Infertility, same-sex relationships and children

Anyone who follows me, casually or otherwise, on twitter (@NrthntsFeminist) will possibly have noticed some of my rants about the treatment of infertile couples, individuals and same-sex couples. My irritation (I seem to be very irritated this new year!) relates to a couple of key areas, and I am sure that anyone needing NHS/medical support in creating children in a same-sex relationship or struggling with infertility will be able to empathise with some of my feelings of irritation and anger,

• Why not just adopt?
• We should only fund children/people who already exist
• Children are a lifestyle choice/privilege not a right
• It costs too much to fund IVF etc
• Children need two parents/a dad etc etc
• Cancer treatment etc is underfunded so we should not 'waste' money on IVF/fertility treatment

Perhaps it is fair and ethical to state my position here, I am (and my husband) currently undergoing fertility treatment and so this is a raw and close issue for me. It is also an issue I have battled with in silence for many many months, but I no longer see that I should have to hide my feelings or discontent at the flaws in the system. I would like to systematically take the points I have raised and pick apart the flaws in them.

This post has been brought about following today's BBC The Big Question on BBC1. One topic being debated was the notion of using stem cells to create sperm, this would help infertile heterosexual couples in-light of the shortage of donor sperm as well as allowing same-sex female couples to both be the biological parents of any child born into their relationship. This would bring joy, happiness and new life for those desperate to have their own children. However, many of the commentators seemed disgusted by this notion of 'doing away with fathers'. They seemed to wilfully or stupidly (I will let the reader decide!) ignore the fact that this was talking about supporting and enabling same-sex couples in being able to create children that were biologically linked to both parents. The notion of simply adopting was raised at several points, as if this is an easy option, both emotionally and practically.

Before I begin to pick apart the points that I have identified further up in this post I would urge you to look at the Guardian's datablog about access to IVF, this came about as the result of a number of Freedom of Information requests to PCTs. Although it should be noted that the date of the piece is 2009 it is frightening to think that there are/were PCTs ignoring NICE guidelines with regards to access to healthcare and imposing requirements about the length of relationship or age for example. If we remove the emotion (and often religious arguments about morality of fertility treatment) we should see IVF and fertility treatment as doing just that, treating. IVF etc treats a medical need, infertile couples or some same-sex couples can not have children without assistance, this is a medical need. For example, some PCTs say that the woman in the couple needs to be between 30 and 35 to qualify for IVF, a woman aged 28 who is infertile will still be infertile at 30, forcing her to wait *another* two years will not alleviate her medical problems. Wolverhampton, Worcestershire, Newham, North Yorkshire and York, Oldham and Telford and Wrekin, for example, are all marked as responding to the FOI in 2009 saying no, they do not provide IVF for same-sex couples/individuals. Find out what your PCT offers or does not offer.

So to take the points made earlier: Adoption this is not the easy option that people seem to think. It is often suggested to couples as a way for them to have the family they want. It ignores the drives and desires that this couple or individual may have to have a biological child. In my experience people with biological children haven't liked the question being flipped and applied to them! Adoption is not easy, there are (rightly) numerous checks, panels and references. It is a challenging, rewarding if successful, process and should not be seen as a fall-back. To see it is as such is disrespectful to adoptive children and parents.
I will group a couple of points: 'We should only fund children/people who already exist', 'It costs too much to fund IVF etc' and 'Cancer treatment etc is underfunded so we should not 'waste' money on IVF/fertility treatment'. Fertility treatment is not something people enter into for the laughs it is to address a *medical* need. In the same way that any other person uses the NHS. To say we should only fund those that exists is in fact directly agreeing with the view that IVF/fertility treatment should be funded, as infertile people do already exist and are asking for help. The arguments that it costs too much and other areas are underfunded is a misnomer, drugs could be made cheaper if we looked at the profits made by large pharmaceutical companies. It is also a weak argument to say x lacks money so y should not happen. We should look at how the system can be balanced so that all needs can be met.
Children need two parents/a dad: this argument ignores the stability that a loving same-sex relationship can provide for a child. The nuclear family is perhaps an outdated model, as society moves forward and develops we should look at how we can support different models of family rather than applying our personal views.
The argument that children are a privilege is an interesting one. To some extent I do understand, children are not a commodity to be upgraded etc. However, I believe that everyone should have the ability to have a family, with medical support if needed. We should not be telling infertile people that their medical treatment constitutes a privilege.

As I mentioned I have come at this from a person point of view, as someone who is facing having to wait several years for the medical treatment I need, for no better reason than that is the arbitrary interpretation of NICE guidelines in the PCT near me. I believe that IVF/fertility treatment for infertile couples, individuals and same-sex couples addresses a medical and scientific need, the access to this should be open to all and free from moral judgements.