British health system: IVF eligibility a whole six months

posted at 12:55 pm on June 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

For those who still think Canada and “England” have great health-care systems where patients can just walk into clinics and get treatment, this story from “England” should remind those as to what a single-payer system actually does.  It limits costs by rationing treatment, not by making it more available, and Britain’s NHS gives us an object lesson.  They have now limited in-vitro fertilization access to women of a specific age range — and a very, very narrow one at that (via The Corner):

Infertile women have been told they can only have IVF treatment if they are aged between 39 and a half and 40.

The ‘cruel and bizarre’ restrictions were put in place by NHS managers in North Yorkshire struggling to deal with a huge deficit at their health trust.

It could mean women with severe fertility problems to wait years for one cycle of IVF treatment. …

The rules were greeted with incredulity by charities.

Susan Seenan, from Infertility Network UK, said: ‘This policy really is one of the worst we have ever encountered amid the postcode lottery for IVF.

‘We have seen some bad policies in other parts of the country, but this is not just cruel, it is bizarre, and it flies in the face of the medical evidence that the best treatment for fertility is to start early.’

Bizarre is certainly one word for it.  The six-month window means that women can at best only get one cycle of IVF treatment before their expiration date.  Few women have the fortune to only need one cycle, though, which means it will mostly be useless.  It also forces women with diagnosed fertility issues at young ages to wait years just to get that first cycle.

Why did they put these restrictions in place?  IVF treatments cost a fortune, thanks to the high cost of technology and the lack of specialists in the NHS system to provide it.  Instead of using free-market mechanisms to increase supply, though, the NHS in this area has rationed the treatment into virtual non-existence.  It saves costs by denying treatment to patients who need it.

Get used to that approach as ObamaCare gets applied in the US.  That’s exactly what “comparative effectiveness” mechanisms are meant to do — deny care based on the decisions of beancounters in Washington rather than decisions made by doctors and their patients.  It’s the ultimate in elitism, where self-apppointed mullahs of medicine tell you whether treating you is worth the bother, or as in this case, whether you’re worthy of assisted reproduction.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

That sounds like the public school racket.

Ampleforth on June 29, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Abso-bloody-lutely correct ;)

Yet another institution that shouldn’t exist

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Well, Unrepentant may not have phrased it very artfully, but from a religious perspective, there’s partial truth to what he says. My wife and I have no children, not by choice, we just simply never conceived. Is it defective DNA? I don’t really know. What I do know however is that it is God’s will and I’m comfortable with that.

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Would you be open to adoption?

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Yet another institution that shouldn’t exist

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM

+1000

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Would you be open to adoption?

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM

He might be a bit old, but he might sit on your knee if you ask nicely.

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM

I can’t speak for anyone else, but yes, Cathoilcs are definitely opposed to IVF and other ALL forms of artificial conception.

As to women’s rights groups, that’s code these days for pro-abortion groups. While they are in favor of abortion they are also in favor of IVF and other “reproductive rights” issues.

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM

FIFY
At least well cathechized Catholics anyway. Regretfully there are plenty of uninformed Catholics.

The fact that abortion-rights groups support IVF should tell people quite a bit.

Goldenavatar on June 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Would you be open to adoption?

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Absolutely yes. However, since my wife just turned 60 and I’m 57 and we’ve both had health issues, we don’t think that’s a realistic option for us now and would not be fair for the child(ren)

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:49 PM

The fact that abortion-rights groups support IVF should tell people quite a bit.

Goldenavatar on June 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM

And that would be?

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Abso-bloody-lutely correct ;)

Yet another institution that shouldn’t exist

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Hey! I’m a product of the British public (private) school system!

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Hey! I’m a product of the British public (private) school system!

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Ditto. I was referring to the illegal US system, however ;)

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

And that would be?

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM

That they’re irreligious meddlers in God’s will for starters!

