New to group!

MariaBend25 · December 2016

Hi ladies! It is really hard for me to join a group like this and be happy but I am finding I need support so I hope to be a community here.

My story, sorry it is long.
I am nearly 27, married 3.5 years and off BC that whole time, although we spent one year living on opposite coasts. We thought foregoing BC and regular sex would eventually lead to a pregnancy but it did not. I worried about my fertility as I was placed on the pill at 17 for having irregular cycles, coming off after we got married it took about 5 months to get a period and it has since been irregular. Horrible and nearly debilitating cramping led to an investigation into cysts which were found but always resolved. The doc suspected endometriosis but I declined an invasive surgery just to find out as even if the answer was yes they can't treat it. A body composition test came back with a low body fat percentage so I started trying to put on a little weight...although my weight is fine my muscle mass kills my body fat percentage and they thought that could play into the irregularity. A year later we decided to see a fertility clinic after still no progress baby making. My bloodwork came back with high testosterone, and ovaries showed PCOS (despite not having any other usual accompanying symptoms). The doctor is unsure if I even ovulate. Tubes, after a second HSG, show unblocked at least.
Unfortunately the hubby had his sperm test come back and surprised us all with numerous issues. Low sperm count (7M/ml), low motility (20%), and zero percent normal morphology. We are waiting to see a follow up analysis but I doubt counts will change much.
I am upset as the combination of factors at our initial consult made the doctor recommend IVF as the only likelihood of conception. My husband thinks the clinic is just after money and the test results don't mean anything because we have never done the sex every other day thing so he considers that as "not really trying" but the doc said three plus years of no BC should have resulted in a pregnancy by now.
I cannot personally do IVF, I was hoping a drug like chlomid would help me ovulate to get things done naturally. Or even IUI. But it seems unlikely those will be successful considering the multitude of issues we face.
I am trying to accept that we may never have kids and am trying to find positives in a childless life but it is hard with so many pregnant friends and family inquiring when we will have kids. My husband doesn't understand my feelings as to him kids or no kids he is happy. We have recently moved due to my job and I have no friends nor the ability to make any here (average age at my work is ~60) so I am quite alone and depressed and it is weighing me down as much as I try to tell myself everything is for a reason or that maybe it is just not fate for me to have kids. Every month, or whenever my female plumbing decides to work, I have a painful reminder of my failure. I think I sill want to try chlomid just to see what happens, then maybe IUI, but that is as far as I am willing to go. But honestly I'm not sure it is worth trying those with the odds stacked against me, I don't want to get my hopes up.
If anyone has any stories of pcos infertility combined with male infertility to share that would be helpful. This is a very dark and lonely place to be.

PoeMasque · December 2016

I'm so sorry you find yourself in this situation, and at a time when it seems everyone around you is young and fertile. It must feel really alienating. I think you will find some kindred spirits on here and will also learn a lot about IF (I certainly have!).

I dont have pcos (that I know of!), but I can sympathize with the excruciating period pain as a sharp reminder that every month we are unsuccessful. As if the BFN isn't hard enough.

I hope you can find some answers and peace here!

kangastein · December 2016

If you look around here you will find a board about male factor where girls have mentioned clomid helping sperm counts. Have your husband go to a good fertility urologist. but I hate to say with those numbers you could try for years and never get pregnant naturally.
pcos can be regulated with clomid and meds and natural supplements. I have a close friend who went to a natural dr and stopped eating a variety of things, which helped her have regular periods. Also look into tribulus, maca, and vitex all things an RE would never suggest but are safe and work wonders on hormone levels.
i wish you luck but you may be wasting time by not looking at IVF.... and drs and definitely not just out for your money, they usually want to help you get pregnant too.

liljoy-2 · December 2016

I'm sorry you have to be in here with us

But it may help a bit (I know it helps me) seeing that infertility is so common and that there are so many determined wonderful ladies defying the odds.
You don't need to answer if it's personal, but why wouldn't IVF be an option? I know that I used to think the same, if it's not meant to be naturally, I should just let it go (I still do sometimes) but something inside me drove me to start the IVF process, to know for sure...

