When to have children?

The alternative and much longer title should read, "Women, whatever you do you are doing it wrong. Too old, too young, going out to work, staying at home?"

Blog post has been inspired by a series of discussions and articles today about a survey which suggests that the majority of women in Britain think that 40+ is too old to have a child. The Daily Mail article highlights the findings of a survey that was apparently managed by YouGov on behalf of First Response (early pregnancy tests). The survey suggests that 70% of British women over the age of 55 (source: Daily Mail) think that women should not be having children over the age of 40 as this is too old. There does not seem to be any mention of the optimum age for men to be having children.

My first thought was that whatever women do with regards to having children they will be criticised by someone somewhere. I have blogged before about people choosing not to have children and the pity and vitriol that this seems to inspire from people who barely know those who they choose to insult. If women choose to get educated and then work their way up the career ladder that will inevitably affect the age at which they have children. There seems to be derision and much of the negative and rude commentary that surrounds this choice focuses on the following ideas, that;

• these women will be 'left on the shelf'
• these women are somehow going against the expected biological 'norm'
• these women are fair for criticism

If a woman chooses to have children younger, perhaps before or instead of university education or before embarking on what they may describe as a 'career-path' then they are equally criticised for being too young and not having seen enough of the world. Pity is often given that these women will miss out on; partying, travelling and education. There is also the assumption that if they are young, then they must need state support. It does not seem to matter what a woman does, she will be criticised for her choices. I have never noticed or heard these same points made about male friends or family members with regards to their choices about having or not having children.

Anyway enough of my rambling. The point of this post was about the new website that First Response are launching, called Get Britain Fertile. There is not a lot on the site at the moment, but I presume when the tour launches it will be populated with information. I understand the promotion of good health and exercise (even if I'm not a fan of the exercise!) but I think there is more to fertility than eat your greens. I think the Daily Mail piece, in choosing to focus on age, is also too simplistic. Women are not stupid, we know that fertility declines as we age. But, fertility is also not as simplistic or linear as this. Some women will be fertile at 40 and others will not be fertile at 20. To tell a woman, and her partner, that the approach to conception involves eating well and exercising is patronising at best. Any woman or man who has been anyway or where through fertility treatment, whether that is dipping a toe in or having to go further, will be aware of the limitless amount of 'advice' that people will offer. 'Have you tried...' becomes a catch all phrase from any allegedly well meaning friend, colleague or family member.

By all means it is no bad thing to encourage people to think about their health and fertility. But unless the NHS is prepared to offer full MOTs for couples wanting to conceive, at the start of their journey, it is perhaps a little meaningless. It is also no bad thing to think about the diminishing nature of fertility for both men and women as we age, but don't patronise people. Most importantly, whatever choices women make about their bodies, lives and children, don't judge them. They haven't asked for your opinion and I'm sure they're not interested! As an addition, I really hate the 'mocked' up image of Get Britain Fertile's ambassador Kate Garraway as a heavily pregnant woman who is clearly way over 40. The image looks as if she is closer to 70, I get it is designed to shock, but actually it is just confirming the patronising nature of this.

Childfree or childless?

For women in today's society the words woman and mother seem to be used by some as interchangeable. If for some reasons you are a woman but not a mother as you get older you begin to feel marginalised. As a little anecdote I remember picking up a free magazine in a large supermarket last year titled 'the women's issue'. Expecting it to be full of stories and information for women I took it home. Upon opening it I realised it was all about mothers and children. It was frustrating (particularly at the time for me as someone going through fertility treatment) that the words woman and mother were treated as identical.

The expectation and stereotype, as peddled by fairy tales, Hollywood and the like, is that girl will meet boy, girl will fall in love boy, they will marry and then along will come a number of chubby cheeked children. Life will be complete as they sit on the veranda 60 years later reminiscing about their life. For many in society this story is simply something that will not happen nor do they want it to happen. As we move closer to finally allowing equal marriage the story will need to change to reflect this, no longer should Disney films simply be about boy loves girl, who marry, a family and live happily ever-after. The story should also reflect the number of marriages and relationships in which children do not feature.

For some this can be through choice and there are a large number of websites dedicated to singles, couples etc who choose not to have children. Tips on how to deal with the patronising 'advice' or comments that get shared with couples if they have been together a long time without children. In some communities and on some websites it is nicknamed 'childfree bingo' (a piece in the Daily Mail illustrates this quite well) in which the aim is to note all of the various arguments put forward by relatives and friends. Some range from flattery 'you would both be great parents, think about how much you have to give' to the downright rude 'children will give your life purpose'. Why does my life lack purpose? What does the notion of children give you purpose mean? I also get frustrated by the arguments concerning money. I have been told countless times that if I don't have children who will pay my pension? I pay my pension now, I watch it leave my paypacket every month. If the government choose to spend it now and not put it away for me I can't stop that! Whether I have children or not I will still be entitled to a pension. I also get told that those with children are funding medical care, again I pay my National Insurance. I also have paid a considerable amount for my medical treatment in trying to have children. I have had to jump through enormous hoops to attain treatment for infertility. This is the only medical condition I have had where I have found my age, weight and relationship status have ever played a role in my treatment. I am patronised in my healthcare options, I don't need it in my social life as well.

For those who can not have children and yet desperately want them, these types of comment are perhaps even more hurtful. When I wasn't sure if I wanted children I found them annoying and patronising. Now I am struggling to have children I find them hurtful and they make me angry. I want to shout at relatives, themselves with a number of children that they are ignoring as they make these comments, that I can do nothing about this, I have a medical problem. Sometimes I wonder about telling them about the painful, embarrassing and at times horrible treatment I have had in trying to have children but I imagine they would find this uncomfortable. Those who do know that we have been trying for a while are also prone to the ignorant comments, 'advice' such as relax, take a holiday, try this odd and expensive potion. I (more often than not my husband) restrain myself from shouting at them that this is a medical condition that will not be cured by 'chilling out' I need medical treatment.

I can not imagine ever walking up to a couple and asking them about their sex life and when they last had unprotected sex and if not why not. So why does it seem acceptable to ask those of us without children, for whatever reason, why we do not have them? I have found over the last couple of years that I have had to become more defensive about my lack of children status. The words childfree and childless are such loaded terms, some people prefer childfree to suggest choice and power in this decision whereas others choose childless. I think this should be up to the individuals to decide which if at all they wish to use.

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.