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Absolutely yes. However, since my wife just turned 60 and I’m 57 and we’ve both had health issues, we don’t think that’s a realistic option for us now and would not be fair for the child(ren)

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:49 PM

True. I see. I know this isn’t the same thing, but if you and your wife wanted to have youths in your life and pass down wisdom, there are some decent Christian foreign exchange programs. I would think the Catholic Church would have this… But this is going off topic…

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Oops, my bad! As all ex-public schoolboys have to ask…What school old chap?

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:53 PM

That they’re irreligious meddlers in God’s will for starters!

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

There are many self-declared Christians outside the Catholic Church that might disagree about what God’s will is…

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:53 PM

PS. To my fellow Americans that may not realize this – the UK is even more F’ed up than you can imagine – “public” school is in fact what we call “private” school.

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Thanks, and yes the Catholic Church has many opportunities to help disadvantaged children, and we participate. Just not quite the same as having one’s own. Now, back to the topic…

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:53 PM

….or the impudence in daring to claim knowledge of God’s will…

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM

PS. To my fellow Americans that may not realize this – the UK is even more F’ed up than you can imagine – “public” school is in fact what we call “private” school.

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Huh? Care to explain?

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 2:57 PM

There are many self-declared Christians outside the Catholic Church that might disagree about what God’s will is…

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:53 PM

I agree, and they’re as entitled to their opinions as I am. The opnion on abortion rights groups was mine and mine alone.

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:57 PM

….or the impudence in daring to claim knowledge of God’s will…

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Or that…

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 2:58 PM

That’s unfair. There could be a genetic issue that manifests as infertility.

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Well, speaking from a situation where both my husband and I are not able to breed- to assert that our DNA must be defective because of that is unfair. I’m healthy in every other way as is my husband. We can’t have children; we don’t have defective genetics that would contribute to the downfall of society.

That being said, it’s just disgusting that the NHS is what Obama wants to introduce to this country.

KrisinNE on June 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM

As all ex-public schoolboys have to ask…What school old chap?

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 2:53 PM

None of ‘name’ ;)

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 2:57 PM

The use of the phrase “public school” meaning private school in the UK goes back centuries. Time was when there were no schools and the childreen (read ‘sons’) of royalty and nobility were educated by private tutors. Eventually (around the 14th century I believe) some enterprising teachers set up schools that were open to the public (not just the sons of royalty etc). These public schools weren’t government operated or anything and admission was based on the parent’s ability to pay for their childrens education. By the time government run education showed up in the late 19th century the term “public school” was commonly accepted as meaning a private school.

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 3:03 PM

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Mine either, reserved for the son’s of lesser Church of England clergymen. Yes, I since converted and feel doubly blessed. I’m American by choice and Catholic by choice!

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Let me get this straight, 2 year wait for hip replacement 6 month wait for IVF. Am I missing something? WTH .

LSUMama on June 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Interesting. I like how it shows that “public” education can survive without government interference or “help”.

….or the impudence in daring to claim knowledge of God’s will…

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM

To be fair, the Bible has that same impudence.

Well, speaking from a situation where both my husband and I are not able to breed- to assert that our DNA must be defective because of that is unfair. I’m healthy in every other way as is my husband. We can’t have children; we don’t have defective genetics that would contribute to the downfall of society.

KrisinNE on June 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Genetic defects that contribute to the downfall of societies and defects that make procreation impossible are not at all the same. It may be that there is no genetic reason you cannot reproduce, but that’s not the case for everyone.

It shouldn’t be taken as an insult but just a statement of facts.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Let me get this straight, 2 year wait for hip replacement 6 month wait for IVF. Am I missing something? WTH .

LSUMama on June 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Yes. Kind of a lot actually.

It’s not a six month wait but rather, six months of eligibility. To be eligible for this, you must be between 39.5 years old and 40 years old. Otherwise, you can’t get this procedure, no matter how long the wait might be.

Ed explained it further up above.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 3:11 PM

….or the impudence in daring to claim knowledge of God’s will…

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM

To be fair, the Bible has that same impudence.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Didn’t mean to sound critical….I was just commenting on what I have heard others’ say. I’ve got no horse in this race ;)

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Ed explained it further up above.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 3:11 PM

What she said ;)

If you start treatment on day one of your ‘window’, you might just get two cycles of treatment if you’re lucky (assuming the first fails, that is). Either way, you’re only having one child max.

