What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
141 Comments
- morpheus69, on 08/28/2008, -22/+75It's disgusting how many selfish couples spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on these very experimental, low probability treatments just so they can have their "own child" when there are so many children who need loving parents. I know adoption is not a simple process, but it's preferable to giving all your money to these fertility clinics.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -14/+51What happened to freedom of choice for EVERYONE?
Is the doctor now a slave to YOUR desires? Has the medical field become YOUR servants to do whatever you want, how you want it, and when you say?
If someone doesn't want to mow your lawn because of your religious beliefs or his, if someone doesn't want to provide services to you because of politics, even if someone doesn't want to treat you for a NON-LIFE-THREATENING issue because you look funny...then that is his/her choice. Period.
Stop demanding that everyone acquiesce to YOUR desires and lifestyle.
This whole freedom of choice thing goes both ways, so to speak. Or is "my body, my choice" only about YOU?!?
It's one thing to demand tolerance for one's lifestyle. It's entirely another thing to demand acceptance. - unlimiteditions, on 08/28/2008, -7/+30I personally feel that if a doctor has a moral issue with this particular subject, they should be able to refuse service. I personally believe that anyone suitable to be a parent (be they gay, straight, whatever) should be allowed even if IVF is the way it has to be done. But because a patients' life is not in danger (by not becoming pregnant), there is no obligation on the part of the doctor to treat said patient. Although, under these circumstances, they should not have lied to the patient. Finally, I understand peoples' desire to have children that are of their own flesh and blood, but there are thousands of orphaned or abandoned children who need responsible adults to adopt them. The foster system is so messed up in our country, the more kids we can get out of it and into a stable home, the better.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -6/+22I modded you up not only because you are right on a humanistic level, but also because not all of these people are genetic superstars either. If you are unhealthy, not too bright, and uncreative (not that I'm saying all of these people are, but "if") oh, and coupled with the selfishness of not adopting, why would you be psyched to pass on your genes anyway? There might be a reason why on the tree of life, the branch you are progressing along is getting pruned. If you have a nurture quality that you can pass on, like being kind and loving, provide that to an adopted child... nature already decided your nature qualities aren't worth it.
I sound mean I guess, but this is an argument against selfish behaviour. - MariettaMama, on 08/27/2008, -22/+38I'm not a raging feminist, but this article was written with an obvious slant. Happy loving couple has problems with a baby so when she asks for help from her christian boss, the boss objects and she tells Mother Jones Magazine to overgeneralize on how all lesbians and folks have a hard time at infertility like the rest of the world. I feel bad for the mom but blaming and industry for her personal hardships isnt really the answer in my opinion. Going for a 2nd and 3rd and 4th and 5th opinion is.
- Barackalypse, on 08/28/2008, -5/+19I was just saying to myself, you know, there just aren't enough people in the world, we should really be concerned about access to fertility treatments for marginalized populations. On the scale of problems that need addressing, I'm not sure this even rates, given the collapsing financial system, and loss of more fundamental civil liberties at the hands of an ever growing government. Also, I fear if the government gets involved you open yourself up to fundamentalists issuing executive orders or voting to flat out deny these services entirely.
- violentvinyl, on 08/28/2008, -5/+16This is not a cut and dry case of discrimination. Like it or not, the fertility clinics are businesses, and their only obligation is their own bottom line. It's not right, but the problem is the way this country does business, not the businesses themselves. There are way too many parallels between this story and the problems and complaints that arose with the lending crisis in the US. We want to blame the businesses, but they're just doing what's right for them, and if the government were to bail them out, or enforce standards on them, we'd all just as quickly cry foul play. Unfortunately, good business does not equate to noble and fair treatment of customers.
This is one of those dynamics that there will probably NEVER be a clear cut solution to. Do lesbians deserve to be treated equally? OF COURSE THEY DO! Will they get it? Probably not. The question is, how much is the majority willing to sacrifice for the minority. The answer: not much.
FURTHERMORE, as technology advances more and more, you're going to come across the same issue in other medical fields. The article touches on this too. What we essentially have is that doctors are now playing god (or Shiva, or the FSM, or whoever). They're taking something decidedly unnatural and previously IMPOSSIBLE (lesbians having children) and making it possible. With power like that comes the necessity to use it responsibly. If they start to use this power INDISCRIMINATELY (yes, meaning that they DON'T discriminate), then what are we left with? Doctors playing god with no system of check and balances?
So maybe it's OK that the lesbians have another child (and I agree that from what we were told in the article, they were unfairly denied), but what about the blind woman with dirty underwear? Can you be so sure about that one? What about a raging alcoholic on welfare? Are they entitled to fertilization treatments as well?
I say until there's a mandate from the masses it IS up to the doctor to decide. We're approaching an age where a doctors personal politics will come HEAVILY into play. As much as we don't like it, we MAY have to deal with the fact that the doctors bottom line is his/her checkbook or choice of religion. Who are you to require that doctors MUST go against their personal beliefs anyway? - inactive, on 08/28/2008, -1/+11I'll do you one better, living in a very crowded city:
None of them should be approved. There are already too many goddamn kids in the world. If you want one that badly, freakin adopt one. There are WAY more than enough to go around. - bratterscain, on 08/28/2008, -6/+16Perhaps they feel worthy of procreating and after saving enough money and having a decent job, they may feel ready and able. Humans are inclined to love their own more than someone elses. And if they feel they couldn't treat another's kid like their own and still want to procreate, what's it to you?
