw question for any of us struggling and who have yet to gain results - and to answer without being bias (for me anyway) is impossible.

It hurts like hell that its so easy for others - That may not be the 'polite' or 'correct' thing to say, but its the truth.

We're putting our hearts on the line every day of our lives & someone says 'hhhmmm, here's an easier alternative' - And you know, its not... but in their case, it actually has been.... now THERE'S some irony huh?!!!

In saying all of that, its not so much insulting - if I had had all of my intended IVF cycles, was successful and had my babies in my arms, then I can't imagine this would effect me at all - but I'm not there yet, so it does.

This particular example with Brad & Angelina makes me smile... I actually started a thread about it when I read the report on the news headlines - It makes me smile because the journalist has obviously NO comprehension of what is involved in an IVF cycle.
To be under the dillusion that this is the easier alternative makes me smile at the ignorance... but good luck to anyone that is able to believe that.


Lucky them that this world has spared them this time round of this horrific struggle.
Not only is it a battle against your fertility & a struggle of the most powerful of desires to gain a child - but it is the ultimate test in your self worth, the ultimate test within a marriage or partnership, and most importantly the battle to maintain the health of your mind, your heart, your body... and ultimately your sanity.


I wish I too was spared enough in this lifetime to have that ignorance, but as it stands, its not to be :(

So my answer (although I've certainly gone the long way round to find it) is that I don't find it insulting - but I answered in the poll that yes it does - it is because it hurts enough, that for lack of a better word, at this point in time, yes I do find it insulting. (I appreciate that that statement may just not make any sense at all!)

Ask me again after my next cycle if I'm lucky enough to come out with a baby ;)

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...

:

---

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.

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).

So we're talking about desire, not need.

Hypothetically: I don't see any difference in someone seeking assistance in choosing to have one baby or twins (or more). It's a bit preachy to say that one person has a "right" to IVF while it's insulting for others to do the same.

Realistically: There's no guarantee that IVF will result in the birth of twins. It seems highly unlikely that a couple would bother with the trials and tribulations of IVF just for twins, but if that's what floats their boat and they have the loose change in the pockets to spend on IVF, whose business is it?

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?

Please note: Hollybolly made an excellent point differentiating between an insult and something being highly emotional. I agree that this issue could be emotionally upsetting for couples going through IVF. I have a friend who completely dumped me after 15 years of friendship when I got pregnant and she didn't. I don't understand her reaction, but I acknowledge it. I sure as hell wasn't trying to insult her, but I clearly upset her.

:

---

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 :redface:

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.

I find it very insulting and very sad. I have always been fortunate enough to conceive naturally 4 times, once with twins, unfortunately one of my twins died at 34wks. As much as I would love the experience of raising twins I would NEVER turn to IVF for this joy to happen.

I not think it's wrong at all.
Some times twins are made threw IVF with no Intention of it happening that way
and you can get 5 eggs put back in with a chance of none taking.
So If you want twins and you are doing IVF for the Sole purpose you just might get
only one baby. Not to Mention IVF is not Cheap and it is no stroll in the Park.
More like a trip on a roller coaster missing a few bolts.
I am doing IVF had cycles cancelled because of things. Had to do alot of things that
are not the nicest of things to do...
So if you want to go threw all that to have twins i say goodluck.
I once wanted A boob Job till i had a lump removed from my breast i now say i dont like pain that much.And any woman getting implants is Crazy But good luck to them. It's not for me after what i went threw.
So i guess who are we to judge as long as those babies are loved and well looked after then that is all that matters.

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...

I voted i find it offensive, but to be honest maybe part of that is actually jealousy! I didnt want twins first time round but now that Im older and dont enjoy pregnancy (having had a few probs along the way but not needing ivf) I would like to be having twins this time - I would LOVE to be having twins this time!!!
If I had the $$$ then maybe I would consider it, but then what I know of the IVF process I would probably prefere to adopt, and once again and heres my reference to the Jolie-Pitts, if I did have that kind of money (and lived in a country where it was easier to do) I would be 'buying up' babies from around the world too!
I say 'buying up' because although I`m sure they go through the assesments, I believe that for them money and fame helps get things happening where and when you want it.

In regards to media gossip, which is all it is - "gossip", I read way back in Dec /Jan when it was first said that they were expecting again, that it was twins and Ange had been on a fertility drug due to the absence of her regular cycle, because of the stress she was under from her mothers death. To be honest, I`d think this is a more likely explanation, but tbh, we just dont know and whats it really all matter how they got pregnant. They have been blessed with 2 new healthy babies.

