IVF Healthcare funding?


Kreskin
#1
TheStar.com | Babies & Pregnancy | Holding out hope for in-vitro funding

It's likely that Quebec will include two rounds of IVF at 10k per cycle in their provincial healthcare coverage. The debate is moving to Ontario as well.

Are you for or against public healthcare funding for IVF?
 
karrie
#2
I lean toward 'against'.
 
Francis2004
#3
Actually I am against it for various reasons..

I have know people who went thru this procedure and after all the money spent, finally gave up and low and behold got pregnant "naturally".

You can alway adopt children who really need families..

If adoption is too long a process you can apply for being a foster parent.. And yes there are newborns that are put into foster care.

They money can better be used for services above..

In-vitro does not guarantee a birth and the fact they want to allow 3 tries is fact it is unreliable and still not the best option.

If people want to take this option they can still proceed at their cost.
 
Machjo
#4
I'd vote against. IVF is not a crucial life or death issue. And when we consider that we've got more serious issues to deal with like homelessness, etc. IVF pales in comparison. Once we've dealt with all the more crucial issues and eliminate extreme poverty, then I'll consider (I stress 'consider') funding for such luxuries.

Besides, would it not be cheaper to just have fewer abortions? After all, abortions cost money, and so does IVF. Kills 2 birds with one stone. We save money on abortions and IVF with similar results. They can adopt kids.
 
Said1
#5
Totally against.This is a non-essential service.
 
Kreskin
#6
I read European study written a few years ago that concluded in their opinion that funding IVF would in the long run save money, and that on average, by the time an IVF born person turned, I believe 33, they would not only have paid back the burden they would be a net profit via income taxes and consumer. Also, funding could weed out the sextuplet situations, which cost more to healthcare than just about anything. Women who have 5 or 6 kid deliveries are those who take fertility drugs because they can't afford IVF. The super ovulation stuff is less controlled and thus once in a while a mega-multi pregnancy appears from it. Super ovulation fertility drugs also means more selective reduction procedures, aka abortion. IVF has a high number of multiples as well, but if people didn't have to roll the dice with their cash then perhaps they wouldn't use as many embryos per cycle, thus less multiple pregnancies and saving money for the healthcare system.
 
Tonington
#7
Last I checked, healthcare wasn't only for life-saving procedures. A woman can have an abortion free-of-charge without it being an essential service. How about anti-biotics given to outpatients with the rhinovirus?

I'd lean towards yes, with limitations such as the prudence in the Quebec proposal. Like Kreskin mentioned, there are benefits to this kind of investment.
 
Zzarchov
#8
I agree, we do technically have a shrinking population and our retirement plan is a pyramid scheme based upon a growing population (And yes I think thats a stupid idea)

While I don't think we should have a growing population, we just can't keep bringing in more and more immigrants to solve our population problems. If nothing else they don't tend to move where we need them (simply because the area is a ****hole, thats why no one wants to be there now and why they need people to reinvigorate)
 
Kreskin
#9
True Paul. Most provinces pay for gender reassignment surgeries too.
 
Francis2004
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Last I checked, healthcare wasn't only for life-saving procedures. A woman can have an abortion free-of-charge without it being an essential service. How about anti-biotics given to outpatients with the rhinovirus?

I'd lean towards yes, with limitations such as the prudence in the Quebec proposal. Like Kreskin mentioned, there are benefits to this kind of investment.


But adoption or fostering of Canadian kids should come first as we can use Medicare money to keep our other children healthy that require this cash. Way too many kids do not have families and become burdens of society that could use a good home..

I am not in favour of free abortion either and if you have a self inflicted problem you should pay.

The issue with in-vitro is that it is far from anymore successful then normal pregnancy.

Once again the Government is getting involved in making babies...
 
Tonington
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by SirFrancis2004 View Post

But adoption or fostering of Canadian kids should come first as we can use Medicare money to keep our other children healthy that require this cash.

I didn't read that it was an either or situation.

Quote:

The issue with in-vitro is that it is far from anymore successful then normal pregnancy.

That's not at all the issue. The issue is that is provides a better chance for couples with reproductive difficulties to have a successful pregnancy. It's not people without problems conceiving that are getting IVF procedures you know.

Quote:

Once again the Government is getting involved in making babies...

Right. Is this a problem?
 
