h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I wouldn't. It was nothing earth shattering,

In the past people used to marry young and had children young. Now
they go to university, get a BA degree in Celebrity Studies or BSc in
Hair Sciences, then have to save hard to pay off their debts and get
enough for a deposit on a house and then they can think about
starting a family. But the biological clock has already wound down
and so difficulties are encountered in the procreation department.

Not to mention the increased risk of having Downs Syndrome children - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13992232

I have a friend who recently looked into ivf. It might cost the NHS 2000 but privtely round here it costs 7000. If you assume 4 cycles to get pregnant that is 28,000 which is an up front cost that is beyond most people. Sh did say they hd deal whereby you could pay slightly less for three cycles, but if you fall pregnant on cycle number one or two there is no refund.

Incidentally, she is looking privately because she doesn't qualify on the NHS. She has PCOS and had her daughter after fertility tretment (clomid). The drugs haven't worked second time around (she is just 30) but will not get ivf on the NHS because she already has a child.

@kelli.

My anti-privatisation comment was slighly glib (people would have expected it from me and I didn't like to disappoint).

Clearly if the NHS don't provide services that they damn well should, there is no shame in going private. See also abortion, dentistry...

"You *may* be right that more than half of IVF candidates already have children"

I doubt it. I mention the people of my acquaintance not because I think they're representative of the overall stats, but because I'm surprised they're entitled to IVF *AT ALL*, what with already having kids and stuff.

Analogy: I'm aware that it's possible for otherwise entirely healthy women to get cosmetic breast enlargement surgery on the NHS. This treatment apparently is there to mitigate the psychological problems of women who have small breasts and think it matters, and is on the whole apparently cheaper than the drugs you'd need to treat those mental issues.

How would we feel about the NHS funding cosmetic breast enlargements for women not satisfied with natural double D cup breasts? I know how I'd feel...

"I'm prepared to accept, though, that those who already have children should have lower priority than those who haven't."

I'd go further - those who already have children should have a lower priority than EVERY other treatment on the NHS. But I already said that...

"they may have their emotional reasons - but I'd have to decide whether to sympathise on a case-by-case basis."

I may have my "emotional reasons" for a whole host of expensive interventions in my lifestyle. I'd be incredibly self-centred to expect you to fund them, though, wouldn't I?

"glad you've moved on to this Special Case from your original, blanket IVF Is For Losers stance"

I've done no such thing.

IVF is a luxury treatment in an overpopulated world with many children awaiting adoption. And to go back to the original question: having a child is NOT a "right". Not for anyone, ever. As a society, we choose to fund it, but I absolutely reject its characterisation as a "right".

"It's a tacit admission[...] that at least *some* might legitimately feel entitled?"

I'll freely admit there are many, many people who FEEL entitled to all sorts of things. We've a burgeoning underclass who FEEL entitled to own a fifty inch plasma TV and a smartphone paid for by my taxes. Are they right?

"You do love your parodic distortions, don't you?"

Yes. Next question.

Re Downs Syndrome.

Something that made me sit up and think a few years ago, A medical Ethicist saying:

'Why talk about eliminating the genes for Downs Syndrome? It might work better if we think about eliminating the genes which make people unable to cope with people with Downs Syndrome.'

For avoidance of doubt: I didn't read any negativity into swl's post.

kelli: in your position I'd be very tempted to ask your friend what it is about her first child that is so unsatisfying and inadequate that's she's considering painful, invasive and expensive surgery to have a better one? What, is it ginger or something?

Very happy to hear she's being forced to go private, though.

"'Why talk about eliminating world poverty? It might work better if we think about eliminating the aspirational images which make people unable to cope with being poor.'"

"in your position I'd be very tempted to ask your friend what it is about her first child that is so unsatisfying and inadequate that's she's considering painful, invasive and expensive surgery to have a better one?"

Would you? *blink*

You think the reason why so many people have more than one child is because they don't like the first one? How bizarre. Just out of interest, do you have siblings?

>>"'Why talk about eliminating world poverty? It might work better if we think about eliminating the aspirational images which make people unable to cope with being poor.'"

Indeed, SoRB. Well spotted. But the point you have failed to...er...Twig here is that these decisions don't have logical outcomes because the outcomes themselves are not logically derived. Nevertheless we prefer some outcomes to others.

I thought the ethicist illustrated thus quite well. What part did you miss?

Another thing that SoRB has clearly little grasp of is the fact that those who have children - and that's quite a lot of us do so at considerable inconvenience. There's a lot of pain and even risk involved to the woman. There are negative side effects for both parents - it eats into kite surfing time (or whatever), tears chunks out of your bank balance and sex becomes but a distant dream. And yet...we persist! Some even compounding the misery by having more than one child. Those who go down the uncomfortable and invasive IVF route possibly regard it as a drop in the ocean.