MariaBend25 · December 2016

Hi Kangastein and bestofjoy! Thanks for the insights. I would rule out IVF because I believe life starts at conception so creating embryos that might not get used bothers me. I could not discard them and I wouldn't want my "children" donated. Doing one or two at a time is expensive as none of the fertility treatments are covered in our insurance. Even still, for me there is something unnatural about injecting a sperm into an egg for the purpose of me having a child...I would rather have the natural God thing happen than science artificially creating life. It is hard to wrap my mind around despite it working well for so many others. IUI is still letting the little swimmers do their job with just a little head start and hormone therapies might get my body to work right. My beliefs are in no way judgmental on others, but I personally don't think I could live with a life given by IVF instead of God. Of course I know not going that path drastically decreases our odds, which makes it a little harder since our odds are like .0002% Maybe my views will change as we get further along

kangastein · December 2016

I would speak to your dr about your religious views. They can inject a certain number of eggs in order to keep the embryo number small so that you don't have to discard any. You also don't have to use ICSI which injects the sperm into the egg, they can let the eggs fertilize normally by sprinkling the sperm over.
All this may make it seem more natural for you.
someone suggested having the dr give you clomid to help you ovulate. Maybe that and getting the sperm better will be the magic bullet and you won't have to worry about IVF...

rainbowwishes5 · December 2016

Welcome! I am sure that on the pregnancy board you will find success stories. Most of us here are not success stories.....at least not yet! Welcome.

MariaBend25 · December 2016

We will hope on the chlomid for now, will update after our follow up. While success stories would be nice to give hope, anyone in the same boat of problems would also be nice to connect to to give and receive support.

cakeforbreakfast · December 2016

You have a lot of options yet; cycle monitoring for ovulation, drugs to stimulate your eggs, drugs for his sperm, laparoscopy while diagnostic for endo have added benefits for a few months after, properly timed intercourse while watching your hormones via blood work..... lots of things to try

. All of this is science aided though.

MariaBend25 · December 2016

@cakeforbreakfast thanks for the ideas, definitely points we will discuss with the doc. Science aided is fine for me until it creates the life, I am honestly not even sure how to explain my view as it isn't about religion but more personal comfort level. I am learning though that Lean PCOS also has a link to depression so I wonder if that might be what has been getting me so down in the dumps.

liljoy-2 · December 2016

I totally understand your point of view because I'm struggling with the same dilemma. Because I don't want to have more embryos than I want babies, and because I want to avoid hormones as much as possible, I am doing natural IUIs and natural or mini-IVFs with PGS. This means that there is practically no chance of ending up with more normal embryos than needed. In fact, to be able to get one or two normal embryos 2 cycles or more are necessary. Yes, I understand it is expensive to do 2 cycles plus genetic testing but it feels more natural and the drug costs is much less (you can only opt for Clomid and the trigger or Clomid+a few injections+ the trigger). And I'm more at ease morally.

However, I was quite surprised to see that not all REs want to do mini or natural IVFs. In fact it is only a few that I researched that specifically are ok with this. I assume it has to do with the negative impact on their success statistics (I find it upsetting that they can't change the reporting so that they can think of me first rather than their stupid ratings but c'est la vie).

kangastein · December 2016

@bestofjoy have you done a natural IVF yet? I'm curious about it.

