04 May 2007

Preaching to the choir

"Women will have babies - if they can."

Damn straight. There was an article on Canada.com the other day about a study of the costs of reproductive technology, and the relationship between ART being covered and birth rate.
The study, New Scientist magazine reports, theorizes it's because Denmark has a high proportion of babies born through artificial reproductive technologies (ART), including in vitro fertilization (IVF) - 4.2 per cent of births in 2002 compared to 1.4 per cent in Britain that year and 1.2 per cent in the U.S. in 2004..."In Denmark, IVF is widely accepted, heavily subsidized and waiting times are short."
So, in other words, if a country subsidizes the costs of IVF, more women will pursue these technologies, and more babies will be born, resulting in a higher birth rate, which ultimately means more taxpayers for the government coffers.
In short, why is it easier - and more politically correct - to import babies, than to produce them?
There are quite a few interesting theories in the article, including a discussion of general public reaction (read: discrimination) to infertiles and medical coverage of IUI, IVF, etc. I must admit, many many years ago, when we were first hearing stories of women having 6 babies and finding out they were on fertility drugs, my reaction was, "why should I have to pay for these women? If they need drugs to have kids, they shouldn't have kids."

Yeah, I know. Slap me with a dead fish. I've learned. I've grown. Even before I faced fertility issues myself, I understood better and changed my attitude. But having had that attitude, I can understand that reaction from others. But how to change it? How do we get people behind this issue, and get them to change? And, more importantly, get them to write and call their representatives to get IVF covered here in Canada.

Read the whole article here.

Labels: , ,


At 5/5/07 12:22 p.m., Blogger Lut C. said...

I have no idea.

The fact that ART is covered by the national health service in Denmark is part and parcel of the whole idea that health care should be accessible to all. Even if it costs a lot in taxes.

If Canada doesn't subscribe to that idea, then it's hard to argue why IF should be privileged, I suppose.
Julie (A little pregnant) calculated that covering ART would cost very little in terms of increased payments for social security.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home