Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

IVF treatment on the NHS to be made available only to heterosexual couples

08:51 / 22.08.05

(Feel free to move this to the Laboratory or elsewhere if it seems it'd be more appropriate there...)

It's a few days old now, but presumably hasn't lost any relevance in that time:

NHS [IVF] treatment should be the preserve of two-parent, heterosexual families, says minister at launch of consultation paper

Modernisation of the act, however, does not mean modernisation of the concept of the family, the public health minister, Caroline Flint, made clear yesterday... "As a general rule the government believes it is better for a child to have both a father and a mother."

... Oh, why don't you just...

... OK, rather than just ranting about the uber-Middle England-ness of New Labour, I'll start with:

1) Even if this (that it is better for a child to have both a father and a mother) were the case, a blanket ban would still obviously be outright bigotry: it privileges all heterosexual, two-parent relationships over all single parent and gay potential families.

2) I'm sure I don't need to point this out on Barbelith, but it isn't the case:

Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.

(Of course, this presumably depends on one's idea of "harm"; presumably, from a New Labour perspective, the increased likelihood of children with gay parents to experiment with gay sexual relationships and increased promiscuity amongst female children is likely to be considered unthinkably horrendous in itself.)

So: thoughts?

13:09 / 22.08.05

Might just be me being cynical, but this seems to be one of those things Labour does to endear itself to the Conservative voters.

I've never seen any studies that suggest children raised by homosexual parents or single parents are somehow damaged either (or at least none that weren't done by right-wing Christian groups).

Personally I'm against the idea of IVF being availiable at all. Too many weak breeders spreading their filthy inferior genes into the pool (joking...kinda).

17:54 / 22.08.05

I think the title of this topic is a bit misleading and the first post seems to indicate that you have misunderstood the report that you link to Pingles, build a rocket!

The story isn't about access to IVF for Lesbian and Gay couples as much as it is about access to IVF for Lesbian and Gay ON THE NHS. As I understand it, the proposed legislation would NOT prevent Gays and Lesbians from accessing IVF in total, but it WOULD prevent them from using tax-payer's money in the form of the NHS.

Unless anyone has any relevant objections, I plan to suggest revisions in the title and abstract so that it actually reflects the story in the link that it would seem to be commenting on.

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:10 / 22.08.05

My next question would, however, still be whether lesbian and gay couples who want children can therefore get a refund of the bit of their taxes that goes towards IVF treatment for straight couples - this is essentially taxation without representation, isn't it? If there is no medical or social reason why these children should not exist, what _is_ the reason? If there is, why is this restriction limited to the NHS?

20:22 / 22.08.05

this is essentially taxation without representation, isn't it?

Something along those line I think, with new labour hoping to appeal to the daily mail readers who don't want to fund the creation of gay and lesbian families.

I can certainly see validity of Lesbians and Gays complaining that they are being unfairly taxed to fund IVF for breeders, but at the moment that lobby is very small and very quiet.

06:47 / 23.08.05

Surely anyone can have problems with the provision of IVF on the NHS? I know I have.

07:21 / 23.08.05

Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear that it referred to NHS treatment, but if it wasn't, fair enough to change the title.

My next question would, however, still be whether lesbian and gay couples who want children can therefore get a refund of the bit of their taxes that goes towards IVF treatment for straight couples - this is essentially taxation without representation, isn't it?

Mmm... how would this fit alongside uses of taxation which only apply to a certain segment of the population? For example, would it be equally reasonable for, say, men to ask for a refund on any tax spent on fighting sexism? Or does this analogy not work because either a) in the case of the IVF treatment, it's something which should benefit a certain section of the population but is instead being denied to it, or b) fighting sexism etc. is something that benefits us all? If the latter, is there an example which is closer, but can be agreed upon as a reasonable use of taxpayers' money?

Surely anyone can have problems with the provision of IVF on the NHS? I know I have.

But presumably, you've not had an application for IVF treatment rejected for a completely arbitrary and bigoted reason? Or at least if you have, it hasn't been because of government policy to do so?

I'm also interested in the implications of this for the rest of the government's policies on sexuality. I was under the impression that as a whole, Labour was at least past such blatant bigotry. It could be just Ms Flint who holds such views, but if so, it seems a little odd for her to start her sentences with, "As a general rule the government believes...". But then, to what extent do the government's semi-positive moves so far - equalisation of the age of consent, "civil partnerships" etc. - actually represent a commitment to equality? If I remember correctly, at least some of these moves were mandated by the ECHR...

07:36 / 23.08.05

Oh, one thing I've just noticed that I missed before:

Priority would be given to heterosexual couples.

Which seems to contradict the article's subtitle of "NHS treatment should be the preserve of two-parent, heterosexual families", and suggest that gay and single mothers would be discriminated against but not banned entirely.

Whether or not this is the case, though, it still means the government is at least restricting treatment on such grounds, and so I'd consider all the points made so far still valid; as a Lib Dem MP is quoted in the article as asking, "Are they really wanting to label all single and same sex parents as second class and why?"

12:48 / 23.08.05

Pingles: No, I haven't and I completely agree that if IVF is offered on the NHS it should be offered to all regardless of marital status or sexuality.
There is an argument however that IVF treatment shouldn't be available via the NHS, an argument that I have some sympathy with, though I am not sure I completely agree with it.