Province to pay for fertility services??

[oceania]

PLEASE give the whole thread a read or at least the first page for those of you considering posting sarcastic remarks or illogical comparisons and analogies, it's already been done. Please use the rest of your brain so you can add something to new the discussion.
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/686868

I'm totally against unnatural conception to begin with as I think it's nature's way of saying you're not supposed to conceive (but I wouldn't want to take away anyone's right to do it) but to expect tax payers to foot the bill for such an expensive procedure is outrageous!

If anything, the adopting should become more accessible for willing and able parent(s). The world is already over-populated with natural resources being depleted, why add to this problem particularly with unnatural conceptions often result in multiple births?

[asdfvcx]

I'm totally against unnatural conception to begin with as I think it's nature's way of saying you're not supposed to conceive
I'm totally against cataract removal as I think it's nature's way of saying you're not supposed to see...

[Impossibles]

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/686868

I'm totally against unnatural conception to begin with as I think it's nature's way of saying you're not supposed to conceive (but I wouldn't want to take away anyone's right to do it) but to expect tax payers to foot the bill for such an expensive procedure is outrageous!

If anything, the adopting should become more accessible for willing and able parent(s). The world is already over-populated with natural resources being depleted, why add to this problem particularly with unnatural conceptions often result in multiple births?

On behalf of everybody who has had trouble conceiving or knows somebody who has, I resent everything you said. Its insulting to deny somebody the chance at having children when there is medical technology to help them.

And the world may be overpopulated, but rich countries actually have declining birth rates.

[nalababe]

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/686868

I'm totally against unnatural conception to begin with as I think it's nature's way of saying you're not supposed to conceive (but I wouldn't want to take away anyone's right to do it) but to expect tax payers to foot the bill for such an expensive procedure is outrageous!

If anything, the adopting should become more accessible for willing and able parent(s). The world is already over-populated with natural resources being depleted, why add to this problem particularly with unnatural conceptions often result in multiple births?

Because the reason we exist (or any creature exists) is to reproduce. It is probably one of the strongest needs/desires a person will ever have. There is nothing on earth that compares to holding your own little baby.

There are many reasons why some people cannot have children...medical, stress, accidents. That cost is actually not all that much. Far less than organ transplant (nature said they should die, right?), giving birth in a hospital (home with a midwife should be the norm), of course, any stay of more than one week in the hospital has a greater cost...let's let all those people die too...it was nature's desire.

There are not enough babies to adopt...are you suggesting that we enourage all the young women to have more babies to fill the need. Kind of Handmaids Tale of you...

[oceania]

My intention was not to offend anyone but I'm entitled to my opinion whether it be politically correct or not, just as you are to yours.

Regardless, public money shouldn't be spent on someone's desires to have a child when they're unable to naturally conceive.

[amz155]

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/686868

I'm totally against unnatural conception to begin with as I think it's nature's way of saying you're not supposed to conceive (but I wouldn't want to take away anyone's right to do it) but to expect tax payers to foot the bill for such an expensive procedure is outrageous!

If anything, the adopting should become more accessible for willing and able parent(s). The world is already over-populated with natural resources being depleted, why add to this problem particularly with unnatural conceptions often result in multiple births?


+1. I agree and I'm glad you said it.

What the world doesn't need is an increase in population.

And if its not in the cards for a woman and man to conceive and they want to fart around with the message nature is sending them, then THEY should pay for it, not taxpayers! Especially not taxpayers who choose to be childless...why the heck should I foot the bill?

[oceania]

BTW I refuse to respond to absurd replies that make ridiculous comparisons, accusations or having to resort to putting "words in my mouth".

[nalababe]

My intention was not to offend anyone but I'm entitled to my opinion whether it be politically correct or not, just as you are to yours.

Regardless, public money shouldn't be spent on someone's desires to have a child when they're unable to naturally conceive.

Nor should public money be paid for any elective surgery...damn, we'd have no hockey players left.

[amz155]

Because the reason we exist (or any creature exists) is to reproduce.

Don't animals reproduce to ensure survival of their species? To ensure their genes keep on living? I'm pretty sure that if all the people who couldn't conceive, didn't receive artifical means of conception, that the human population would survive just fine in terms of numbers.....

Anyhow, let those who want to artificaily conceive, pay for it themselves.

[nalababe]

Don't animals reproduce to ensure survival of their species? To ensure their genes keep on living? I'm pretty sure that if all the people who couldn't conceive, didn't receive artifical means of conception, that the human population would survive just fine in terms of numbers.....

Anyhow, let those who want to artificaily conceive, pay for it themselves.

Let those who need surgery (or any medical care) do it themselves...that's the way the animals do it...and they survive just fine. Let's let all the physically challenged or mentally challenged die as well...that is what would happen in nature...

See we have evolved though...it allows us to think, understand and have compassion....

[oceania]

Nalababe your comparison is illogical. In case you haven't realized your comparing surgery to already existing humans beings who are potentially at risk of dying to that of humans who are not at risk and opting to have children. If you cannot see this difference, then I think you have made my point for me.

Our society is so focussed on life and living but on the quality of life. The western world lives in a protective bubble, far from reality.

[nalababe]

Nalababe your comparison is illogical. In case you haven't realized your comparing surgery to already existing humans beings who are potentially at risk of dying to that of humans who are not at risk and opting to have children. If you cannot see this difference, then I think you have made my point for me.

Our society is so focussed on life and living but on the quality of life. The western world lives in a protective bubble, far from reality.

Actually no, you are mistaken.

The inability to conceive is a medical condition (and there are many reasons). You are worried about not paying for one medical condition, yet, freely are willing to benefit from the treatment of any other medical intervention...why, because it could impact you...or you could see how it could impact you directly.

We don't live away from reality here...the inability to have children brings a reality to one of the five basic elements for the very definition of life.

