This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/20/extending-ivf-older-women-problem

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Extending IVF for older women obscures a deeper problem for society Extending IVF for older women obscures a deeper problem for society
(7 months later)
It sounds like good news, doesn't it? Easier access to IVF on the NHS: available after two years instead of the three years of ovulation kit-style compulsory sex. The new Nice guidelines also recommend extending the age limit for IVF from 39 to 42. I am all for choice. If feminism means anything to me, it means extending women's choices, but as many healthcare trusts wont pay for this, what is being offered here?It sounds like good news, doesn't it? Easier access to IVF on the NHS: available after two years instead of the three years of ovulation kit-style compulsory sex. The new Nice guidelines also recommend extending the age limit for IVF from 39 to 42. I am all for choice. If feminism means anything to me, it means extending women's choices, but as many healthcare trusts wont pay for this, what is being offered here?
Infertility as a "disease", the NHS accepting everyone's "right" to reproduce – these are big issues that I, as a mother (or a "grow bag", as one of my friends lovingly called me), have no right to discuss. Still, are my taxes to fund the plight of the childless? Actually, in the same way they must fund the obese, the smokers, the drinkers – yes, they should. Better than funding missiles, not that we are given the choice.Infertility as a "disease", the NHS accepting everyone's "right" to reproduce – these are big issues that I, as a mother (or a "grow bag", as one of my friends lovingly called me), have no right to discuss. Still, are my taxes to fund the plight of the childless? Actually, in the same way they must fund the obese, the smokers, the drinkers – yes, they should. Better than funding missiles, not that we are given the choice.
Still, I have reservations. In my own circle I have seen the toll IVF takes. When it works, it is worth all the money, the increased cancer risk and the torment of sending a woman's body into menopause and whooshing up again to maximum fertility. For there is the cherished miracle child.Still, I have reservations. In my own circle I have seen the toll IVF takes. When it works, it is worth all the money, the increased cancer risk and the torment of sending a woman's body into menopause and whooshing up again to maximum fertility. For there is the cherished miracle child.
When it doesn't – the cycles of hope and despair, the news that the embryos are not quite up to scratch, the dawning realisation that there will be no baby even though you have spent your life savings – it is unbearable. So, before the NHS offers three cycles of IVF, let's be clear on the success rates. On the whole, only one in four NHS trusts offer it and each cycle costs £3,000. One in seven couples are now said to have fertility problems. Men's fertility issues often remain unexplained. It is the women who go through the process, after all. The success rates for IVF for women age 38-39 is 19.3%. For women from 40 to 42 it is 12.5 %. For those aged 43-44 it is 4.9%. In other words, IVF is not a hugely successful treatment and the cost, both financial and emotional, is huge.When it doesn't – the cycles of hope and despair, the news that the embryos are not quite up to scratch, the dawning realisation that there will be no baby even though you have spent your life savings – it is unbearable. So, before the NHS offers three cycles of IVF, let's be clear on the success rates. On the whole, only one in four NHS trusts offer it and each cycle costs £3,000. One in seven couples are now said to have fertility problems. Men's fertility issues often remain unexplained. It is the women who go through the process, after all. The success rates for IVF for women age 38-39 is 19.3%. For women from 40 to 42 it is 12.5 %. For those aged 43-44 it is 4.9%. In other words, IVF is not a hugely successful treatment and the cost, both financial and emotional, is huge.
But surely there are some bigger questions to be asked here, and they are not about science but society. Why are women having babies later? Is this an actual choice? Or an economic necessity? Does having your first child at 40 change how you parent? Why do we live in such a way that those without kids do not encounter small children? Even writing that sounds paedophilic; I simply mean it is possible to extend out from the nuclear family, for adults and children to interact beyond a parental relationship.But surely there are some bigger questions to be asked here, and they are not about science but society. Why are women having babies later? Is this an actual choice? Or an economic necessity? Does having your first child at 40 change how you parent? Why do we live in such a way that those without kids do not encounter small children? Even writing that sounds paedophilic; I simply mean it is possible to extend out from the nuclear family, for adults and children to interact beyond a parental relationship.
