I saw an interesting poll in the Parenting magazine at my appointment today.
It asked:

Should Women who already have kids be allowed to use fertility treatments to have MORE.

I personally feel that any parent capable and willing to care for a child should be allowed to do what it takes to have all the children they want. However there were people that gave comments such as "God is telling you that you have enough now" and "Leave it for the people who haven't been blessed with a child" (those aren't exact quotes, but basically what people were implying)

What do you guys think?

If you can afford it what does it matter?

I have 2 boys and am considering getting "help" once hubby gets home we have tried for a couple of years with no success

Is there some kind of a limit to how many fertility drugs are available? Like we can only mine so many fertility drugs out of that quarry before they are all gone? :lol If the demand for fertility drugs goes up, the drug companies will make more, so why can't anyone who wants them get them?

my SIL and BIL used them after already having kids, now they have quads

I think anybody should be able to have children. That's about as dumb as asking "Should people who already have kids be allowed to adopt?"

(You're not dumb, Dori, just the article. :P)

Now, on the other hand, if IVF supplies were running WAY low, and they didn't have enough for everyone who wanted and could afford a baby, the people who were unable to have their own children should be considered first, I think.

I don't see why it matters if they already have children or not. I think it should be equally offered to people who are wanting to have children. Whether they already have some, or not. It's up to the people involved to choose how large, or small they would like their family to be, and if one more child is what they want, I don't see what the big deal is.

I think anybody should be able to have children. That's about as dumb as asking "Should people who already have kids be allowed to adopt?"

(You're not dumb, Dori, just the article. :P)

Now, on the other hand, if IVF supplies were running WAY low, and they didn't have enough for everyone who wanted and could afford a baby, the people who were unable to have their own children should be considered first, I think.

haha.. I understand what you meant.. I DO want to clarify though that it wasn't an article... all nay and yay were readers of the magazine... just a poll the had.

And yeah... if there WERE a huge limit on supplies and everything, then surely those without kids should be considered first... but as wicked said... drug companies just make more if the need rises.

What's the point of taking fertility drugs if you can have kids?

What's the point of taking fertility drugs if you can have kids?

because secondary infertility does exist.

What's the point of taking fertility drugs if you can have kids?

No, it would be like.. those who already have kids either from drugs before... or they are having problems NOW when they weren't before... or they have step children/adopted children.

Not for those who can easily have kids but want to do all the fertility stuff anyway haha

What's the point of taking fertility drugs if you can have kids?

:suspect are you serious?

http://www.pregnancy-info.net/infertility_secondary_infertility.html

How insensitive can you be sometimes?

It's not my place to tell people they should or shouldn't have children. If they go through the effort of infertitly drugs, it takes alot to even get on them, they must really want another child.

:suspect are you serious?

http://www.pregnancy-info.net/infertility_secondary_infertility.html

How insensitive can you be sometimes?

It was an actual question thank you very much. Apparently you can be quite bitchy though.


Bryanna, if a person needed drugs before that makes sense. But if they didn't and they had a healthy child on their own before, when do you determine you're having problems? Do you take the amount of time it took to conceive the first one and double it? What if you got pregnant really quickly the first time? And what if you've had three kids without help? Do you average the amount of time it took?

I mean how do you go from being able to have a kid to not being able to have one? How do you prevent folks from saying I just don't want to wait? Like you said it's not for people that can easily have kids but REALLY want multiples or are just impatient.

If people WANT kids I see nothing wrong with them going about it any way they desire.

It's when people DON'T want kids and have them anyway that really get to me.

It was an actual question thank you very much. Apparently you can be quite bitchy though.


Bryanna, if a person needed drugs before that makes sense. But if they didn't and they had a healthy child on their own before, when do you determine you're having problems? Do you take the amount of time it took to conceive the first one and double it? What if you got pregnant really quickly the first time? And what if you've had three kids without help? Do you average the amount of time it took?

I mean how do you go from being able to have a kid to not being able to have one? How do you prevent folks from saying I just don't want to wait?

I personally don't know much about the process to get fertility drugs... but I DO know that you can't just go to the doctor and say 'oh gee, i'm not pregnant.. fix it NOW'
I know at the very least that there IS a determined time frame (I want to say one year but I'm probably wrong) for your trying to have children and it failing, and that the doctors help you in other ways FIRST (checking sperm, helping with diet... that kind of thing)

It was an actual question thank you very much. Apparently you can be quite bitchy though.