We are great parents...not perfect, but I can honest say that there is no way that any parent loves their kids any more (maybe equal :D). If it were not for medical intervention we received at such a clinic, we would not have our son. Should we have allowed him not to be carried to term? Based on nature, he would have not implanted properly in the uterus and would never have existed. The world would have missed out on one of the most compassionate, empathetic people I have ever known (and he is six)....if we were to put odds on the future career (based on our family and friends): 50% say Doctor/Vet, the other 50% say Minister.

[spf1971]

My intention was not to offend anyone but I'm entitled to my opinion whether it be politically correct or not, just as you are to yours.

Regardless, public money shouldn't be spent on someone's desires to have a child when they're unable to naturally conceive.

I agree but it should be extended further. Public money shouldn't be spent on someone's desire to live when they're unable to live naturally.

[pupazzo]

Lol some of these women don't understand that they can't have kids because nature is trying to tell them not to reproduce. Then they get in vitro and give birth to kids with all kinds of problems

[45ED]

Wow, that's arrogant and, well, just plain stupid..

He's only saying that because he doesn't have the balls to walk into a fertility clinic and say that to all the potential mothers and fathers there.

It is way too easy for you naysayers to write those words of yours because you're behind your computer screens.

[nalababe]

Lol some of these women don't understand that they can't have kids because nature is trying to tell them not to reproduce. Then they get in vitro and give birth to kids with all kinds of problems

I'll bet next you say something like "these women" deserve to go through the gut wrenching heartbreak of miscarriages....or at least that's what nature is telling them they deserve this...

[asdfvcx]

I agree but it should be extended further. Public money shouldn't be spent on someone's desire to live when they're unable to live naturally.
A couple of years ago I became quite sick and for a while needed a respirator to keep me alive.

Are you trying to say that if I couldn't afford the respirator (and the services of the ICU) out of my own pocket, I should have been left to die?

[nalababe]

He's only saying that because he doesn't have the balls to walk into a fertility clinic and say that to all the potential mothers and fathers there.

It is way too easy for you naysayers to write those words of yours because you're behind your computer screens.

wow, that was quick...I actually deleted that because, I thought it a bit crude.

Yes, actually walk into one of these clinics and what you'll see some of the most gut wrenching visuals you can imagine. People looking for that one opportunity to have a child hoping that the US shows something...anything, walking out in tears as they've lost another one. Of course, if you look on the walls, you'll see them plastered with letters, cards and pictures saying thankyou to the doctors, nurses and support staff because they finally have their child. You can actually feel the joy in the handwriting....

[JAC]

As long as non-residents and welfare recipients are restricted from the free service, and the number of attempts is limited, I can't come up with any moral argument against it.

[nano]

as long as non-residents and welfare recipients are restricted from the free service, and the number of attempts is limited, i can't come up with any moral argument against it.

+1 ....

[oceania]

I'll bet next you say something like "these women" deserve to go through the gut wrenching heartbreak of miscarriages....or at least that's what nature is telling them they deserve this...
Why do you feel the need to put words into people's mouth in order to make your point? Why are you incapable of discussing the issue at hand instead of making absurd comparisons or analogies?

It's unfortunate that people look at their selfish desire to have kids at whatever cost than to look at cold hard facts such over-population, arising environmental issues, depleting natural resources.

You know the global population went from 1 billion to 6 billion in a little over than a 100 years?! How do you suggest the earth be able to sustain given this growth? Where do you think the water is going to come from? You do know there is water shortages all over the world, right? You do realize that practically every living being requires water. We need it for agriculture, industrial and not to mention survival/personal use. We may be ok for now but over next several decades how do you suppose natural resources be replenished when the population continues to increase?

You are looking at it from a very personal and one-dimensional perspective. All of you who are getting all up in arms and making ridiculous analogies or statements, please stop and think, educate yourself instead of going on emotions and false information, preconceived notions and opinions.

[madman604]

im against BC medical. its nature's way of saying you "supposed to be dead"

the clique mob or the governeor will dead you in middle of city

[Troodon]

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/686868

I'm totally against unnatural conception to begin with as I think it's nature's way of saying you're not supposed to conceive (but I wouldn't want to take away anyone's right to do it) but to expect tax payers to foot the bill for such an expensive procedure is outrageous!

If anything, the adopting should become more accessible for willing and able parent(s). The world is already over-populated with natural resources being depleted, why add to this problem particularly with unnatural conceptions often result in multiple births?

What's the difference between this and tax payers paying a someone's hip replacement? Putting metal balls in someone's body isn't "natural".

A lot of medical procedures are not natural but we still do them simply to make others happy.

It's basically the same debate as private vs. public healthcare.

[oceania]

What's the difference between this and tax payers paying a someone's hip replacement? Putting metal balls in someone's body isn't "natural".

A lot of medical procedures are not natural but we still do them simply to make others happy.

Give this whole thread a read first, your question has already been answered.

[YYZFA]

Why do you feel the need to put words into people's mouth in order to make your point? Why are you incapable of discussing the issue at hand instead of making absurd comparisons or analogies?

It's unfortunate that people look at their selfish desire to have kids at whatever cost than to look at cold hard facts such over-population, arising environmental issues, depleting natural resources.

You know the global population went from 1 billion to 6 billion in a little over than a 100 years?! How do you suggest the earth be able to sustain given this growth? Where do you think the water is going to come from? You do know there is water shortages all over the world, right? You do realize that practically every living being requires water. We need it for agriculture, industrial and not to mention survival/personal use. We may be ok for now but over next several decades how do you suppose natural resources be replenished when the population continues to increase?

You are looking at it from a very personal and one-dimensional perspective. All of you who are getting all up in arms and making ridiculous analogies or statements, please stop and think, educate yourself instead of going on emotions and false preconceived notions and opinions.

You shouldn't call his analogies and comparisons absurd, because they are not. Maybe you don't agree with them (I believe because you are uneducated and misinformed), but his analogies are dead on.

Not being able to have children is a medical condition that can be corrected, just like many other medical conditions. This is why he is making medical analogies.

You obviously do not understand the great desire and need to have children. That's fine, but you are in the minority. It is human instinct. For the majority of couples unable to have children, adoption is not an option, as there are not nearly enough children to be adopted.