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Didn’t mean to sound critical….I was just commenting on what I have heard others’ say. I’ve got no horse in this race ;)

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Oh, I know. It’s just kinda funny because for some, that’s the whole point. If you don’t think you know God’s will, then you’re blindly asking for forgiveness hoping to get one right or something.

I tend to view morality as something more obvious and personal though. I think, if you mess up, you know it, whether or not it’s in the Bible or a preacher’s sermon.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM

I seem to remember higher incidences of birth defects to mothers over 30. If you’re 39.5, why can’t you adopt?

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Let me get this straight, 2 year wait for hip replacement…

LSUMama on June 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM

I’ve posted on this topic previously, but will do again for the emphasis that’s needed in this country on Obamacare.

My eldest sister, who still lives in England, was born with a hip disorder. ABout 12 years ago she had a hip replacement done under the NHS, after waiting about 18 months for it. The hip replacement was badly botched but she decided against waiting and having it done over. She could still walk, although with a terrible limp and was scared to death of what the NHS would do wrong next time. Because of the botched surgery, about 7 years later she needed a knee replacement as she could no longer walk unassisted. She waited abouth 18 months for the surgery, including several postponements of the scheduled surgery because “there just aren’t any doctors available on that day”. The knee replacement was also botched by the NHS and my 67-year old sister has now been told that she’ll just have to get used to painkillers and a wheelchair for the rest of her life. By the way, she was a nurse in the NHS for 35 years and that’s the treatment she got!

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 3:19 PM

I seem to remember higher incidences of birth defects to mothers over 30. If you’re 39.5, why can’t you adopt?

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Over 40 actually. Over 35, and there are health risks to the mother but rarely the baby. Over 45, and the rate of defect is worse than if you were sleeping with your brother.

The knee replacement was also botched by the NHS and my 67-year old sister has now been told that she’ll just have to get used to painkillers and a wheelchair for the rest of her life. By the way, she was a nurse in the NHS for 35 years and that’s the treatment she got!

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Wow. People like her, should be famous over here, lest we repeat the mistakes of NHS.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Over 40 actually. Over 35, and there are health risks to the mother but rarely the baby. Over 45, and the rate of defect is worse than if you were sleeping with your brother.

I’d still like to know, why not adopt?

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Conversely, here in the US my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer 14 years ago. Surgery was immediately scheduled, paid for by private medical insurance, and was successful. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer last December, had surgery, also paid for by private insurance, at the beginning of February and am now completely cancer free, all in a matter of weeks.

Incidentally, both my wife’s and my cancers were diagnosed through routine testing that isn’t even allowed in the UK.

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM

I’d still like to know, why not adopt?

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Got a problem with freedom?

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM

I’d still like to know, why not adopt?

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM

That might be something you have to ask each individual…

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 3:29 PM

I’d still like to know, why not adopt?

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM

That might be something you have to ask each individual…

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Just curious, since I’m a guy I can’t reason like a woman. Is an adopted kid worth less? Perhaps you can’t love an adopted kid as much as a natural born kid?

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:31 PM

I’d still like to know, why not adopt?

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Got a problem with freedom?

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM

LOL…freedom is fine. But why would I have to pay for a woman to use her reproductive system like a ride at Six Flags? Whatever SHE wants, to have one or kill one and I’ve got to pay for it.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:33 PM

I’d still like to know, why not adopt?

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Personal choice. Some people do adopt.

Just curious, since I’m a guy I can’t reason like a woman. Is an adopted kid worth less? Perhaps you can’t love an adopted kid as much as a natural born kid?

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:31 PM

To some people, yeah, another person’s biological kid is worth less. They want someone who will grow up to look like them and have innate, recognizable mannerism.

I personally disagree with that mentality and wish others did as well since there are so many children who need good parents, but you can’t force someone to think differently on this.