MariaBend25 · December 2016

@bestofjoy that is very interesting, I would have to ask my doctor more about it he initially said doing a couple eggs at a time is very expensive especially considering we will pay all costs out of pocket (Tricare only pays for diagnosis not treatment or even hormone therapies...despite paying for gender reassignment surgeries and hormone treatments for people in that process, although that is another topic). But I have never heard of mini or natural IVF.

cakeforbreakfast · December 2016

That is uncalled for and not cool. Gender reassignment and hormones are very important, and while it may not suit your beliefs I'm sure you can discuss infertility without insinuating you're disapproval.

liljoy-2 · December 2016

@kangastein I've done a so-called micro-IVF, meaning only Clomid and the trigger. I had 2 eggs but one was immature and one I ovulated just before the ER (I don't know how that happened). So I ended up with zero embryos. So next time the RE said we'll just try to catch the mature egg instead. I'm doing a mini-IVF adding some injectables too with the target of having up to 4 good eggs. And after that a natural IVF instead of being benched. I'm ovulating on my own every month and it's rather predictable, so doing this makes sense.

@MariaBend25 It's only "more expensive" in that you may need two or more retrievals, depending on your luck so to speak. You may be successful (having one or two good embryos) from the first one, and in that case the cost would be less.

MariaBend25 · December 2016

Actually, I don't disapprove at all, I just disapprove of a policy allowing hormone therapy for one thing and not for another.

MariaBend25 · December 2016

@bestofjoy thanks for the information I have more to look into especially for expense of other methods. IVF per round runs 12k with this clinic so that is off putting to pay out of pocket, perhaps other types have lesser costs. I appreciate the insight!

funkykey · December 2016

Hi @MariaBend25 - I'm so sorry for your IF, and that you find yourself in this position. I also know what it's like to be uncomfortable with some of the recommended treatments. My DH is like you, not comfortable with IVF, while I totally am.

When our RE first outlined an IUI plan for us, followed by IVF if not successful, I was really surprised. I guess I hadn't realized how badly I'd wanted to conceive our baby at home, just us - doing it another way felt kind of cold and clinical. A few days later, and another AF, I was singing a different tune: suddenly I couldn't wait to book it, and conceiving a child in a clinic seemed like such an act of love, like: "we wanted you so badly, we paid a whole team of people to help us." Now I am even frustrated we haven't started - it's agony, taking the time to document my cycle (even triple-check it!) and wait through my clinic's holiday closures.

My DH took it a little harder than I did, and it is still a sore spot for us. I was surprised - he is very pro-science in every area of his life (I am the spiritual one), but for some reason, he thinks having to ejaculate in a cup again, have that washed, and then injected into me, wasn't "natural" - it makes him uncomfortable to think that is how we will have to conceive.

He is softening, for a couple of reasons:
1) Before the RE's recommendations, he'd been taking the BD and FW seriously, but not as seriously as me. After the RE's recommendations, for the next two cycles, he gave BD-ing like 110%, and we still didn't conceive. Faced with the prospect of another year of that, he was like: "Ok, maybe we do need some help."
2) We've had some serious discussions (and at least one screaming match) about "natural" and "unnatural". We use technology in every area of our lives, and it has hugely helped us. Quite frankly, if it weren't for BC, DH probably would have knocked up his highschool girlfriend, never gone to college, and would still be in his hometown. We never would have met or fell in love, even. We take medicine when we're sick, we drive cars, we use electricity.

All of these technologies work because they exploit some aspect of the natural world: BC works because of the natural hormones you have that regulate your reproductive cycle, vaccines work because of our natural immune response. Likewise, clomid only works because of how your ovaries work; IVF and ICSI only work because of our natural cellular reproductive process - by that I mean mitosis. When I think about that - my DNA fusing with DH's DNA and creating a living, breathing child, with lungs and legs and muscles and a face - the whole process - that, for me, is the miracle, not how the cells get there.

To me, none of these treatments are "unnatural".

DH & I are not 100% there yet - as in, he's not quite on my page - but our game isn't over yet. It could go any number of ways - we have a family, we make peace with childlessness, I leave him and have a family with someone else... Who knows. Whatever happens will be difficult.