Why are you getting so defensive? It was you who decided to post a very controversial supposition to begin with. Did you not think that people would react with passion to your original post?

[spf1971]

I'm totally against cataract removal as I think it's nature's way of saying you're not supposed to see...

I had cataracts a few years ago. Are you saying that if I couldn't afford the surgery out of my own pocket, I should have been left blind?

A couple of years ago I became quite sick and for a while needed a respirator to keep me alive.

Are you trying to say that if I couldn't afford the respirator (and the services of the ICU) out of my own pocket, I should have been left to die?



Chances are were are both sarcastic and making fun of the OP's position.

P.S. I didn't really have cataracts.

[Troodon]

Give this whole thread a read first, your question has already been answered.

If the goal of survival is to reproduce then why shouldn't helping someone reproduce be equally as important as helping someone to live?

[abu_sme]

I disagree with the OPs point about it being unnatural and therefore, wrong. But I don't see how it is fair to socialize an elective procedure that, although tragic for the couple, is not life threatening or debilitating to them.


It's one thing to do knee and hip replacements, which greatly enhance the quality of life for the recipient by alleviating pain, but it is quite another thing to have tax payers pay for a private decision to have children.

We don't pay for plastic surgery for people do we? What about the ugly chick who is never going to get laid and thus, never have kids? Should we pay for her to get less ugly?

I feel the same way about socialized daycare as well.

Our healthcare system can't be all things to all people. There need to be limits.

[nalababe]

Why do you feel the need to put words into people's mouth in order to make your point? Why are you incapable of discussing the issue at hand instead of making absurd comparisons or analogies?

It's unfortunate that people look at their selfish desire to have kids at whatever cost than to look at cold hard facts such over-population, arising environmental issues, depleting natural resources.

You know the global population went from 1 billion to 6 billion in a little over than a 100 years?! How do you suggest the earth be able to sustain given this growth? Where do you think the water is going to come from? You do know there is water shortages all over the world, right? You do realize that practically every living being requires water. We need it for agriculture, industrial and not to mention survival/personal use. We may be ok for now but over next several decades how do you suppose natural resources be replenished when the population continues to increase?

You are looking at it from a very personal and one-dimensional perspective. All of you who are getting all up in arms and making ridiculous analogies or statements, please stop and think, educate yourself instead of going on emotions and false preconceived notions and opinions.


You're kidding right?

Some areas in the world are overpopulated. Many areas are not.
Some areas in the world are short of food and water. Many areas are not.

Your point?

We live in Canada. We live in North America. We can do our part to help the rest of the world. But nothing you are suggesting accomplishes anything that you describe.

Actually, I want there to be more people like us Canadians: Liberal, Compassionate, Educated. The world needs more of us...not less.

[Impossibles]

Why do you feel the need to put words into people's mouth in order to make your point? Why are you incapable of discussing the issue at hand instead of making absurd comparisons or analogies?

It's unfortunate that people look at their selfish desire to have kids at whatever cost than to look at cold hard facts such over-population, arising environmental issues, depleting natural resources.

You know the global population went from 1 billion to 6 billion in a little over than a 100 years?! How do you suggest the earth be able to sustain given this growth? Where do you think the water is going to come from? You do know there is water shortages all over the world, right? You do realize that practically every living being requires water. We need it for agriculture, industrial and not to mention survival/personal use. We may be ok for now but over next several decades how do you suppose natural resources be replenished when the population continues to increase?

You are looking at it from a very personal and one-dimensional perspective. All of you who are getting all up in arms and making ridiculous analogies or statements, please stop and think, educate yourself instead of going on emotions and false information, preconceived notions and opinions.

Your macroscopic point of view is also flawed. Canada needs families to reproduce to create taxpayers. The huge population booms are in third world countries, not from a couple thousand people a year having babies with the help of medical science.

The way to really help the world is providing education and contraception in poor areas. Well-off people having kids is a benefit to the world. I'm sure many of the people who have done great things in the world have come from parents who had medical help conceiving.

[oceania]

You shouldn't call his analogies and comparisons absurd, because they are not. Maybe you don't agree with them (I believe because you are uneducated and misinformed), but his analogies are dead on.
You're right I shouldn't call them to absurd but good on you for calling me uneducated though, it certainly increases your credibility.

Not being able to have children is a medical condition that can be corrected, just like many other medical conditions. This is why he is making medical analogies.
That's incorrect. The actual infertility is not correct, instead an alternative is used.

You obviously do not understand the great desire and need to have children. That's fine, but you are in the minority.

You are dead wrong. Please don't make assumptions about me if you don't want me to make assumptions about you.

It is human instinct. For the majority of couples unable to have children, adoption is not an option, as there are not nearly enough children to be adopted.
There are plenty of children to be adopted but they do not fit criteria of the parents (e.g. they're too old, etc).

Why are you getting so defensive? It was you who decided to post a very controversial supposition to begin with. Did you not think that people would react with passion to your original post?
Again makign assumptions. Because someone shows knowledge and passion for the topic, yes they must be defensive...how insightful.

Good job addressing the actual topic or the other points I made btw :rolleyes:

[nalababe]

I disagree with the OPs point about it being unnatural and therefore, wrong. But I don't see how it is fair to socialize an elective procedure that, although tragic for the couple, is not life threatening or debilitating to them.


It's one thing to do knee and hip replacements, which greatly enhance the quality of life for the recipient by alleviating pain, but it is quite another thing to have tax payers pay for a private decision to have children.

We don't pay for plastic surgery for people do we? What about the ugly chick who is never going to get laid and thus, never have kids? Should we pay for her to get less ugly?

I feel the same way about socialized daycare as well.

Actually many a plastic surgery is covered (even breast augmentation/reduction in certain cases).

As for quality of life...what gives you the right to judge. To the people who want a child, many would gladly take busted knee, ankle...I know I would have.

[nalababe]

Your macroscopic point of view is also flawed. Canada needs families to reproduce to create taxpayers. The huge population booms are in third world countries, not from a couple thousand people a year having babies with the help of medical science.