Bryanna, if a person needed drugs before that makes sense. But if they didn't and they had a healthy child on their own before, when do you determine you're having problems? Do you take the amount of time it took to conceive the first one and double it? What if you got pregnant really quickly the first time? And what if you've had three kids without help? Do you average the amount of time it took?

I mean how do you go from being able to have a kid to not being able to have one? How do you prevent folks from saying I just don't want to wait? Like you said it's not for people that can easily have kids but REALLY want multiples or are just impatient.

google "secondary infertility"

Me personally, I don't think I would have moved to the step of fertility drugs/treatments. I believed that it would happen if it was supposed to happen. I have no problem with women going that route - so don't take this that way.

I do believe that sometimes people jump to quickly to the fertility assistance too quickly instead of trying to let nature work the way nature is intended.

For example, my husband and I had been trying for over a year to get pregnant after my ectopic. I decided to lose some weight to benefit my health. I lost 30 lbs in the next 9 months and I truly believe that had a great impact on us getting pregnant when we did.

I personally don't know much about the process to get fertility drugs... but I DO know that you can't just go to the doctor and say 'oh gee, i'm not pregnant.. fix it NOW'
I know at the very least that there IS a determined time frame (I want to say one year but I'm probably wrong) for your trying to have children and it failing, and that the doctors help you in other ways FIRST (checking sperm, helping with diet... that kind of thing)

Guidelines are extremely important. :yes I dunno I guess I think about how there used to be some pretty distinct guidelines for anti-depressants and now there are doctors who don't make you get counseling first or anything and just write scripts like they're passing out candy. I as a consumer would be worried about that happening.

It was an actual question thank you very much. Apparently you can be quite bitchy though.


Bryanna, if a person needed drugs before that makes sense. But if they didn't and they had a healthy child on their own before, when do you determine you're having problems? Do you take the amount of time it took to conceive the first one and double it? What if you got pregnant really quickly the first time? And what if you've had three kids without help? Do you average the amount of time it took?

I mean how do you go from being able to have a kid to not being able to have one? How do you prevent folks from saying I just don't want to wait? Like you said it's not for people that can easily have kids but REALLY want multiples or are just impatient.

Generally if you have kids or not if you have been TTC for 12 months and over with zero success most OB/GYNS will start to look into WHY you are having a hard time.

There was a fairly young OB/GYN in the practice I went to for my female health back east that I would not see because when I was TTC Jacob we had a false positive. When I made an appointment to talk about my reproductive health she blew me off (I had three M/C then a healthy live birth along with having had a LEEP that left a lot of scar tissue (per my previous OB/GYN in Massachusetts) and a history of abnormal paps/dysplasia sp?) saying I had already had a healthy live birth so there was nothing to discuss. She was using very old fashioned medical opinions and frankly if you are not going to listen to me and discuss my health concerns with me then I don't want you as my DR. Another thing she did that upset me was to not let me come in for a blood test when I got my + w/ Jacob THEN I had to wait four weeks to be seen at all. Given my M/C history I was a mess.

Anyway the point is it is an old fashioned view that if you have had one or more live births that you are 100% fertile with no problems. Secondary infertility is common and DR's should not ignore it.

I think those that NEED fertility drugs should be able to get them, but then I also think IVF should be made more affordable and fertility treatmemt should be at least partially covered by all health insurances. If someone chooses to go for fertility treatments because they don't want to wait or want twins or because they want to choose the gender, I feel they should be treated AFTER those who need it, if the supplies/appointments are limited.

I don't think it's mine or the government's or the dr's or anyone else's place to say how many kids someone can have as long as those children can be properly cared for. Whether it's through natural means or through drugs, surgery, etc I don't think it really matters. We live in a free country where people should be allowed to use whatever means necessary to have whatever size family they would like to have.

I think those that NEED fertility drugs should be able to get them, but then I also think IVF should be made more affordable and fertility treatmemt should be at least partially covered by all health insurances. If someone chooses to go for fertility treatments because they don't want to wait or want twins or because they want to choose the gender, I feel they should be treated AFTER those who need it, if the supplies/appointments are limited.

That's kinda how I feel. I mean I get that if you've been trying for 1 year you can discuss options but what's to keep people from lying because of selfish reasons?

That's kinda how I feel. I mean I get that if you've been trying for 1 year you can discuss options but what's to keep people from lying because of selfish reasons?

but how is someone going to know if you are lying or not???

it's no one's business what I feel I need to do to get preg.