And your comment about paying for it is really more of a reason why the government shouldn’t be paying for any of it.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 3:37 PM

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Yes. You do. Only you. Pay for everyone. Because you’re an illiterate ass.

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:39 PM

To some people, yeah, another person’s biological kid is worth less. They want someone who will grow up to look like them and have innate, recognizable mannerism.

I personally disagree with that mentality and wish others did as well since there are so many children who need good parents, but you can’t force someone to think differently on this.

And your comment about paying for it is really more of a reason why the government shouldn’t be paying for any of it.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 3:37 PM

How could one not love ANY kid, natural or adopted that is theirs. I couldn’t comprehend such selfishness.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:41 PM

How could one not love ANY kid, natural or adopted that is theirs. I couldn’t comprehend such selfishness.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Are you Michael Jackson speaking from the grave?

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Yes. You do. Only you. Pay for everyone. Because you’re an illiterate ass.

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Actually we’ll all get to pay, under Obama, for women to play, do I want it, don’t I want it? Whatever I decide it’s YOUR dime.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:43 PM

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:43 PM

To be fair, he did say ‘any kid…that is theirs

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 3:44 PM

How could one not love ANY kid, natural or adopted that is theirs. I couldn’t comprehend such selfishness.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:41 PM

How can a father sell his 5 year old son for sex?

People are evil if you will… What would the atheists refer to them as? Well, you get the idea. All the more reason not to trust men and women to run our lives.

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 3:44 PM

How could one not love ANY kid, natural or adopted that is theirs. I couldn’t comprehend such selfishness.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Are you Michael Jackson speaking from the grave?

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:43 PM

I’m glad I’m NOT Michael Jackson,he’s EXTRA CRISPY right now.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:43 PM

*facepalm*

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:45 PM

And with that I step out… off to presentation…

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 3:45 PM

How can a father sell his 5 year old son for sex?

People are evil if you will… What would the atheists refer to them as? Well, you get the idea. All the more reason not to trust men and women to run our lives.

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Agreed

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:46 PM

How could one not love ANY kid, natural or adopted that is theirs. I couldn’t comprehend such selfishness.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:41 PM

You’re talking about a kid who is already someone else’s, not a kid without parents. All parents love their children, biological or not. But some people aren’t interested in parenting someone else’s biological children. That doesn’t mean they don’t love their own children, cause those people don’t adopt other people’s children.

It’s not selfish to want only your own kin in your own house. It’s normal.

Besides, what you’re saying could apply to even those who can have children without medical help. The bottom line is that most will choose to have their own if they can, and with advancements in science, it just means more people can.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 3:46 PM

You’re talking about a kid who is already someone else’s, not a kid without parents. All parents love their children, biological or not. But some people aren’t interested in parenting someone else’s biological children. That doesn’t mean they don’t love their own children, cause those people don’t adopt other people’s children.

It’s not selfish to want only your own kin in your own house. It’s normal.

Besides, what you’re saying could apply to even those who can have children without medical help. The bottom line is that most will choose to have their own if they can, and with advancements in science, it just means more people can.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 3:46 PM

The risk of having a baby with chromosomal disorders increase as a woman grows older. The most common of these disorders is Down syndrome, a combination of mental retardation and physical abnormalities caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1,250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance; at age 35, a 1-in-400 chance; at age 40, a 1-in-100 chance; and at 45, a 1-in-30 chance.

They’re talking a pretty good likelihood of problems by 39.5-40. All I’m saying is, if you’ve waited this long, why risk it and if you’re the real selfish type, you’ll abort the kid. Easier to just adopt at that age.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:55 PM

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Our histories are identical in that regard. Diagnosis and successful treatment of both conditions has made huge advances in the last 15 years. I assume it will not be offered to certain groups under Obamacare.

a capella on June 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Easier to just adopt at that age.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:55 PM

I’d argue that it’s never “easy” to adopt. Both carry risks. The difference is many people believe having their own offspring is worth the risk.