Zzarchov
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by SirFrancis2004 View Post

But adoption or fostering of Canadian kids should come first as we can use Medicare money to keep our other children healthy that require this cash. Way too many kids do not have families and become burdens of society that could use a good home..

I am not in favour of free abortion either and if you have a self inflicted problem you should pay.

The issue with in-vitro is that it is far from anymore successful then normal pregnancy.

Once again the Government is getting involved in making babies...


Adoption is not as easy as you make it sound and foster care is not the same thing as adopting kids. Its babysitting some terrible parents kids, growing attached to them and then giving them back for that terrible parent to scar the child some more. Not everyone can handle that, nor should they have to.

The right to breed is a pretty fundemental human goal, while I do not think its wise to indulge, it is the number one thing most people care about, above their own lives, lets not be foolish enough to pretend its more important to most people to keep an 80 year old alive another 2 weeks unconcious than it is to give people the ability to procreate.
 
TenPenny
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by SirFrancis2004 View Post

Actually I am against it for various reasons..

I have know people who went thru this procedure and after all the money spent, finally gave up and low and behold got pregnant "naturally".

You can alway adopt children who really need families..

If adoption is too long a process you can apply for being a foster parent.. And yes there are newborns that are put into foster care.

They money can better be used for services above..

In-vitro does not guarantee a birth and the fact they want to allow 3 tries is fact it is unreliable and still not the best option.

If people want to take this option they can still proceed at their cost.

I venture to say that you know diddly squat about adoption, IVF, or foster parenting, based on your post.
 
TenPenny
#14
Since our medical system is happy to fund cancer treatments for smokers, and surgery for obese people, both conditions being voluntary, I don't see why it can't fund IVF treatments, which looks after an involuntary condition.
 
Francis2004
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Adoption is not as easy as you make it sound and foster care is not the same thing as adopting kids. Its babysitting some terrible parents kids, growing attached to them and then giving them back for that terrible parent to scar the child some more. Not everyone can handle that, nor should they have to.

ZZ Adoption is only an option and so is fostering and many find it rewarding.. Not everyone finds it as "babysitting some terrible parents kids".. Perhaps you can look at a glass of water half empty or half full, your choice..

The right to breed is a pretty fundemental human goal, while I do not think its wise to indulge, it is the number one thing most people care about, above their own lives, lets not be foolish enough to pretend its more important to most people to keep an 80 year old alive another 2 weeks unconcious than it is to give people the ability to procreate.

Yes everyone has the right to procreate and I don't refuse them that right.. Indulge in it as much as you want, unlike others in the Abortion thread that believe you should limits children to 2.3 per family I think there should be no limit.. However is it ok for Government to advocate money to people to get pregant via IVF when there are other methods available. And when do we stop funding all these programs ?


Quote:

Although in vitro fertilization (IVF) may have achieved popular notoriety, it is certainly not the only option, nor is it necessarily always the best option for treating infertility. Other treatments including timed intercourse, ovarian stimulation, and artificial insemination, are important alternatives to IVF. It is important to appreciate the relative contribution of these alternatives in helping the couple achieve a pregnancy. In our department, IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is responsible for only about 20% of pregnancies among infertile couples. This means that in most cases, pregnancies are obtained through non-IVF therapies. It is interesting to note that more than 20% of all pregnancies are spontaneous, achieved during the course of infertility investigations.

Alternative, non-IVF therapies


So again why stop at one treatment and why should Governemnt pay for these treatments when ordinary fertile people cannot even afford to have more then 1 or 2 kids ?
 
Francis2004
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

I venture to say that you know diddly squat about adoption, IVF, or foster parenting, based on your post.

So the foster / adopted child I have at home is my imagination.. Great. Thanks for telling me... By the way I refer to her as my daughter
 
Kreskin
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by SirFrancis2004 View Post

Alternative, non-IVF therapies


So again why stop at one treatment and why should Governemnt pay for these treatments when ordinary fertile people cannot even afford to have more then 1 or 2 kids ?

The link is to very old information. It references stuff in the early and mid 90's. The field has moved light years ahead since then, in both disgnostics and treatment.
 
Francis2004
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

The link is to very old information. It references stuff in the early and mid 90's. The field has moved light years ahead since then, in both disgnostics and treatment.

Geeeez your a tough crowd.. he he he

The Page was Updated at the bottom "Edited by Aldo Campana, September 4, 2008"

For a Course

Training Course in Reproductive Health/Sexual Health Research - Geneva 2008 - Course files

Not good enough ??