It should be offered to everyone.

but how is someone going to know if you are lying or not???

it's no one's business what I feel I need to do to get preg.

If the resources are limited though it IS someone's business.

It's not like there is a shortage on fertility meds so I don't understand the uproar. The TRUE uproar should be why Viagra is covered by insurance but IVF, many fertility drugs, and BC options are not covered by many insurance companies.

It's not like there is a shortage on fertility meds so I don't understand the uproar. The TRUE uproar should be why Viagra is covered by insurance but IVF, many fertility drugs, and BC options are not covered by many insurance companies.

I'm talking about clinic resources. Like doctors to patients ya know?

If the resources are limited though it IS someone's business.

There is not a shortage though. The only wait part is A. the money and B. wait time for DR because there are not fertility clinics on every corner BUT that can be said for ALL OB/GYN practices malpractice insurance has made a lot of DRS not provide OB care. SO that goes for regular pregnant peeps and peeps w/ fertility issues.

It's not like there is a shortage on fertility meds so I don't understand the uproar. The TRUE uproar should be why Viagra is covered by insurance but IVF, many fertility drugs, and BC options are not covered by many insurance companies.

I so agree with the last sentence

I'm talking about clinic resources. Like doctors to patients ya know?

There is a wait time for OB's regardless though because of malpractice insurance it is drumming OB's out of practice. Law suit happy society makes it hard to find good health care these days.

So with that should you have one child and then be pushed to the back of the line regardless of fertility because you have one and others don't? We don't live in China.

Interesting point Jennifer brought up. I totally disagree with fertility treatments to 'guarantee' gender, or other traits. I also don't think fertility treatments should be used to 'guarantee' multiple births (twins/triplets etc).
Fertility treatments should be used when there is a difficulty becoming pregnant. Period.

There is not a shortage though. The only wait part is A. the money and B. wait time for DR because there are not fertility clinics on every corner BUT that can be said for ALL OB/GYN practices malpractice insurance has made a lot of DRS not provide OB care. SO that goes for regular pregnant peeps and peeps w/ fertility issues.

I get that. I dunno, if I had legitimate trouble and someone was just impatient and they had a spot at a clinic that I could have, I'd be really upset. :shrug

I get that. I dunno, if I had legitimate trouble and someone was just impatient and they had a spot at a clinic that I could have, I'd be really upset. :shrug


I get your point on that.

I get that. I dunno, if I had legitimate trouble and someone was just impatient and they had a spot at a clinic that I could have, I'd be really upset. :shrug

Fertility clinics often have you come in by referral form your regular GYN DR. They are very expensive so the majority of people using them have already had testing by their regular GYN's. It's hard to fake fertility issues KWIM? Then on the flip side we live in a consumer based society if someone can afford to pay out of pocket why should they have to wait?

Interesting point Jennifer brought up. I totally disagree with fertility treatments to 'guarantee' gender, or other traits. I also don't think fertility treatments should be used to 'guarantee' multiple births (twins/triplets etc).
Fertility treatments should be used when there is a difficulty becoming pregnant. Period.
That's what I feel. Especially if someone having difficulty and has to wait because you want a boy.

Fertility clinics often have you come in by referral form your regular GYN DR. They are very expensive so the majority of people using them have already had testing by their regular GYN's. It's hard to fake fertility issues KWIM? Then on the flip side we live in a consumer based society if someone can afford to pay out of pocket why should they have to wait?
Maybe because I can pay too and I have a legitimate need for the fertility services?

And the fact that we live in a consumer based society is exactly my point. When do we reach a point where people stop being tested and people just start paying because they don't want to wait?

I think that "God's Will" can be twisted to fit the situation.

If you can't have any more kids.... maybe it's "God's will" for you to stop.

If you CAN have more kids because of fertility treatments, maybe it's "God's will" for you to have more kids since the technology is available.

Who knows. :dunno

I think that "God's Will" can be twisted to fit the situation.

If you can't have any more kids.... maybe it's "God's will" for you to stop.

If you CAN have more kids because of fertility treatments, maybe it's "God's will" for you to have more kids since the technology is available.

Who knows. :dunno

Interesting point - There is a difference God's Will and creating designer babies - I know that's a little off topic, but at what point does science and technology go too far?

That's what I feel. Especially if someone having difficulty and has to wait because you want a boy.