The way to really help the world is providing education and contraception in poor areas. Well-off people having kids is a benefit to the world. I'm sure many of the people who have done great things in the world have come from parents who had medical help conceiving.

Unfortunately there are forces (misguided religion being one, lack of education being the another) that often too present in the poorer regions.

[YYZFA]

You're right I shouldn't call them to absurd but good on you for calling me uneducated though, it certainly increases your credibility.


That's incorrect. The actual infertility is not correct, instead an alternative is used.


You are dead wrong. Please don't make assumptions about me if you don't want me to make assumptions about you.


There are plenty of children to be adopted but they do not fit criteria of the parents (e.g. they're too old, etc).


Again makign assumptions. Because someone shows knowledge and passion for the topic, yes they must be defensive.

Good job addressing the actual topic or the other points I made btw :rolleyes:

Nice burn! I really don't want to waste too much of my time picking apart your post line by line like you did to mine, so I'll just summarize that I reject your assertion fertility services contributes to an unhealthy overpopulation of humans in the world, to the detriment of us all. Your statement about adoption is laughable to say the least.

Argue like an adult if you want to win people to your side. You want to tell me that your response to my post isn't "defensive?"

You're mad because you thought the majority opinion would be rallying behind you. Yes, that is an assumption, but it's a good one based on your responses so far.

[oceania]

Your macroscopic point of view is also flawed. Canada needs families to reproduce to create taxpayers. The huge population booms are in third world countries, not from a couple thousand people a year having babies with the help of medical science.
a) population decline can be corrected with immigration
b) over-population in other countries has a domino effect across the globe, not just the over-populated countries in question


The way to really help the world is providing education and contraception in poor areas. Well-off people having kids is a benefit to the world. I'm sure many of the people who have done great things in the world have come from parents who had medical help conceiving.
I agree with your first sentence but strongly disagree with your 2nd sentence. If well off people had been looking out for the under-privileged we wouldn't be where we are at today. You have done a disservice to these people by suggesting otherwise and undermined they work they have accomplished with the limited resources they have.

[Troodon]

I disagree with the OPs point about it being unnatural and therefore, wrong. But I don't see how it is fair to socialize an elective procedure that, although tragic for the couple, is not life threatening or debilitating to them.


It's one thing to do knee and hip replacements, which greatly enhance the quality of life for the recipient by alleviating pain, but it is quite another thing to have tax payers pay for a private decision to have children.

We don't pay for plastic surgery for people do we? What about the ugly chick who is never going to get laid and thus, never have kids? Should we pay for her to get less ugly?

I feel the same way about socialized daycare as well.

Our healthcare system can't be all things to all people. There need to be limits.

Well, in my opinion, creating new life is more valuable than alleviating pain for the old... who may possibly die the next year.

It's unfortunate that people look at their selfish desire to have kids at whatever cost than to look at cold hard facts such over-population, arising environmental issues, depleting natural resources.

The amount of carbon and other greenhouse gases produced by SUVs is far greater than carbon produced from consuming food.

It's how we use Earth that's important, not the amount of people that's important. It's ironic to save the Earth via reducing our population when our own machines produce vastly greater pollution than the act of making and consuming food.

[spf1971]

Not being able to have children is a medical condition that can be corrected, just like many other medical conditions. This is why he is making medical analogies.





That's incorrect. The actual infertility is not correct, instead an alternative is used.



I guess that depends on what process you are discussing. Many "unnatural conceptions" actually do correct whatever medical condition is the root cause.

[asdfvcx]

Chances are were are both sarcastic and making fun of the OP's position
Sorry, I didn't grasp the sarcasm in your first post. But just for the record, my second post about the respirator and the ICU is actually true.

[amz155]

You obviously do not understand the great desire and need to have children. That's fine, but you are in the minority. It is human instinct.

I guess I don't "understand" that desire either. Coincidentally, neither do many of my friends, and my SO. I really feel no NEED to have children at all. I'm finding recently that more and more people my age are not interested in having children. And we definately aren't interested in subsidising others' desire to do so.

Well-off people having kids is a benefit to the world. I'm sure many of the people who have done great things in the world have come from parents who had medical help conceiving.

Wow, how arrogant. And I'm sure there are lots of people who have done great things in the world that were conceived naturally too. Too bad that the kids from well-off people are probably the ones most likely to turn into consuming machines who help devoid the world of resources.



The amount of carbon and other greenhouse gases produced by SUVs is far greater than carbon produced from consuming food.

It's how we use Earth that's important, not the amount of people that's important. It's ironic to save the Earth via reducing our population when our own machines produce vastly greater pollution than the act of making and consuming food.

Of course its the number of people on Earth and the rate at which they are produced that IS important. Increase the number of people on Earth = decrease in resources/increase in Carbon.

Reduction in population would theoretically mean less SUVs, less demand for food, thus less machines needed to produce that food, thus less pollution (to use your arguement). How is a rapidly increasing population a good thing?

[nalababe]

I guess I don't "understand" that desire either. Coincidentally, neither do many of my friends, and my SO. I really feel no NEED to have children at all. I'm finding recently that more and more people my age are not interested in having children. And we definately aren't interested in subsidising others' desire to do so.


What I have seen is a shift. Where once people want children in their 20s, now it has typically shifted (thought mainly in urban areas) to the parents being in their 30's. At that point is far more difficult to find a relationship and then start having kids...time is the enemy, especially for women.

[Troodon]

Of course its the number of people on Earth and the rate at which they are produced that IS important. Increase the number of people on Earth = decrease in resources/increase in Carbon.

Reduction in population would theoretically mean less SUVs, less demand for food, thus less machines needed to produce that food, thus less pollution (to use your arguement). How is a rapidly increasing population a good thing?

The amount of carbon produced via making food neccessary for one's survival is trivial compared to the carbon produced by machines produced by man. For example, Candians use over twice as much carbon per capita as the French. Yet, the French people's quality of life is probably just as good as ours.