This IF journey challenges is in many ways - financially, our marriages, our communication, our thoughts, our beliefs, our bodies. It is HARD and can be very lonely. Whatever you chose, however you decide to go forward, I wish you well and much luck with all of this. xx

MariaBend25 · December 2016

@funkykey thank you for sharing your story. My husband and I disagree on what "trying" means but we are on the same page as far as how far we want to pursue this. While he has no issue with IVF besides the financial one he would not put me through something I disagree with. We will need to hunker down for seriously attacking the BD lol, and I'm sure that will quickly become less sexy and more job like very fast. It is hard to time as I don't have regular cycles and PCOS means I may not even be ovulating (so why the hell do I still have to put up with a period!?!? Cmon man! Unfair! Lol). But I found that throughout this process having good communication with DH has been key to me staying emotionally healthy and having a bedrock to come home to. I hope your situation is the same despite the hard days. It might take us years or never happen at all so for me realism is better for me to handle it...I can't build myself up to get let down as you are right that can ruin my life or marriage. So worse comes to worse it will be hard but we are planning what a childless life would be like so if it happens we are able to tackle it together.

funkykey · December 2016

Ha - that is good you are on the same page. Being on different pages (ahem) can be tough. Really tough.

But if you are really against IVF and DH is unlikely to persuade you otherwise, given his numbers and your PCOS, you are unlikely to conceive.

Sometimes I wish I weren't willing to try IVF, just because it means our journey is going to be so much longer. My DH is like yours - kids or no kids, he is happy - so the burden of deciding how far to go is on me.

I have thought about what it would be like to be childless. If we are childless, we are going to retire really early, live in a fancy downtown condo with all glass furniture, travel often, and eat really finicky food - stuff kids hate, like blue cheese souffles. I am going to sleep lots and read lots and wear really, really nice clothing, and be a great aunt and have an awesome jewellery collection.

When I tell my DH this, he says: "That sounds great! Why would you want kids anyway? They're dirty and snotty and get pinworm." Which makes me laugh, but I also know, as cool as our life would be without kids and as much as we love each other, I'd rather hold our little baby than have $1,000,000 in diamonds and glass furniture. $10,000,000 even. Really depends on the person.

liljoy-2 · December 2016

I didn't start thinking of being childless because I just really started trying this year. I don't want to imagine myself in this situation

For one, I think my marriage would not last in this situation because I'd be devastated and my DH would want kids.

PoeMasque · December 2016

@MariaBend25 I understand how hard it is to accept that insurance pays nothing for this one thing that you want so badly, but I have to agree with @cakeforbreakfast that comparing it to gender reassignment in the way you did is not acceptable. It's like asking "why does insurance pay for burn victims to have skin grafts, but not IVF?" Gender reassignment isn't a cosmetic procedure. If you have no issues with that why bring it up?

funkykey · December 2016

Just to clarify, when I said:

Which makes me laugh, but I also know, as cool as our life would be without kids and as much as we love each other, I'd rather hold our little baby than have $1,000,000 in diamonds and glass furniture. $10,000,000 even. Really depends on the person.

I didn't mean it for anyone here, more to illustrate my DH. If he weren't married to me, there's no way he would deal with all the IF treatments. He'd be like: "But, sweetheart, babies are gross. A million dollars is a lot of money! Let's take the cash!" and I'd be like: "No, we will continue to toil in poverty. I don't like glass furniture anyway."

So I am definitely driving our IF bus. We've had some serious arguments, and sometimes I wonder how I manage to keep pushing so hard. It would be a lot easier if we were on the same page and shared the same medical beliefs. I like to remind myself that this is all my choice - what we do, what we don't do, how we decide to tackle this. It helps for me to see my own agency in this, it makes me feel less like a victim of fate.

So interesting to me this mini debate about gender reassignment surgery coverage! I obviously can't speak for @MariaBend25 - we have different beliefs about medical procedures - but when I've combed through insurance documents, I've had reactions like that, like: "I see, this coverage pays for this, and this, and this, and this, and not IVF! This is bullshit!"

For me, it's not about gender reassignment surgery at all, it's just how arbitrary all the judgements are. Like how some things are considered worth funding, and others aren't. How some procedures are more "necessary" than others.

