Taxpayer Funded Fertilization Treatments

[Big Guy]

The Minister of Health of Ontario has announced she plans to create a $50 million annual program that will provide some 4,000 women with one cycle of in vitro fertilization. This will cost about $7,000 per person. I understand that not being able to create children the usual way can be heartbreaking.

I question this policy and the expenditure. I believe that having and caring for children is expensive and most people who plan for a family, base that decision on their ability to afford one or more.

I also believe that if you cannot afford to pay for in vitro then how are you going to afford to bring them up properly? I think subsidizing this process for those who cannot afford it sends the wrong message. I do not believe that having children is a right but that it is a choice. It is an option that one should take on consciously and responsibly.

Why should the taxpayer subsidize those who choose to have in vitro fertilization?

[Shady]

I completely agree. Tax payers should not be subsidizing this at all. Especially when the province is already in terrible fiscal shape. Adding a new entitlement program is the last thing we need. But unfortunately, our provincial leadership seems to be clueless.

[WWWTT]

Please provide the link.

I am interested in this subject and would appreciate you follow up on a thread you started.

My son was born this way.

WWWTT

Edited April 13, 2014 by Charles Anthony
deleted quotation of entire Opening Post

[bush_cheney2004]

Here is one of many "links". I wonder if men can get taxpayer funding as well ?

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/04/10/ontario_to_fund_in_vitro_fertilization.html

[WestCoastRunner]

If anyone were to read the article more closely, there are advantages to this. This treatment would only allow a single embryo transfer which would eliminate the possibility of multiple births. Multiple births are expensive to the health care system and could also result in illnesses like cerebral palsy.

A study that was conducted and referenced by the Alberta government suggested Alberta could save $78-million in the next five years if they adopted this very same measure. That’s because multiple births — which according to Statistics Canada increased by 45% between 1991 and 2008 — are also more likely to lead to premature births, underweight babies and higher rates of disability.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/23/report-urges-alberta-to-follow-quebecs-lead-in-adopting-government-funded-in-vitro-fertilization/

Edited April 13, 2014 by Charles Anthony
deleted quotation of entire Opening Post

[cybercoma]

Maybe Rona Ambrose could get on the horn and have New Brunswick follow the Canada Health Act sometime. That would be nice.

[WestCoastRunner]

Maybe Rona Ambrose could get on the horn and have New Brunswick follow the Canada Health Act sometime. That would be nice.

I agree with you there!

[guyser]

This is very good news and for those wanting a child I say congrats

Being able to afford IVF or the other method is not on the same plane as the cost to raise children, so no one should really go down that route since they are entirely separate.

[bush_cheney2004]

Does this apply to "gay" couples (male or female) and/or a surrogate mother? If not, why not ?

[guyser]

Does this apply to "gay" couples (male or female) and/or a surrogate mother? If not, why not ?

Yes, both men can go in and give it a try

SOS I see.

[WestCoastRunner]

Does this apply to "gay" couples (male or female) and/or a surrogate mother? If not, why not ?

I don't know. Did you google to try and find out?

[overthere]

Does this apply to "gay" couples (male or female) and/or a surrogate mother? If not, why not ?

I'm not sure, but I suspect it is covered in Alberta.

A gay male friend of ours has fathered two children(by invitation)with a gay female couple. I don't think anybody paid for anything, it was all done through Alberta Health Services. The circumstances were different I guess in that there were no fertility issues for either party.

It's all worked out well so far, the couple moved to BC with the kids a couple years ago. My friend moved last year too, he is involved in the lives of the children after birth and wants to be closer.

There are so many variations on family now!

[Big Guy]

I'm not sure, but I suspect it is covered in Alberta.

A gay male friend of ours has fathered two children(by invitation)with a gay female couple. I don't think anybody paid for anything, it was all done through Alberta Health Services. The circumstances were different I guess in that there were no fertility issues for either party.

It's all worked out well so far, the couple moved to BC with the kids a couple years ago. My friend moved last year too, he is involved in the lives of the children after birth and wants to be closer.

There are so many variations on family now!

I have no problems with people using medical techniques to achieve their goals. It could be cosmetic surgery, transgender surgery, in vitro fertilization or whatever. I question what procedures should come out of the public purse. I still do not understand how someone who cannot afford in vitro can afford to bring up children, In areas which have public heath insurance you have the right to basic medical care paid for from the common pool. I do not believe that in vitro ($7,000 a session) is basic medical care.

I suggest that perhaps the question is just what is "basic" medical care?

[guyser]

I still do not understand how someone who cannot afford in vitro can afford to bring up children,

Id be more worried about those who cannot afford bc but have kids anyway.

[overthere]

"I suggest that perhaps the question is just what is "basic" medical care?"

That has always been a big question, but the way demographics are heading in this country it will be a ten ton gorilla question very soon.

A tsunami of aging, sick baby boomers that simply refuse to die will put massive pressure on health care systems.

IMO, two tier health care with everybody buying extended health care insurance is inevitable. Lots of Canadians already do this for dental, vision, drugs etc. It will have to get much more widespread (and expensive) because I do not see an alternative to every province delisting many services that are included now as provided to the public.

[cybercoma]

I have no problems with people using medical techniques to achieve their goals. It could be cosmetic surgery, transgender surgery, in vitro fertilization or whatever. I question what procedures should come out of the public purse. I still do not understand how someone who cannot afford in vitro can afford to bring up children, In areas which have public heath insurance you have the right to basic medical care paid for from the common pool. I do not believe that in vitro ($7,000 a session) is basic medical care.

I suggest that perhaps the question is just what is "basic" medical care?

the CHA doesn't say "basic medical care." It says "medically necessary." If you want a child and need IVF, then it's medically necessary.

[Big Guy]

the CHA doesn't say "basic medical care." It says "medically necessary." If you want a child and need IVF, then it's medically necessary.

I can understand public financing for something that you "need" but not for something that you "want".

I do find it interesting that the concept of public funding for this process was part of a provincial winning election platform but never saw the light of day. It was Deb Matthews as McGuinty’s health minister firmly rejected public funding of IVF.

Now as co-chair of the Liberal re-election team she has changed her mind and made it again a campaign issue. I hope it was an honest epiphany of opinion rather than a convenient political pirouette of convenience.

There is an interesting article at;

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/04/16/funding_in_vitro_fertilization_the_wrong_move_for_ontario_cohn.html

[cybercoma]

It's not like it's funded in perpetuity. They get one shot at it from the sounds of it. I think that's fair. We should be supporting people who want to have kids in Canada. Besides those who are set against immigration should love this idea.

[WestCoastRunner]

Viagra is covered by medical plans and it addresses erectile dysfunction. Isn't erectile dysfunction a medical problem? If someone has erectile dysfunction, it's kind of difficult to get a woman pregnant. If male infertility is caused by varicoeles, it is treated by surgery and is covered by insurance as being medically necessary. If we look at this argument, then female infertility solutions (IVF) should be covered as being medically necessary.