While it is true that reducing our population can marginally decrease our carbon output. However by reducing carbon through population control without changing our habits would be like trying to save money by picking up pennies from the ground while spending thousands at casinos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_ capita

In Canada the total fertility rate is about 1.5. This means that the average couple is having 1.5 children. This is below the replacement rate of 2 (since two parents die to have 2 children).

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2001/LowFertilityNotPoliticallySustainable.aspx

In the long run, Canada will have a population of 0 (assuming no immigration). In the short run, we'll have a deficit of taxes from young people to pay for healthcare and other social programs used by the elderly. Even not factoring in the social programs, a lack of young workers will mean higher wages and inflation which will decrease the elderly's purchasing power since their pension is usually fixed. For your own future sake, you better hope people will have children. Plus, it's a good investment. It costs about 10,000 dollars for the fertility procedure but the kid's family will pay at least $10,000 back through taxes before he reaches adulthood.

[M@rk]

Nalababe your comparison is illogical. In case you haven't realized your comparing surgery to already existing humans beings who are potentially at risk of dying to that of humans who are not at risk and opting to have children. If you cannot see this difference, then I think you have made my point for me.


The core of the argument lies on whether you believe such treatments are medically necessary. I say they are.

Infertility is a biological disability, no different than people who are born with deformed limbs or defective hearts. By simply pointing to adoption, you're trivializing this disability. It's analogous to telling someone to get a wheelchair, as opposed to offering to pay for surgery or prosthetic limbs which could provide mobility.

From a biological and moral standpoint, the analogies offered thus far have been sound. You just don't agree with fertility treatments in general, which is a social issue certainly worthy of discussion, but in the discussion of whether the government should pay for such treatments, the only question we need to ask is whether it is a medical disability and whether it's financially viable to pay for treatments. The answer is yes on both counts.

It's unfortunate that people look at their selfish desire to have kids at whatever cost than to look at cold hard facts such over-population, arising environmental issues, depleting natural resources.

You know the global population went from 1 billion to 6 billion in a little over than a 100 years?! How do you suggest the earth be able to sustain given this growth? Where do you think the water is going to come from? You do know there is water shortages all over the world, right? You do realize that practically every living being requires water. We need it for agriculture, industrial and not to mention survival/personal use. We may be ok for now but over next several decades how do you suppose natural resources be replenished when the population continues to increase?


Again, your debate is shifting to social commentary as opposed to the issue at hand. Yes, our society is selfish and that's the way it's built. The healthcare system is supposed to do whatever it takes to ensure the health/wellbeing of its own citizens, and nobody else. It's NOT supposed to take into account global issues like over-population because doing so would contradict the very premise of our healthcare system.

We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and tons of physical resources by treating a single cancer patient in Canada. Would the world be better off if we simply let those patients die and use that money instead to save 1000 children in Africa from starvation? Of course. And if you let all the cancer/HIV patients die off and instead spend all that money on improving the health of the rest of the Canadian population, we would all be better off. But we don't do this, and I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement here.

This is why you can't take a macroscopic view of an issue as personal as healthcare. Our healthcare system is inherently "selfish".

I disagree with the OPs point about it being unnatural and therefore, wrong. But I don't see how it is fair to socialize an elective procedure that, although tragic for the couple, is not life threatening or debilitating to them.

It's one thing to do knee and hip replacements, which greatly enhance the quality of life for the recipient by alleviating pain, but it is quite another thing to have tax payers pay for a private decision to have children.

We don't pay for plastic surgery for people do we? What about the ugly chick who is never going to get laid and thus, never have kids? Should we pay for her to get less ugly?

I feel the same way about socialized daycare as well.

Our healthcare system can't be all things to all people. There need to be limits.

The decision to have children isn't like buying a car, it's a biological component to who we are as humans. Your comparison to plastic surgery is flawed because attractiveness is a characteristic that's supposed to vary, whereas fertility is a biological function that humans are supposed to have.

(And yes, if someone were severely deformed or had other issues, we currently pay for their cosmetic surgery.)

[Billa-786]

I'd rather we have our own kids right here in Canada than rely on immigration to compensate.

[TenzoR]

I think there are other medical services the province should cover first before this service, such as dentistry or our recently removed vision.

This fertility service is fine for people that are young but can not have a child due to medical condition. However, I find it unfair to use it on people who are old and past their prime and want to force their body to have a child. Of course the word "prime" has to be defined clearly.

[setell]

I’m on the camp that paying for fertility treatments is fine. I guess unless you’ve had somebody in your life struggle with conceiving you probably won’t understand how heart aching it is to be childless and saying it’s nature’s way of saying “tough luck” is just too cruel. My uncle and aunt both died childless as in the 80’s treatment wasn’t as successful AND it was way more costly (they still tried though). Even as a young child I sort always see this sadness with my aunt. She compensated her need to have children by treating me like I was her daughter (bought me a lot of stuff!!!). If fertility treatment was as good then as it is now I know for sure she would pay out of pocket whatever cost to try to have a child and I’ll have a cousin to talk to that’s my age right now.

Oceania, your arguments are insulting! I’m childless at the moment but I like to think that if we can pay for a obese person to have bypass surgery then I am ok with a couple wanting to have OHIP pay for fertility treatments. It’s absurd to say “your fat by your own doing so it’s nature’s way of weeding out the weak!”.

[nalababe]

I think there are other medical services the province should cover first before this service, such as dentistry or our recently removed vision.

This fertility service is fine for people that are young but can not have a child due to medical condition. However, I find it unfair to use it on people who are old and past their prime and want to force their body to have a child. Of course the word "prime" has to be defined clearly.

most of the people at these clinics are in their 30's....hardly considered past one's prime.

[gilboman]

I think there are other medical services the province should cover first before this service, such as dentistry or our recently removed vision.

This fertility service is fine for people that are young but can not have a child due to medical condition. However, I find it unfair to use it on people who are old and past their prime and want to force their body to have a child. Of course the word "prime" has to be defined clearly.

vision is covered though. If you have something wrong with your eyes, you goto the opthamologist and its covered.

[TenzoR]

most of the people at these clinics are in their 30's....hardly considered past one's prime.