I have so much compassion for people transitioning - there's so much discrimination and prejudice, and I think it's wonderful when they can have support for their surgeries and hormones. But I think infertility procedures should be supported too. It is frustrating to me that so many employers don't seem to think so.

And, @PoeMasque, even if gender reassignment were cosmetic (which I don't believe it is) I'm not sure where my lines are about cosmetic procedures. Years ago, I had a breast reduction surgery and that was covered, yet someone I knew who had - I'm not joking - a GIANT nose had to pay for her rhinoplasty out-of-pocket. Why was my surgery more acceptable than hers? (For real, this wasn't like a small bump on the bridge - we're talking a really big, uncomfortably big, nose.)

Those examples are the tip of the iceberg. I read one insurance document that provided coverage for rehab for substance abuse, like the extended-stay residential detox ones (so expensive!) but not fertility issues, which blew my mind. In our family, one older member has made some very poor lifestyle choices over the past 30 years. I understand that obesity is an illness, and that there are many causes - similar to addiction - and I have compassion, but it is hard for me to ignore that all of the complications for this person's type 2 diabetes and then their other medical needs are now covered, while our comparatively few infertility costs aren't. (I may be extra sensitive about this last one, because I am frustrated with this person. It is hard to watch someone you care about suffer, and yet seem so resigned, like: "well, this was inevitable". Makes me want to say: "No it wasn't"... But that won't solve anything.) I could list 100 more examples: why contraception but not IF? Why naturopaths but not IF?

It's not that I don't think rehab or gender reassignment surgery or other medical issues shouldn't be covered, I just don't see why all of these things are seen as being more "essential" or "worthy" than infertility treatments.

(God, I am always writing such novels! Gah - if you've made it this far, I am impressed. Thank you for reading.)

bobby2016 · December 2016

LOL @funkykey. Just wanted to say I made it through

Totally understand your explanation of that, I think the first time it came off a bit judgemental/unsympathetic. Which is why I think offence was taken, given the political nature of that specific example.

But right there with you on the arbitrary nature of insurance.

For us, IUIs are 100% covered for everything (monitoring, procedure, consults) - but then when you move to IVF it's suddenly no help at all. How does that logic work out?!

We have couples going through round after round of IUI, racking up huge bills, when one IVF round could likely be more effective and less costly.

PoeMasque · December 2016

@funkykey I can tell you that most of the examples you have given are the difference between preventing harm and causing harm. It all seems very arbitrary (and some of it is!), but things like a rhinoplasty for the sake of a smaller nose is exposing someone to harm, rather than preventing it. If she had a deviated septum or some other kind of nasal abnormality, it would be covered, but surgery can kill people. Every time you are put under via anesthesia you put your life at risk, so I can understand why insurance doesn't cover procedures that aren't necessary to prevent harm. Your breast reduction was to prevent degeneration of your back. that's why it was covered. There's science that proves breast reduction surgery prevents physical harm and will save the insurance company money in the long run.

I wish IVF was universally covered. Most insurance companies WILL cover IVF if one of the partners has had cancer, which is a step forward at least! I definitely think infertility causes psychological harm, but IVF success rates just aren't high enough to completely tip the scales at this point. I think if we saw rates in the 70-90% range we would see more insurance companies covering it and more medical professionals pressing for it to be covered.

This is why it's so important to fund basic science research. without it we will never have better, more successful IF treatments.

funkykey · December 2016

Yeah, I can see that for the cosmetic surgeries. But some of the other stuff, still kind of arbitrary. like rehab... the long term success rates of rehab can't be much higher than IVF. I mean, people relapse all the time. But I could be wrong- I live in a city with a lot of addicts and a homelessness problem- so my perception might be skewed.

I totally agree though that if there were more information about causes of infertility, and more effective treatments, that it might start to tip the scales in our favour... Really seems grossly unfair.

funkykey · December 2016

Update: my DH thinks its because rehab is prob less common than IF - just a math thing, not a compassion thing. Makes sense but alas!