Not all unborn who are diagnosed with Downs actually have it. Considering they only get one chance at IVF (with such a limited window), I believe more would rather have the baby than abort.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 4:05 PM

a capella on June 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM

As I mentioned, under the NHS mammograms are not permitted for women under age 50 and PSA tests are not routinely offered to men at all. In the UK my wife would have been dead 4 years before the NHS would have allowed her to have a mammogram. ‘Nuff said.

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 4:08 PM

That’s insane. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer at 46. She should have gotten mammograms earlier but missed a few years because of other problems she had. Still, if she’d had to wait until she was 50, it likely would have spread.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Beancounters in Congress? That’s an oxymoron.

From the beancounter

djaymick on June 29, 2009 at 6:59 PM

Ed, I think there is a typo in your article:

Get used to that approach as ObamaCare gets applied in the US. That’s exactly what “comparative effectiveness” mechanisms are meant to do — deny care based on the decisions of beancounters in Washington rather than decisions made by doctors and their patients.

I think you meant, rather than decisions made by insurers trying to make a profit by denying as many claims as possible.

mycowardice on June 29, 2009 at 8:23 PM

“why not just adopt?”

it’s not that easy. it’s cost prohibitive.

the pool of “waiting children” consists of older children. These are often children who have been in foster care for years, who may never have bonded with anyone or may have bonded with someone only to be torn away. These children often have severe psychological and emotional problems. Studies show that those adopted at infancy bond normally with their adoptive parents, but the older the child gets, the more difficult bonding becomes (on the part of both the parent and the child).

If you have the money to adopt from a pregnant woman willing to give up the child… keep in mind the birth mother has to choose you. Any woman giving up her child is going to choose who she thinks can offer her child the best life… so you’d better fit her ideal, she will judge your: wealth, marriage, religion, lifestyle etc. and hope she doesn’t change her mind and choose someone else, or keep it herself, or the birth father shows up a demanding his rights.

you have no idea what the birth family’s history is… mental illness, drugs, alcohol, smoking. what kind of prenatal care did the birth mother get? Smoking, drugs, and alcohol are the rule, not the exception.

We all hear about people who purposely choose to adopt special needs children, or children who have been years in the foster system. Hats off to them for taking on that challenge. But for someone who simply wants to have a family, these challenges can be overwhelming. Being a parent can be challenging enough, why start off with the cards stacked against you?

another arguement for the government staying out of healthcare… in the U.S. most insurance doesn’t cover any type of fertility treatment. women in the U.K.can get fertility treatment, they just have to pay for it. I’d like to make my own decisions on family and adoption without anyone else’s judgement getting in my way… especially my fellow tax-payer!

metrygirl on June 29, 2009 at 8:29 PM

NHS East of England will be the first region in the UK to
fund all eligible couples for up to six attempts at pregnancy with fertility treatment.

To qualify for treatment couples must meet specific eligibility criteria.

In particular, women must be aged between 23 and 39 with no children from the current relationship.

Over a quarter of local health bodies are offering the recommended three free cycles of fertility treatment to couples trying to have a child.

The critism is that it has not been implemented across the country.
I work in the N.H.S in this area. Hospital’s here do compete
Women in their 40′s can have one free cycle and medication.

Do you all know that we can pay for I.V.F as well?

We are trying to give women 1-3 cycles(because if you don’t conceive then ,your chances drop).

The N.H.S has never included everything.
It’s not really rationing,should that 8 babies women with other children
be treated with tax payers money?
Should we be helping 60 yr old women to get pregnant,they are tax payers as well.
Gay couples using N.H.S ,I.V.F.,should the tax payer pay for that?

There isn’t a ‘right’ to have a child.
We are in a strange new world when it comes to fertility.

Metygirl, you say you don’t want the tax payer to judge you.

It’s because of tax payers like me that women here can have free I.V.F before losing their houses to fund private clinic’s, who unlike us want to make money .

mags on June 30, 2009 at 1:29 PM

They don’t want people to have babies. What’s so bizarre about that? Depopulation has been the one of the main goals driving Western governments for almost 100 years now.

Why are there so many infertile women anyway? It’s not an accident. Think about it.

universalagent on June 30, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2