Again my medical expertise is none-existence, so what prime means is really up for debate.

[TenzoR]

vision is covered though. If you have something wrong with your eyes, you goto the opthamologist and its covered.

It is my understanding people between 20-65 do not have eye examination covered. I personally think this service is far more important than the fertility service, as it is applicable to a lot of needing people. And I realize many employment covers this so not a lot of people care about it but not everyone has that option.

[nalababe]

It is my understanding people between 20-65 do not have eye examination covered. I personally think this service is far more important than the fertility service, as it is applicable to a lot of needing people. And I realize many employment covers this so not a lot of people care about it but not everyone has that option.

But the cost is minimal to the individual....that is not the case for the other...

Many people who actually have conditions like Diabetes are covered for vision as are the young and old.

"An eye examination is covered by OHIP once a year for persons under 20 and those 65 and over. OHIP also covers a major eye exam once every 12 months for persons aged 20 - 64 who have medical conditions requiring regular eye examinations "

[TenzoR]

But the cost is minimal to the individual....that is not the case for the other...

Many people who actually have conditions like Diabetes are covered for vision as are the young and old.

"An eye examination is covered by OHIP once a year for persons under 20 and those 65 and over. OHIP also covers a major eye exam once every 12 months for persons aged 20 - 64 who have medical conditions requiring regular eye examinations "

But what about people without medical condition? They are just out of luck?

To you, the cost of an eye examination maybe minimal, but to others it may not be.

[nalababe]

But what about people without medical condition? They are just out of luck?

To you, the cost of an eye examination maybe minimal, but to others it may not be.

First, not everyone has a problem with their eyes...so a visit every two or three years is fine. At that point 25-35$ a year average is not a lot of money. I think I went 5 years without need for a visit. But that is your decision.

For most of the full time working world with coverage this is easily covered under even the most basic plans.

[nalababe]

The poor are covered as well...

"Persons receiving assistance under the Ontario Disability Support Program, Ontario Works or the Family Benefits Program continue to receive coverage for routine eye examinations once every two years."

As are most if not all non aging related issues....and in many instances their care increased.

"Patients with any of the following conditions can go directly to their optometrist or physician to receive an OHIP insured eye examination: diabetes mellitus, glaucoma, cataract, retinal disease, amblyopia, visual field defects, corneal disease, strabismus."

[Troodon]

First, not everyone has a problem with their eyes...so a visit every two or three years is fine. At that point 25-35$ a year average is not a lot of money. I think I went 5 years without need for a visit. But that is your decision.

For most of the full time working world with coverage this is easily covered under even the most basic plans.

I've pointed out earlier that the government actually makes money to give fertility treatments. It only costs $10,000 to make a new person, but that person will pay more than $10,000 in taxes in the future.

[classic_queen]

I have to agree with the OP. Granted I am part of a couple that doesn't want kids but I've always said that if I really wanted kids, I would adopt.

I really think that our population is getting out of control and we are obliged to have the 2 kids in order to replace us? What about the families with 5+ kids? I think it's about time the human race took a depletion. Our resources are running low and we will run out of space eventually.

I do know people that have gone through the IVF with no success. They did manage to have a child naturally and are trying for more naturally. I get the benefits of IVF but there are drawbacks (multiple births, going through with it and still failing - that can be heartbreaking).

[robster77]

I have no issue with using taxpayer money to pay for fertility treatments if that's what is medically perscribed and all. It would be nice to get vision care and physio back while we're at it...but I digress.

[nalababe]

I've pointed out earlier that the government actually makes money to give fertility treatments. It only costs $10,000 to make a new person, but that person will pay more than $10,000 in taxes in the future.

Add to that, a repercussion of not being able to have children can and does lead to depression for many....and the financial burden that it entails.

[nalababe]

I have to agree with the OP. Granted I am part of a couple that doesn't want kids but I've always said that if I really wanted kids, I would adopt.

I really think that our population is getting out of control and we are obliged to have the 2 kids in order to replace us? What about the families with 5+ kids? I think it's about time the human race took a depletion. Our resources are running low and we will run out of space eventually.

I do know people that have gone through the IVF with no success. They did manage to have a child naturally and are trying for more naturally. I get the benefits of IVF but there are drawbacks (multiple births, going through with it and still failing - that can be heartbreaking).

The people on IVF are not the ones looking for child four, five or six...it is the people looking for child number 1 in most cases.

[danfromwaterloo]

PLEASE give the whole thread a read or at least the first page for those of you considering posting sarcastic remarks or illogical comparisons and analogies, it's already been done. Please use the rest of your brain so you can add something to new the discussion.
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/686868

I'm totally against unnatural conception to begin with as I think it's nature's way of saying you're not supposed to conceive (but I wouldn't want to take away anyone's right to do it) but to expect tax payers to foot the bill for such an expensive procedure is outrageous!

If anything, the adopting should become more accessible for willing and able parent(s). The world is already over-populated with natural resources being depleted, why add to this problem particularly with unnatural conceptions often result in multiple births?

You do realize that the minute human ingenuity takes over for nature in any circumstance, you become a hypocrite, right?

Your argument that nature should dictate fate is a non-starter - after all, so many things we do in today's world wouldn't be possible if we just accepted that nature must be abided by.

It makes sense for the government to pay for fertility services as in most cases, those people who are born from it, end up becoming Canadian citizens and pay taxes.

[classic_queen]

The people on IVF are not the ones looking for child four, five or six...it is the people looking for child number 1 in most cases.

Yeah but they end up with more than that at times. They are normally injected with multiple embryos to ensure at least one or more will attach. Sometimes all attached or more than 2 will. Most times, the mother/father doesn't want to terminate.

[setell]

Yeah but they end up with more than that at times. They are normally injected with multiple embryos to ensure at least one or more will attach. Sometimes all attached or more than 2 will. Most times, the mother/father doesn't want to terminate.

They do that because not many folks can afford a lot of treatments. So to be "safe" they inject more embryo's to ensure they get at least 1 successful pregnancy carried to term.