PoeMasque · December 2016

Rehab is because 1. The medical community often creates addicts (why does anyone need Vicodin for a sprained ankle?!) and 2. You can DIE from both using and stopping many substances.....so again, the prevention of harm and causing harm are at play.

Sorry, I am an ER nurse and public health nurse and I would choose insurance covering rehab 100 times for the same person over it covering IVF for us once.

funkykey · December 2016

Ah, I see. I wasn't even thinking about rehab for pills, I was thinking about alcoholism - the kind that stops you from working, but before your body starts to shut down.

As an ER nurse, you probably see a lot more extreme addictions than most, and are likely more compassionate towards those in end-stage distress than many. From a public health perspective, I can see why those suffering from addictions would be a priority, because of their risk of death. But I really don't think that's how employers are viewing it.

I don't think it has anything to do with harm/risk, I think they don't do it because they don't have to - there's no pressure to. It costs too much, and if no one else is doing it, they can easily save cash. Even the like 3 employers who pay for rehab (but only 1-2 times, hardly 100), they probably did a calculation and figured out that only .09% had addictions that would require treatment, whereas 2.8% would need IVF - or something. I'm even cynical enough to believe that the 3 employers who do offer it either offer it because the boss's son had a drug problem or the legal department did an assessment and realized that if they didn't pay for Jimmy from Accounting's drinking problem, there would be a lawsuit that would cost x. After all, an employee wanting to have children is more valuable to the business than an employee suffering from addiction - the one wanting to start a family is more likely to work longer and reduce turnover costs.

Your framework, of preventing harm vs. causing harm, is from a perspective that seems sweet to me - compassion and help for all those already alive. And I hope all hospital and ER staff think that way - prioritizing the life-threatening over other ailments, trying to keep us all alive.

But I don't think that that perspective is universal - my employer cares less about whether or not I'm alive than whether or not I will add to their bottom line.

MariaBend25 · December 2016

@funkykey hahah yes exactly. But those words of a childless life definitely come from DH. I can see the positives but it is also hurtful to know something you really wish to have and hold and love just won't be there. I think what makes it difficult for DH is he thinks the doctors are after money so he doesn't take the bloodwork as truth, perhaps it is denial. But he keeps telling me no matter how long we WILL have kids. I know the longer the less likely. And even though I'm in my twenties every woman in my maternal family has had early onset menopause, like at 40.

MariaBend25 · December 2016

@PoeMasque ok I see your point. To me it is hormone therapy being covered or not covered by the military based on situation so more of an apples to apples comparison than skin graft to IVF. Hormone therapy could alleviate my PCOS symptoms like depression, acne, extremely painful cysts, not to mention fertility, but the military will only pay for hormone therapy for gender reassignment even though I, and others with PCOS, have a valid medical need for it. However I see how some can construe that as insensitive but I did not mean it that way.

PoeMasque · December 2016

@MariaBend25 im not sure what hormone therapy you are talking about in relation to PCOS. The evidence-based, first line approach is birth control pills, which you wouldn't do if you're TTC. If you are referring to using exogenous gonadotropins, the risk there is OHSS and since the data shows there are safer, more effective therapies for PCOS (like clomid and letrozole) it makes sense that they would be hesitant to cover it.

using an antiandrogen to combat the excess androgens produced in PCOS is maybe the hormone therapy you were referring to, but those meds are also contraindicated in pregnancy since they can inhibit development of male fetuses.

MariaBend25 · December 2016

@PoeMasque I also have other hormone related issues. Double the tolerance of testosterone, extremely high AMH, and estrogen issues. The doctor was starting to discuss options but wanted to do more tests. He was talking the Clomid route since that could maybe address the infertility issue as well but a previous women's health doctor suggested estrogen treatment because of my high testosterone plus she thought I was showing premenopausal symptoms. But new base, new doc, new tests. Nervous to go to the next appointment for more results.

funkykey · December 2016

I drafted a response to this a long time ago, but I wanted to give myself time to re-read and edit it before posting... These are my thoughts on insurance providing coverage for infertility:

My initial reaction was wrong - it's not arbitrary that things like rehab and gender reassignment surgery are covered and IVF isn't - it actually makes a lot of sense if we look at how the broader system is set up, as PoeMasque mentioned.