:

---

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).

So we're talking about desire, not need.

Hypothetically: I don't see any difference in someone seeking assistance in choosing to have one baby or twins (or more). It's a bit preachy to say that one person has a "right" to IVF while it's insulting for others to do the same.

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?

---

OMG hun, if I was you, I would duck for cover as quickly as you can!!

I don't mean to be insulting to you at all either, but I think this is most perfectly an example of statements by someone who has absolutely no comprehension at all of IVF - and of the inability to conceive a child.

LUCKY, LUCKY YOU ;)

You have just clarified for me that my post made sense - that the ignorance of someone spared of this ideal would be bliss...

There's too many points there to prove wrong... and already my hands are shaking and the tears are streaming down my face....

I really need to hit 'submit reply' before I end up being banned as a member :(

I was naturally unable to conceive and had to turn to IVF and i have two views:

1. IVF should not be used by those who can naturally conceive or have no record of difficulty falling pregnant as it's taking away from the sole purpose of why the system is there to start with.

2. Embrace your god given ability to naturally conceive - if you can conceive naturally and have a partner to do so then enjoy that magic that the rest of us miss out on, doing a pregnancy test and seeing that your pregnant must be an amazing moment, for the rest of us we do a transfer and chemically could be pregnant but not physically so no pregancy sticks surprises for us folk.

Get back to the basics and stop trying to fast track everything people.

:

---

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"

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

:

---

OMG hun, if I was you, I would duck for cover as quickly as you can!!

I don't mean to be insulting to you at all either, but I think this is most perfectly an example of statements by someone who has absolutely no comprehension at all of IVF - and of the inability to conceive a child.

LUCKY, LUCKY YOU ;)

You have just clarified for me that my post made sense - that the ignorance of someone spared of this ideal would be bliss...

There's too many points there to prove wrong... and already my hands are shaking and the tears are streaming down my face....

I really need to hit 'submit reply' before I end up being banned as a member :(

---

You Go Girl...
As woman we have the right to be mothers and take all means to do so NOT everybody is blessed with the fact they can fall by just looking at a Penis.
Does this mean that others like us dont deserve to be mothers.
Some people take being parents for granted
Some people take falling Preg For granted
I Just wish life was just that easy but i dont live in a bubble
IVF Gives us woman a chance to be so much more
Never judge some one till you have walked and lived in there shoes..

IVF in healthy couples for the sole purpose of twins - do you find it insulting?

Based on what the ACTUAL question is I voted Not insulted. I think for people struggling with conception this is a lovely way to get an instant family particularly for those on their last try IYKWIM

Regardless of what Brad and Ange do - THIS is what the question was and NOT - DO YOU FIND INSULTING IF BRAD & ANGE CONCEIVEDTWINS USING IVF. :rolleyes:

C'mon its an easy question - read it properly

:p

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.

:

---

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...

---

:clap: That's a very good suggestion Krystie.

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

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.

Hi

I would find this insulting if there were no extenuating circumstances.

For instance if the person just wanted to get double the baby bonus so they could buy a new car or a plasma TV, or thought it would be 'cute' to have twins, this would be very insulting.

However if the circumstances were such as the mother or father had a medical reason that may exclude them from having a second pregnancy, and they really wanted their child to have a sibling, then I wouldn't feel insulted by that.

Just my thoughts
L.B.

Hey I voted I need assisted conception and DO NOT find it insulting

It is none of anyones business what someone else does, really!

I would roll my eyes at these people though, like I do with a lot of parents because I don't agree with what they are doing but I would not find it insulting as that is their choice/right IMO

I have had, thank God, no fertility problems to date, but would not have IVF for twins, despite the fact I would love to have twins.

Why? Because it's a dangerous procedure, what with OHSS and things like that which can occur. Because, so far, I haven't needed it. Because I know if I did need it and was sat next to someone with no problems who just wanted twins for a fashion statement I'd be hurt and upset.

Because once it becomes the norm for healthy women to have IVF to get what they want wrt number of children, maybe it will become the norm for people to have IVF for screening for genetic illness. Then "undesirable" genes, such as those for specific looks (I'd hate to have a daughter who looked like me but not to the extent I'd do genetic screening... but if it were the norm would I still think like that? I'd hope so but how do I know?)

I just think it can be a slippery slope. IVF shouldn't be denied to people, but I believe it should be VERY restricted and made difficult if you don't have fertility problems - as I believe it currently is.