Should Provincial Health Care fund In-Vitro

[Devils'Advocate]

How about if a man is unable to ejaculate, or provide enough good semen to fertilize the egg and a $10,000 operation would fix it. Should that be covered by provincial health care, or should he have to pay for it?

Table5: That sounds too much like "women should stay in the kitchen making me a sandwich" for my liking. People want to have a firm financial footing before bringing a child into the world. To me that sounds RESPONSIBLE, not FOOLISH.

[Rubicant]

In Ontario, there is coverage under OHIP only if you have bilateral blocked tubes. Interestingly, chlamydia is one of the major causes of said condition.

So if you were a dirty girl and have blocked tubes as a result, you get funding while others don't.

I personally think this is a big grey area in terms of things that should be publically funded. Part of me thinks that if you want kids that badly, why should the taxpayer get the bill? The other part of me sees an increasing number of women going into careers that require a lot of training, thereby missing their peak reproductive years. Aren't these the type of people we want to have children?

I might be in favour of funding a large portion of it, while leaving ~10% to the family. User fees ensure that people aren't taking advantage of 'free' healthcare (I hate that term...) and abusing the system.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by ken0042

One other thing that has come up in this thread; people say Invitro is often needed because people wait to have children. To those people I ask the question- is it better to have parents in their 30s who have stable careers; or parents in their late teens hoping to get the better shift at McDonalds?

It doesn't have to be one or the other. How about people try having kids in their 20's, after college. Our parents seemed to do okay with having kids at that age, and most people weren't financial stable. I think people try to have it all these days before having kids....lots of money, stable careers, nice houses in good neighborhoods. There's nothing wrong with having some kids when you don't have all those things just yet. It doesn't always have to be so perfectly planned out.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Table 5

It doesn't have to be one or the other. How about people try having kids in their 20's, after college. Our parents seemed to do okay with having kids at that age, and most people weren't financial stable. I think people try to have it all these days before having kids....lots of money, stable careers, nice houses in good neighborhoods. There's nothing wrong with having some kids when you don't have all those things just yet. It doesn't always have to be so perfectly planned out.

I don't know about anyone else, but I came out of university with tens of thousands in student debt. I don't have to be rolling in dough before having kids but not having debt before kids is one place I won't compromise. That takes a couple of years to pay off.

Not only that, but some women (like my wife for instance) go into careers that require tons of post secondary training. Peak fertility for a woman is between 22-26 I believe. My wife won't be finished training until she is 31, without taking any time off. I'm not saying that I demand funding if things go wrong, but it's a little frustrating that some think that she has to choose between career and children.

[Russic]

I was an in-vitro baby, so I'm partial to the procedure. That being said I think if it is to be funded I'd like to see it only partially funded and dealt with on a case by case basis. Perhaps there are too many of these cases to be dealt with one by one, but it's a tricky procedure with many factors.

I do agree with the point that it isn't life threatening, so I'm not on board with full coverage.

[driveway]

IVF should not, ever, be publicly funded. There is a perfectly reasonable avenue for people who can't have children, but want them: adoption.

If you can not qualify for adoption, you sure as HELL should not be getting your IVF funded by taxpayer dollars.

[tete]

This is a bit of a personal thread for me. I'll be perfectly frank and say that unless you've had issues conceiving, you really don't know what it's like to have to make decisions about fertility procedures, adoption or living childless. It's not just as simple as "well, just adopt" or "it's okay, the world is overpopulated as is". Infertility is a very long journey, full of grieving and you just can't turn a switch on your desire to have a child of your own.

Not everyone who is undergoing IVF were foolish and fancy free and decided to delay their baby-making until their late 30's. Actually, every single one of my friends who have gone through the agonizing and painful IVF procedures were in their mid 20's or early 30's. The issues for going through it were wide ranging- poly-cystic ovarian syndrome, premature ovarian failure, low sperm motility/count and even just simply an unknown reason of why they can't conceive "naturally".

I fall into the "unexplained" category - we're not sure what's wrong, but something is. I'm 33. I think the argument of "well, you should have started trying earlier" is a bit of a hollow argument. How do you try to conceive when you don't have a partner to do it with? Should I have settled down with my loser high-school boyfriend just because people shouldn't wait until their later years to try to conceive? That just doesn't sound right to me. I married at 28, not because I was selfish in my early 20's and needed my career, I did because I found the guy I wanted to spend my life with at this point in time.

It takes about two years to become an IVF candidate in Calgary. The wait list for the fertility clinic itself is about 8 months long. Rarely do couples ever delve into IVF first, there are other procdures attempted before IVF that are cheaper and less invasive. The waitlist at the clinic for IVF is about 6-8 months. Psychological councelling is done and information sessions are mandatory to attend. I think the current age cut-off is 43. Those undergoing IVF are not just doing it for "fun" or going into it lightly. If they had an option to be able to conceive without IVF, they'd be doing it, but this is their one last chance.