The information is still valid.. Might be older research but it still does not make it invalid if nothing else can rightfully counter argue it..
 
Kreskin
#19
What was edited? The information is old. Very old.
 
Kreskin
#20
For example, the treatment for male factor infertility in IVF is now intracytoplasmic sperm injection. It is not mentioned at all in that article. The procedure wasn't available back then.
 
Francis2004
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

For example, the treatment for male factor infertility in IVF is now intracytoplasmic sperm injection. It is not mentioned at all in that article. The procedure wasn't available back then.

My point remains...

Should we start sponsoring one type of fertilization method over one or do we do them all.. ?

Quote:

Other treatments including timed intercourse, ovarian stimulation, and artificial insemination, are important alternatives to IVF.

And should Government be involved in making children ?
 
Francis2004
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

What was edited? The information is old. Very old.

I chose that site because I happen to find the most information that seemed unbias.. Here is another and many more can be found by using Google and Typing "Alternative non-IVF theraphies" that will bring up many hits.. Most like this Updated site but expect most to be really bias..

Non-IVF Treatment Options and other Basic and Natural Fertility Treatment Options at West Valley Fertility Center

All I am trying to say is before we spend tax money people so dearly love to want in their pocket, we should look at protecting the children already alive with this type of cash. We should also give good homes to those already alive that require them and want them.

We talk about not wanting Abortions yet we are quick at letting these kids live on the streets..

Not all kids that need homes are ungrateful.. People need to look beyond their selfish wants..
 
Kreskin
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by SirFrancis2004 View Post

My point remains...

Should we start sponsoring one type of fertilization method over one or do we do them all.. ?



And should Government be involved in making children ?

The primary objective of the Canada health act is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers .
We spend public money diagnosing infertility. Every test imaginable is paid for, but the treatment isn't it. That doesn't make sense.
 
Francis2004
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

The primary objective of the Canada health act is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers .
We spend public money diagnosing infertility. Every test imaginable is paid for, but the treatment isn't it. That doesn't make sense.

Does it make it right to abuse the system just because its there ?
 
Kreskin
#25
Who is abusing it, or why would they?
 
Kreskin
#26
Canada should fund IVF treatments: ethicist

"Canada is a world leader in high-order multiple births, said Nisker, who suggested part of the reason is that women who cannot afford the full cost of IVF are taking fertility drugs in the hopes of enhancing their chances of getting pregnant."
 
Francis2004
#27
Well Kreskin..

I guess we will not agree but that is not all bad is it.. I wish you a good night
 
Kreskin
#28
It would be awfully boring if we agreed on everything.
 
Zzarchov
#29
Im all for stopping paying for IVF, as well as paying for pre-natal care, paying for childhood checkups (kids don't pay taxes, why give them free treatment)...

Im being a bit "Swift" obviously, but its ridiculous to put IVF in a special category over other things. The right to procreate is pretty much mandatory in any society.

And while not paying for IVF (but disallowing you to have insurance to cover it) isn't interfering in you procreating,

neither is not paying for medical treatment (but disallowing you to have insurance to cover it) interfering with your right to life. Its just letting you die.
 
tracy
#30
I am one of the most pro-adoption people out there, being that I am adopted but, adoption and fertility treatments should not be lumped together the way they often are. They are two separate issues. If a family decides adoption isn't for them, and even I can see why they would, then IVF is a reasonable idea. I do think there would need to be real common sense limits to IVF if we're paying for it, like not doing it past a certain age, if someone already has children, not implanting too many, etc.

It may interest some of you to know our Medical system in California pays for IVF under certain circumstances. The only real problem I have with it is if you can't afford IVF and you can't afford to buy your own insurance, how in the world are you going to afford a child? IVF also increases your chances of having multiples which increases your chances of having complications which increases your chances of having either mom or baby needing a long, expensive hospital stay. I don't complain about it much because it keeps me employed, but I can see why some people consider it a place where money should be saved, not spent.
 

Similar Threads

30
How's the healthcare?
by JustinEllard | Dec 10th, 2009
0
NS Tele-healthcare
by pfezziwig | Mar 24th, 2009
21
Members Only Healthcare Clinic
by paullind10 | Apr 19th, 2008
24
Canadian Healthcare vs USA or Europe !
by paullind10 | Jan 30th, 2008