Maybe because I can pay too and I have a legitimate need for the fertility services?

And the fact that we live in a consumer based society is exactly my point. When do we reach a point where people stop being tested and people just start paying because they don't want to wait?

So you (general) are special and should get priority when we are paying for the same services? And who is going to decide who is just impatient (lying) and who has been trying for awhile?

We have no choice but to do IVF. But because I already have kids, you (general) should get to be seen before me?

So you (general) are special and should get priority when we are paying for the same services? And who is going to decide who is just impatient (lying) and who has been trying for awhile?

We have no choice but to do IVF. But because I already have kids, you (general) should get to be seen before me?

No that's not what I'm saying. MY point is that everyone should have to try. You've already been told and it's been established that you need IVF.

And it's been stated we're a consumer based society. What is to stop people that are just impatient from taking spots in clinics that people like yourself NEED?

I guess to have a definitive answer:

People with children already should be given the second look over to make sure they are indeed dealing with secondary infertility and it's not just a matter of impatience or wanting designer babies.

The point is it IS consumer based whom ever can pay and calls the DR first gets seen first.

The point is it IS consumer based whom ever can pay and calls the DR first gets seen first.

plus who is going to decide who is lying? it takes doing all the tests to find out what is going on anyways.

I say if you can afford it, go ahead.

I'm sure there are shady reproductive endocrinologists out there, but the one I saw required blood tests and charting from me and my OB/GYN before they would even see me. So, while I'm sure there are people out there that try to get around the testing etc., most RE offices work through referrals. If my problem hadn't been diagnosed before I had my first son, and we had trouble keeping a pregnancy with my second, I would have gone through all the same procedures, and just because I have kids, I don't think my needs should be overlooked.

The point is it IS consumer based whom ever can pay and calls the DR first gets seen first.

Medicine should NOT be consumer based.

It was an actual question thank you very much. Apparently you can be quite bitchy though.


Bryanna, if a person needed drugs before that makes sense. But if they didn't and they had a healthy child on their own before, when do you determine you're having problems? Do you take the amount of time it took to conceive the first one and double it? What if you got pregnant really quickly the first time? And what if you've had three kids without help? Do you average the amount of time it took?

I mean how do you go from being able to have a kid to not being able to have one? How do you prevent folks from saying I just don't want to wait? Like you said it's not for people that can easily have kids but REALLY want multiples or are just impatient.

I have a friend who has been trying to conceive #2 for 4 years. Is that long enough? That is ACTIVELY trying, with an RE's help.

I chose "Other." I'm not set in my ways yet and haven't read a lot of info... but the more I ponder infertility treatments... the more I think yes, it should be available to everyone, but out of pocket. I'm starting to think that it shouldn't be covered by insurance (and I know it frequently isn't).

In pondering the intention behind healthcare, it is quite simply to keep people healthy. There is nothing "unhealthy" about you if you can't conceive. There is no long term damage done by it. You can live a perfectly healthy life without giving birth. I have no problem with people making use of infertility treatments, I just don't think that they should be seen as a fundamental right granted to you by health insurance.

So, available to all - sure... but out of pocket.

Medicine should NOT be consumer based.

I am for a nation health plan like Canada so I agree. However it is not like that NOW so I was giving my points based on how it is right now.

I think anyone who can afford it and wants to have more kids should have access to anything neccesary to help them achieve that.

Oh, boy. I think I may respond to this and then get out. This is a very touchy subject for me.

My best friend is dealing with infertility. Her and her hubby already have 1 child. They have been trying since 2002 to have another baby and no matter what they try they can't seem to get pg. They have been to fertility specialists and nobody can figure out why she isn't getting pg. She has been on Clomid for awhile now and still nothing. She is getting closer to 40 and is now thinking that she doesn't want to carry a baby at this age and have the baby and her son be so far apart in age. So she is now leaning towards adopting.

So yes. If someone already has a child or more and they want more, is able to care for that child, then why not? It actually breaks my heart that she can't seem to get pg again cause this woman is an amazing mother. I couldn't imagine someone telling her she can't have fertility treatment cause she already has a child.

Personally..I wouldn't do it. I would rather adopt or foster. If I had a my children and then found out I couldn't have anymore due to infertility, I would rather go another way. There are enough children out there that don't have parents that need GOOD ones. I couldn't be that...insensitive towards childless ones.