I am not at all surprised, though, that more women are choosing to remain child-free as it is obvious there is less and less support. As childcare costs soar and two wages are needed to support a family, some kind of reproductive strike happens. Look at the plummeting birth rate in Italy, for instance. I was indeed lucky to have my last child at 42 as I had lost a fallopian tube during an ectopic pregnancy. The surgeon who saved my life – I had already fallen in love with him as a result – told me he could help me out if I had difficulty conceiving. He often helped, he explained, his female colleagues when they had difficulties getting pregnant. They didn't want that until they were consultants, which was when they were about 38. I stopped myself screaming "Impregnate me now" and managed to get pregnant the "normal" way. But then I had had my first child relatively young and I see now that my daughter's generation are holding back, waiting for some secure employment before they can even think about it.I am not at all surprised, though, that more women are choosing to remain child-free as it is obvious there is less and less support. As childcare costs soar and two wages are needed to support a family, some kind of reproductive strike happens. Look at the plummeting birth rate in Italy, for instance. I was indeed lucky to have my last child at 42 as I had lost a fallopian tube during an ectopic pregnancy. The surgeon who saved my life – I had already fallen in love with him as a result – told me he could help me out if I had difficulty conceiving. He often helped, he explained, his female colleagues when they had difficulties getting pregnant. They didn't want that until they were consultants, which was when they were about 38. I stopped myself screaming "Impregnate me now" and managed to get pregnant the "normal" way. But then I had had my first child relatively young and I see now that my daughter's generation are holding back, waiting for some secure employment before they can even think about it.
So we are completely split on the subject of the "right" time to have a baby. There isn't one. Teen pregnancies are bad. Older women having babies is a bit yucky. But women in their mid-30s are just hitting their stride professionally and don't want to stop. Kate Middleton is the perfect age, but she doesn't have a job. The only people who appear to have babies when they want to are the very rich and very poor. For everyone else it's a struggle.So we are completely split on the subject of the "right" time to have a baby. There isn't one. Teen pregnancies are bad. Older women having babies is a bit yucky. But women in their mid-30s are just hitting their stride professionally and don't want to stop. Kate Middleton is the perfect age, but she doesn't have a job. The only people who appear to have babies when they want to are the very rich and very poor. For everyone else it's a struggle.
The idea that offering IVF gets round these fundamental societal shifts is bogus. It is simply part of the privatisation of areas of our "family" life. Of course, women who do not have children have fulfilling and wonderful lives. It has always been so. The notion of the pitiful childless woman is indeed strange when we are continually fed stories of fecund underclass females who breed willy-nilly to get council-built castles.The idea that offering IVF gets round these fundamental societal shifts is bogus. It is simply part of the privatisation of areas of our "family" life. Of course, women who do not have children have fulfilling and wonderful lives. It has always been so. The notion of the pitiful childless woman is indeed strange when we are continually fed stories of fecund underclass females who breed willy-nilly to get council-built castles.
The divide between parents and non–parents is supposedly a stumbling block for any kind of sisterhood, but I have found it to also be a myth largely propagated by the right, who replace the notion of equality with the nastiness of envy. The discussion about at what age IVF becomes pointless is one for the doctors. For me, the much more important one is why do we produce a society that makes it so difficult for women to provide for children when they are most biologically able to have them?The divide between parents and non–parents is supposedly a stumbling block for any kind of sisterhood, but I have found it to also be a myth largely propagated by the right, who replace the notion of equality with the nastiness of envy. The discussion about at what age IVF becomes pointless is one for the doctors. For me, the much more important one is why do we produce a society that makes it so difficult for women to provide for children when they are most biologically able to have them?
Something has gone very wrong here and it is not to do with the quantity of women's eggs. This is about the quality of women's lives.Something has gone very wrong here and it is not to do with the quantity of women's eggs. This is about the quality of women's lives.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.