[classic_queen]

They do that because not many folks can afford a lot of treatments. So to be "safe" they inject more embryo's to ensure they get at least 1 successful pregnancy carried to term.

yes I realise that as stated in my post. Just didn't put the lack of affordability in. Thank you.

[ferkel]

Is everyone in Ontario prepared to pay double or triple their existing $900 Ontario Health Tax?

[robster77]

Is everyone in Ontario prepared to pay double or triple their existing $900 Ontario Health Tax?

Where do you get that fertility drug coverage would increase health premiums by 2-3X? Do you have a source.

[nalababe]

Is everyone in Ontario prepared to pay double or triple their existing $900 Ontario Health Tax?

You're joking right? To add treatment for some 300 couples? Think again.

[ferkel]

Where do you get that fertility drug coverage would increase health premiums by 2-3X? Do you have a source.

One IVF treatment is $12k. Most need at least 3 treatments... do the math.

[CSK'sMom]

I'm happy to see this initiative happen. Not only are we talking about fertility treatment for up to 3 cycles for couples covered (minus drugs of course ;) ) but the other part is regulating fertility clinics and adoption agencies. Currently the adoption agency system in this province is a patchwork of private agencies and Children's Aid Societies that aren't even consistent in their requirements for adoptive parents to be.

Funny thing is is that fetility treatments were covered at one time through OHIP but delisted and here we sit talking about covering them once again but with limits...

[robster77]

One IVF treatment is $12k. Most need at least 3 treatments... do the math.

4.5M households in Ontario of which 9% are two person dwellings. I'll make an conservative assumption that half are under age 42 as the legislation requires, so 202K households. If 1 in 6 of these households have trouble conceiving, you're looking at 34K homes. This works out to a grand total of roughly $100M annually, assuming the couples have kids every single year. Obviously, that's a stretch and would likely have 2 or less per the latest census. All of these numbers came from the article and latest census.

All told, $100M over however many years (let's use ten for fun) works out to $10M annually. That's peanuts in the grand scheme of health care spending.

[ferkel]

All told, $100M over however many years (let's use ten for fun) works out to $10M annually. That's peanuts in the grand scheme of health care spending.

You really think this will only cost Ontario $10 Million annually?!

[felixdd]

I'm totally against unnatural conception to begin with as I think it's nature's way of saying you're not supposed to conceive (but I wouldn't want to take away anyone's right to do it) but to expect tax payers to foot the bill for such an expensive procedure is outrageous!
So if you are the government, you tell the people that "you're infertile, it's nature's cue to saying that you're not supposed to have children", and you expect that to wash?

Please qualify the difference between that stance and the stance of, "you require a ventilator in order to survive...it's nature way of saying you shouldn't be alive."

Or are you actually trying to propose the indefensible position that the justification is because in the second scenario, we should prolong the life because the person is already living? Because if that's the case, it's a hypocritical stance as you're going against nature in one position, but "with" nature in another.

The world is already over-populated with natural resources being depleted, why add to this problem particularly with unnatural conceptions often result in multiple births?
One day in ICU costs $1500, and the average cost per ICU stay is $7500. (Crit Care Med. 1996 Jul ;24 (7):1168-72). And this statistic was back in 1996 so it probably costs more now with inflation.

Secondly, the article you cite makes a few mistakes. For starters, only the more advanced fertility technologies cost the $10,000+ mark. One cycle of clomiphene citrate, one of the first-line interventions for infertility, costs only $1000-1500 USD (source (http://www.advancedfertility.com/inducovu.htm)).

So if we want to "listen to nature" and cut costs for health care, what I hear you say is that we should do away with the ICU, as that is a significantly higher source of expense for the Canadian government, than is infertility.


If anything, the adopting should become more accessible for willing and able parent(s).
In all fairness, I agree with that

[Troodon]

One IVF treatment is $12k. Most need at least 3 treatments... do the math.

Cancer treatment is about 12K per DAY. Ok let say that there are 300 couples needing it. It would be about 36K x 300 which is only a few million dollars.

[nalababe]

The plan as passed by the Government is actually a multipurpose plan that tackles not only IVF, but also is contains a plan for funding adoptions (the recomendation was to raise the tax credit to 30k). There is also a considerable emphasis to remove barriers (including time) to adoption including subsidies of up to 50-80% of the crowns foster care cost. For adoption the target is to double the rate of Adoption within 5 years.

As for IVF. You just cannot walk in and start the procedure.

First you have to be a minimum of 28 and have tried actively to get pregnant for at least 12 months. Subsequent to that you have to start a fertility and monitoring program for at least 12 months. This testing (FSH, AFC, Semen is already covered etc...and they recommendation is to include Anti-Mullerian testing as well). You still have a year before moving to the next stage. Even here, Ontario had 22,000 cycles of IUI (intra Uterine Insemination) and only 5,000 cycles of IVF. So one doesn't just jump to IVF.

Note it does not say that the people get all of their medication covered. The recommendation is to have a refundable 50% tax credit.

Finally, there is a target required by the facilities as well: To maintain their accreditation, fertility clinics and centres must reduce their annual multiple
birth rate to less than 15% within five years and to less than 10% within 10 years. This is well below the 27+% that exists today.

[felixdd]

The plan as passed by the Government is actually a multipurpose plan that tackles not only IVF, but also is contains a plan for funding adoptions (the recomendation was to raise the tax credit to 30k). There is also a considerable emphasis to remove barriers (including time) to adoption including subsidies of up to 50-80% of the crowns foster care cost. For adoption the target is to double the rate of Adoption within 5 years.

As for IVF. You just cannot walk in and start the procedure.

First you have to be a minimum of 28 and have tried actively to get pregnant for at least 12 months. Subsequent to that you have to start a fertility and monitoring program for at least 12 months. This testing (FSH, AFC, Semen is already covered etc...and they recommendation is to include Anti-Mullerian testing as well). You still have a year before moving to the next stage. Even here, Ontario had 22,000 cycles of IUI (intra Uterine Insemination) and only 5,000 cycles of IVF. So one doesn't just jump to IVF.