I guess, if you have the money and want to do it...go for it. I do think that people that don't have children, should get first priority if there was a shortage.

I am for a nation health plan like Canada so I agree. However it is not like that NOW so I was giving my points based on how it is right now.
Oh, I agree with you completely. It's sad that medicine has become consumer based.

If you need it you should get it period.

I chose "Other." I'm not set in my ways yet and haven't read a lot of info... but the more I ponder infertility treatments... the more I think yes, it should be available to everyone, but out of pocket. I'm starting to think that it shouldn't be covered by insurance (and I know it frequently isn't).

In pondering the intention behind healthcare, it is quite simply to keep people healthy. There is nothing "unhealthy" about you if you can't conceive. There is no long term damage done by it. You can live a perfectly healthy life without giving birth. I have no problem with people making use of infertility treatments, I just don't think that they should be seen as a fundamental right granted to you by health insurance.

So, available to all - sure... but out of pocket.

But Viagra isn't out of pocket.

As long as someone can provide for the children, why does it matter if they have others? I am all for ANYONE who needs fertility meds to have them

But Viagra isn't out of pocket.

I know... to me they are two different things though. I think they should be evaluated individually. I'm just discussing infertility treatments here. :) I don't see Viagra and BC or infertility drugs as the male/female counterparts of each other.

I'm torn on the Viagra issue... on its own merit, I think it is treating a condition that does lower the quality of life.

Birth control... while I think it is fabulous to have it be covered, I can see the argument against it. It is not correcting a health issue (unless you are taking it for purposes, like... oh shoot, forgot the term. You know what I mean though, there are medical reasons for taking it). Being used just as a contraceptive - that is opting for medication that stops the body from doing what it is naturally supposed to do. That's not a health issue, so much as a choice... much like infertility treatments, actually.

Hmm. Interesting. Maybe instead of equating BC and Viagra as so many do, BC and infertility meds/procedures are the real counterparts. Ponderous. (I'm just sort of thinking as I type here... :thinking)

Personally..I wouldn't do it. I would rather adopt or foster. If I had a my children and then found out I couldn't have anymore due to infertility, I would rather go another way. There are enough children out there that don't have parents that need GOOD ones. I couldn't be that...insensitive towards childless ones.


:woot

Yay! I'm all for the adoption/foster systems being taken more into account. I wish there were more people in the world willing to provide a home for children who need it. I know that if I deal with infertility some day and really wanted a child, we'd be heading to the adoption agencies. Just my take on it.

i said other. i don't know.

I know... to me they are two different things though. I think they should be evaluated individually. I'm just discussing infertility treatments here. :) I don't see Viagra and BC or infertility drugs as the male/female counterparts of each other.

I'm torn on the Viagra issue... on its own merit, I think it is treating a condition that does lower the quality of life.

Birth control... while I think it is fabulous to have it be covered, I can see the argument against it. It is not correcting a health issue (unless you are taking it for purposes, like... oh shoot, forgot the term. You know what I mean though, there are medical reasons for taking it). Being used just as a contraceptive - that is opting for medication that stops the body from doing what it is naturally supposed to do. That's not a health issue, so much as a choice... much like infertility treatments, actually.

Hmm. Interesting. Maybe instead of equating BC and Viagra as so many do, BC and infertility meds/procedures are the real counterparts. Ponderous. (I'm just sort of thinking as I type here... :thinking)

Infertility treatments IS treating something that the body SHOULD be able to do on it's own, but for some reason is not. Yes, not being able to conceive naturally may not cause physical harm, but not being able to get it up wont either (viagra). How is it different? But both CAN and DO cause mental harm.

my SIL and BIL used them after already having kids, now they have quads

isnt that the show on TLC Jon & Kate plus 8, lol..

But if they can afford it, i dont see a problem.

Infertility treatments IS treating something that the body SHOULD be able to do on it's own, but for some reason is not. Yes, not being able to conceive naturally may not cause physical harm, but not being able to get it up wont either (viagra). How is it different? But both CAN and DO cause mental harm.

I personally just see not being able to conceive and not being able to have sex as quite different things.

I personally just see not being able to conceive and not being able to have sex as quite different things.

both come down to a basic human need... to reproduce. Having sex, even when preventing children, is still from the carnal need to pass on your seed, to keep the species going. Having children is exactly that... the need to pass on your seed and keep the species going.

Yeah, humans are meant to have sex... we are meant to have children too. It all comes down to a basic need.