Funding IVF would give couples a chance to conceive without putting second mortgages on their homes or depleting RRSP's. I'd be fine with them limiting funding to single-embryo transfers (SET), since risks are higher with multiples (as others have said here). The provincial government has no problem funding abortions, but won't fund IVF, which I find interesting. My husband and I are lucky enough to be able to afford IVF if that is a route we choose to take, but we're one of very few who wouldn't have to make drastic sacrifices in order to get a 50% chance of a successful pregnancy.

For those that mention adoption - it's a separate issue. Maybe more money should be put towards finding homes for children, but it's very complex. Not everyone who is infertile automatically becomes an adoptive parent. Just like not everyone who is fertile automatically becomes a parent.

Okay, stepping off my soapbox now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

fund adoption instead.

Ding, ding.

There are a lot of kids not only in Canada, but in other regions of he world that need loving parents. We should be actively trying to encourage parents in Alberta to adopt these kids.

[Azure]

Fact is that the taxpayer would be paying for it, and while I have no problem paying for someone who needs heart surgery or some other surgery to correct a life threatening problem, I do not agree, as a taxpayer to pay for IVF.

There is a big enough drain on the system anyways.

[Northendzone]

thanks tete for providing your insight.

i still think that the government can't be expected to fund for every conceiveable medical condition (be it ivf or some form of cancer that can only be controlled with some expensive drug); however, that being said i would not want to be the person in charge of making these decisions as there are always a lot of additional things to be considered.

also, i am relatively sure that an ivf would qualify for a medical tax credit on a person's income tax form (i know that fertility drugs would be eligible).

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

I'm not saying that I demand funding if things go wrong, but it's a little frustrating that some think that she has to choose between career and children.

I didn't say it was fair, but what nature dictates and what reality/lifestyles do don't always go hand in hand. Obviously it's not easy with today's educations pressures and bills, but there are consequences to waiting late that people have to realize. People shouldn't be that surprised when they spend 10-15 years suppressing natural reproductive functions with birth-control, and then have a tough time having a baby later. It sucks, no doubt, but I'm not surprised.

Originally Posted by Devils' Advocate

Table5: That sounds too much like "women should stay in the kitchen making me a sandwich" for my liking.

Hey, it might not be PC, but women unfortunately often have that decision to make. Often times one or the other has to suffer, as it's definitely not easy to excel at both. I definitely sympathize, it's definitely not ideal, but it's not my fault the human body want's to have babies during the prime college/career years.

[Azure]

Should we also as taxpayers pay for the people who want to go to China for experimental stem-cell research?

[tete]

Originally Posted by fotze

How much does it cost tete? I have no idea?

Also, I had to pay $200 for a vasectomy.

For one round of IVF - which includes medications, the egg retrieval (which is a surgical procedure done under twilight anesthetic), egg transfer and freezing - it ballparks between $8000-$10000. A few insurance companies will cover some of the medication fees - which is about 3-4 K worth, but the coverage is spotty at best.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Azure

Should we also as taxpayers pay for the people who want to go to China for experimental stem-cell research?

No we should pay to research it here.

[HOOT]

Screw this, we have hockey arenas to pay for!

[Rerun]

No.

IVF is an elective procedure. Elective procedure's should be paid for by the recipient.
I'm sorry you want to have a baby and you and your spouse are having difficulty getting pregnant..... but really its not my problem and I shouldn't have to pay for yours. We spend too much as it is in this province on health care.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Rerun

No.
but really its not my problem.

I think there are a lot of valid reasons to oppose funding IVF, but I'm not sure "it's not my problem" is one of them. The person who has cancer or is in a car accident isn't your problem either. Or when you have a medical procedure done, it's nobody else's problem then. The whole point of socialist healthcare is collectively taking care of each other.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The whole point of socialist healthcare is collectively taking care of each other.

Taking care of someone is one thing, helping someone with an elective procedure like getting a nose job or getting them pregnant is another story.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Taking care of someone is one thing, helping someone with an elective procedure like getting a nose job or getting them pregnant is another story.

If you read my previous posts, you would realize that I agree!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I think there are a lot of valid reasons to oppose funding IVF, but I'm not sure "it's not my problem" is one of them. The person who has cancer or is in a car accident isn't your problem either. Or when you have a medical procedure done, it's nobody else's problem then. The whole point of socialist healthcare is collectively taking care of each other.

I'd say the whole point of our healthcare system would be for people to have access to basic care no matter if they can afford it or not.

I doubt people look at it as 'helping each other out'...because I really don't want to help our those people that constantly abuse our system.

I pay taxes so I have access to decent care.