Now...I'm not expecting SoRB to make the same cost/benefit trade-off as the vast majority of people. Perhaps he's lacking that part of his brain which gives weight to the benefits. But the fact that he seemingly can't understand that many people *do* include a massive, overwhelming benefit term in the equation makes me wonder if he's competent to even understand the question.

Actually, my counterpoint didn't quite work. This formulation is far more accurate:

"Why talk about eliminating world poverty? It might work better if we think about eliminating the things which make rich people unable to cope with the poor."

I'm an only child. Obvious?

"You think the reason why so many people have more than one child is because they don't like the first one? How bizarre. "

Not at all. If you have a child, and love it, I accept it might seem natural to think "let's do that again". But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is saying "OK, doing that again isn't working... now, rather than lavish our wealth, time and love on the child we already have, let's focus instead on trying, against the odds, to have another."

If I were ever to personally breed, I'd be grateful for any healthy child I could produce. And if I discovered that one was my limit, then I'd be sure and make sure the one never wanted for anything, emotionally or materially. I certainly wouldn't neglect them in favour of a possible second that might never come. How would that make the first feel? (And don't tell me that the parents don't neglect the first while trying for the second. If it's the gut-wrenching, life-changing Bodawful nightmare it's being portrayed as, there's no way that's not adversely affecting the child they already have. I don't know how they can live with themselves. It's horribly selfish.

And I'll concede that yes, I may very well be not competent to understand the question. I made the decision not to breed before my teens, and everything I've experienced since has reinforced the idea that I made the right choice.

SoRB

>>
Actually, my counterpoint didn't quite work. This formulation is far more accurate:

>>"Why talk about eliminating world poverty? It might work better if we think about eliminating the things which make rich people unable to cope with the poor."

>>I'm an only child. Obvious?


Again...you are massively missing the point. Which is that we can put forward two different outcomes and it is not obvious what tells us whether one is more desirable than the other. Any fool can come up with shocking alternatives:

'Why go on living? It might be better in the long run to get it over quick.'

The far more difficult part is deciding by what process we determine that one outcome is better than another. What assumptions are we making? On what basis? Our ethicist understood this and was illustrating with a fr'instance (and, you have to admit, a nifty one). I'm still unconvinced that you get her point.

>>And I'll concede that yes, I may very well be not competent to understand the question. I made the decision not to breed before my teens, and everything I've experienced since has reinforced the idea that I made the right choice.

OBVIOUS QUIP ALERT: And thank for that. The gene pool can rest safe.

And that's fine. I know many others who have made the same decision. And I also know many others who have made a different decision, a small proportion of have been physiologically incapble of carrying it out.

First of all...an essential point: Nobody's decision has been 'Right' or 'Wrong' here so far, merely...different.

>>I made the decision not to breed before my teens, and everything I've experienced since has reinforced the idea that I made the right choice.

Right for you. Good. But can you extrapolate from that?

Now you are, I take it, quite happy in your decision. If you magically found you were suddenly responsible for children you might feel somewhat discombobulated...but that's unlikely: you can take means to prevent that. (And you can get them free fro your local health centre if you choose).

But consider someone whose important life goal cannot be fulfilled - not a trivial goal such as 'I want to visit Kathmandu' but one which, anecdotal evidence suggests has always been vitally important to many, many humans...can you at least acknowledge if not personally feel their distress without belittling it? Are you capable of at least that much empathy?

And if you are...why such a strong animus towards lending a helping hand?

Meh. I don't get it. But it doesn't matter. There's plenty who do.

>>I certainly wouldn't neglect them in favour of a possible second that might never come. How would that make the first feel? (And don't tell me that the parents don't neglect the first while trying for the second. If it's the gut-wrenching, life-changing Bodawful nightmare it's being portrayed as, there's no way that's not adversely affecting the child they already have. I don't know how they can live with themselves. It's horribly selfish.


Well, possibly. But by the same logic the parents of more than one child have to share there emotional and material resources between them. Is each child 'neglected' as a result? Do children with siblings suffer worse life outcomes than only children?

Its possible. But I'd expect to have to back it up with an evidential case.

And you'll also need to make an evidential case for the impact of IVF on an existing child. >>...there's no way...<< doesn't really count. Does it? I'd certainly expect that before anyone used strong language such as >>I don't know how they can live with themselves. It's horribly selfish. That sort of thing is horribly dumb and suggests some horrible prejudices.

Selfish (adj): Concerned only with oneself.

Not with a family. Not with anyone else's problems.

Pre-moderation is so tiresome...

It's like the little kid at the front of the class jumping up and down on his seat, hand up, exclaiming "Please Miss, please Miss, Miss".

This post has been removed.