I should have said that I think the overall system, as it stands, is flawed for those experiencing infertility. As in - it's not arbitrary that x is covered and y is not, it's that we live in a society where your reproductive system is seen as the least important of your biological systems - and I disagree with that.

I keep thinking about IVF and treatment payments in a highly theoretical way, like about what it means to have an employer funded healthcare system, over a state-funded one. I'm cynical. I don't think the military funds gender reassignment surgery because they woke up one morning and thought: "We've made a terrible mistake! This is the right thing to do!" I think they were pressured to after a dark history of discrimination and a number of expensive lawsuits. I'm going to quote Frederick Douglass on this one: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will."

This is also why I make a lot of my own demands.

If you saw my DH and I on the street, you would be shocked that we had any health problems or conditions whatsoever - especially me. (Like, between DH and I, I look like the healthier one, yet I'm pretty sure I'm the one with the fertility issues...) We both make careful choices and pay our taxes. We are educated, we have stable incomes and a home in a nice neighbourhood - we're exactly the kind of people who "should" be parents. (This is not to say that I think we're more worthy of being parents than anyone else - I don't - but we're certainly not any "less" worthy, not by any superficial standards.)

Yet there is more support for pregnant teenagers than there is for us - there is more support for deadbeats having their 6th child than there is for us.

For DH & I, paying OOP for treatments is a possibility. We will be able to do it. It'll suck, it'll be tight, we will be stretched, but we will be able to do it. So I don't mean this for us specifically, I mean this conceptually, as a society: why does the system support someone else's having 6 children, that labour and delivery and then care for those children, but nothing for people like me? Just because their biology can and that mother may not believe in family planning? Whether or not that mother will be as good a mother as me, whether or not they are capable?

As a taxpayer, and as a worker, I think it's bullsh*t. As a taxpayer, and as a worker, I want resources to go to supporting law-abiding, responsible citizens.

The harm metric PoeMasque explained, as much as I want to believe it's the one employers use - like we'll fund things that will prevent harm, and risks of no rehab are worse than risks of no IVF (as per PoeMasque) - I don't believe it. I can think of too many examples where that is flatly not true. I had a friend who worked somewhere where her employer would pay for her breast enhancements! Employers want what employers want - it's not a state-funded system.

And, even if it were true - even if the harm metric were the one being used by employers/the state - I don't agree with it.

My employer funds travel accidents more than fertility issues. Say I'm driving a moped recklessly on a holiday in Italy, and I crash - I'd be totally covered, even if the accident is my fault. But no coverage for IF. I understand that in a situation like that, there is a risk of death or grave illness, but I think my IF is a more "worthy" cause than a moped accident I caused, heartless as that may be.

I mean, I'd love it if there were universal coverage for everything, and it rained lollipops and chocolates every day at 3pm too, but if we had to rank priorities of what is/isn't more important - I believe infertility treatments should be ranked above other issues that are currently covered.

I keep wondering, why is my condition less important? Because it's not life-threatening? Why do we devote more resources towards aiding life-threatening injuries sustained from reckless behaviour than we do towards helping responsible, infertile people? We should do the opposite.

I know people make mistakes, I know accidents happen, I want there to be safety nets for people. I know there is a lot of prejudice and discrimination and I've read about different compulsory sterilization programs, which are a shameful part of history. It just feels like infertile people are the only people who are forced to go it alone, and I think it's wrong.

(Anyway, there is my 2 cents - though I suppose at this length, it's more like a whole dollar...)

Want a personalized experience?

New to group!

Re: New to group!

Choose Another Board

Search Boards