Note it does not say that the people get all of their medication covered. The recommendation is to have a refundable 50% tax credit.

Finally, there is a target required by the facilities as well: To maintain their accreditation, fertility clinics and centres must reduce their annual multiple
birth rate to less than 15% within five years and to less than 10% within 10 years. This is well below the 27+% that exists today.

Good info on how fertility clinic works in that post, folks

[CSK'sMom]

The plan as passed by the Government is actually a multipurpose plan that tackles not only IVF, but also is contains a plan for funding adoptions (the recomendation was to raise the tax credit to 30k). There is also a considerable emphasis to remove barriers (including time) to adoption including subsidies of up to 50-80% of the crowns foster care cost. For adoption the target is to double the rate of Adoption within 5 years.

As for IVF. You just cannot walk in and start the procedure.

First you have to be a minimum of 28 and have tried actively to get pregnant for at least 12 months. Subsequent to that you have to start a fertility and monitoring program for at least 12 months. This testing (FSH, AFC, Semen is already covered etc...and they recommendation is to include Anti-Mullerian testing as well). You still have a year before moving to the next stage. Even here, Ontario had 22,000 cycles of IUI (intra Uterine Insemination) and only 5,000 cycles of IVF. So one doesn't just jump to IVF.

Note it does not say that the people get all of their medication covered. The recommendation is to have a refundable 50% tax credit.

Finally, there is a target required by the facilities as well: To maintain their accreditation, fertility clinics and centres must reduce their annual multiple
birth rate to less than 15% within five years and to less than 10% within 10 years. This is well below the 27+% that exists today.

Great post nalalabe! It never ceases to amaze me how people will pull one very small piece of a legislation to ***** about and ignore the rest. This is a comprehensive reform package which is sorely needed in this province IMHO. We've watched friends go through fertility treatments and watched others try to adopt in province before going abroad to adopt due to the patchwork system currently.

[Coolisme]

I dont really disagree per se with including IVF in OHIP. But there should be restrictions like others suggested.

-A salary requirement so that you can actually AFFORD to take care of the child.
-If you have 2 or more offsprings already currently living, you shouldn't qualify for OHIP Invitro, that's just being greedy.

Just a few restrictions I can think of at the moment. But again, I'm fine with IVF being including in OHIP as long as there are restrictions to stop possible abusement of the system. We don't need more Octomoms that cant even support their own kids.

[nalababe]

I dont really disagree per se with including IVF in OHIP. But there should be restrictions like others suggested.

-A salary requirement so that you can actually AFFORD to take care of the child.
-If you have 2 or more offsprings already currently living, you shouldn't qualify for OHIP Invitro, that's just being greedy.

Just a few restrictions I can think of at the moment. But again, I'm find with IVF being including in OHIP as long as there are restrictions to stop possible abusement of the system. We don't need more Octomoms that cant even to support their own kids.

If you didn't have the money, you would not be able to afford the fertility drugs during the earlier phases. But then again, what is the real cost of raising a family. I cannot not imagine raising our two kids on less than the 180k we earn...but I am sure many can do it for a lot less.

The systems is different here in Canada for all healthcare. You cannot just pay for services. From start to finish you have a minimum 2 year commitment, one year under medical supervision, before you can even start considering IVF.

Interestingly I am surprised that no one has tried to object to this for same sex couples.....

[nalababe]

The legislation is/will be based on the following:

http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/documents/infertility/RaisingExpectationsEnglish.pdf

[robster77]

You really think this will only cost Ontario $10 Million annually?!

Well, that's what the math that you told me to do said. If you have other math with facts, post it.

[abu_sme]

Cancer treatment is about 12K per DAY. Ok let say that there are 300 couples needing it. It would be about 36K x 300 which is only a few million dollars.

What you're failing to take into account though is, that if the treatment is free, demand would be many times more than it currently is. Conservatively you could quadruple it. That means maybe 1200 people a year are going for this treatment.

Now that is $43,200,000 per year that could be spent on other procedures.

[Troodon]

What you're failing to take into account though is, that if the treatment is free, demand would be many times more than it currently is. Conservatively you could quadruple it. That means maybe 1200 people a year are going for this treatment.

Now that is $43,200,000 per year that could be spent on other procedures.

Yes but are other procedures better than this?

[nalababe]

What you're failing to take into account though is, that if the treatment is free, demand would be many times more than it currently is. Conservatively you could quadruple it. That means maybe 1200 people a year are going for this treatment.

Now that is $43,200,000 per year that could be spent on other procedures.

It is not that simple. You still have to qualify and you still have to front the money for the drugs in the year of fertility monitoring prior to starting IUI then IVF. So people aren't going to run to have it...it is a multi year process.

There is also a limited number of patients that can be treated at such clinics. There is not the capacity to do four times the capacity at this time (the fertility clinic associated with Toronto Women's is packed already...and most of these never progress that far).

Even then it is extremely expensive to start a clinic (which will have multi millions in US machines and Laboratory equipment such as a Immunochemistry analyzer).


This is the final step in the process. For many it might mean simple hormone dosages during the monitoring process (i.e. due to insufficient progesterone during the Lueteal phase etc) or the adminstration of various drugs. These clinics are packed, yet only 300 babies were born in all of Ontario due to IVF...it is not as frequent as you might think.

Remember until about a decade ago, it was covered completely in Ontario. This is nothing new....

[ferkel]

Yes, a decade ago we also had OHIP coverage for eye exams for everyone.

[jerrysiz]

Interestingly I am surprised that no one has tried to object to this for same sex couples.....

:confused: Not quite sure what you mean by this. The debate is over the right to have a child vs. cost to society. I don't see how the sex of the woman's partner would effect this argument. If you're saying that it's "unnatural" for gay people to have children, in the same way people have posted that IVF is unnatural, then that's another argument alltogether (and also a poor analogy). It's rather a moot point anyways, since I don't know of any gay couples that have had IVF. They usually adopt or use a surrogate/sperm donor. But I suppose it is possible that the woman having the child would have fertility problems...but again, I don't know how this would be any different than if it were a straight woman.