Though to side with you, what's the purpose of procreating? To carry on what you have? Well, adopting can be satisfying too because you can raise them and hand them down the same ideas, customs, stories, and so on that you have. Well, you say but genes carry on throughout humanity. The same can be said for information. Genes are information. They're handed down and diluted through the centuries just as information is. They tell a human how to form, information carried down through language and such tell humans what to do also or what has been, and such.
Either way, not sure I care. Live and let live. - freediverx, on 08/28/2008, -0/+9That's fine, but then any doctor that chooses to deny service to a patient based on his morals/beliefs/superstitions/prejudices should in turn be denied participation in any publicly funded programs.
- culbeda, on 08/28/2008, -1/+10My wife and I started the process, but we came to the conclusion when it was clear that we weren't going to be able to "have our own" without going to pretty drastic measures, that it would be better to adopt. So that's what we did. And let me tell you, we could not possibly be happier. We now have an adorable, intelligent and loving child that has bettered our lives beyond our hopes. So while I understand the desire to give live birth to your own biological child, I'm here to tell you that you won't regret adopting.
And as for the primary thrust of the article... I can confirm this. In "shopping" for a fertility clinic, they tout their success rate and they pick candidates with a high probability of success. And when you don't succeed using conventional methods, they try to shove the donor egg (or other) option down your throat so that they can keep their percentage high. Our doctor was very skilled but left us with the impression that he was a self-absorbed ass who was more concerned about his practice's success rate than your happiness. I fear that this is probably the case for many.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -8/+16Oh, and Mother Jones magazine is hardly one to demand tolerance and acceptance for other peoples' beliefs...especially when they don't accept, much less tolerate, anyone else's opinions. They should remove the plank in their own eye before whining about the speck in everyone else's.
- rabidg00se, on 08/28/2008, -2/+10I mean, of course they do. You don't treat patients that are unlikely to benefit from the treatment. This has nothing to do with lesbians, of course, as I'm sure they're just as likely as straight women to benefit from in utero. When it comes to the older and otherwise "fertility compromised" women, though, common sense says they shouldn't waste their facilities. I doubt it has all THAT much to do with wanting higher live birth ratios, as opposed to not performing unnecessary medical procedures on people that won't be likely to see any benefit.
- arcangelgabriel, on 08/28/2008, -2/+10Why not adopt a baby already born? It's not like there's not a ***** LOAD of us already...
- gordonj, on 08/28/2008, -4/+11So it would be fine for these doctors to deny treatment based on something like prejudice against certain religious affiliation then? Or how about skin colour?
- MarkBroadhurst, on 08/28/2008, -1/+8I agree with you partially, I agree that if the doctor has a moral issue with the subject then they should be able to refuse service but must refer them to a doctor who will.
I'd be concerned for the child they want to raise since they both seem to have a serious weight problem, I'd be very very much for rejecting them on the grounds of poor health or competence (I realise they could be great parents but it should be taken in to consideration) - inactive, on 08/28/2008, -0/+6The invasion of France? The attempted invasion of Britain?
- bigcynic, on 08/28/2008, -1/+7I'm an atheist fertility doctor, and treating religious fanatics goes against my beliefs.
- jason210, on 08/28/2008, -2/+8Fertility treatment is not a medical necessity. Its like a boob job. And yeah if you own a restaurant you can turn someone away because you don't like their morals. Its private property. Jesus you are like the woman who called 911 to enforce her hamburger. You don't have a right to any service.
- Blasphemous88, on 08/28/2008, -0/+6There are certain people that shouldn't breed. Not because they are lesbian or gay or anything. just because certain people are scum regardless of their orientation and the truth is, their children have like 2% of a chance of growing up as decent human beings. Lets save the planet from such repetitions of failure.
- stealthc, on 08/28/2008, -9/+14You're right. Doctors should be forced at gunpoint to give elective procedures to everyone who asks.
- StarofTroy, on 08/28/2008, -3/+8How about a don't ask don't tell policy here. I wasn't aware that child birth was an unalienable "right."
People shouldn't be forced to compromise their own morals for the wants of others. Was this life threatening? Forcing your life choices on someone is just as disgusting as forcing your religion on somebody.
I don't believe we need any more children either. Aren't we up to 7 billion people already? Before the Agricultural Revolution Earths carrying capacity was 100 million. - inactive, on 08/28/2008, -2/+7As someone who potentially may undergo fertility treatment at some point, I'd like to point out to everyone that while adoption is a beautiful thing, it is not nearly as practical or desireable as having your own child. For the record, before I get dugg down, I'm not fat, ugly, stupid or gay, I've just had issues over the years medically and it's yet to be determined if I can have them naturally at some point.
I'm 32 years old, so the window of opportunity is closing for me. Adoption of a child of the same race as you can take many years. True, it's easier to get a Guatamalen baby on the black market, but I'm talking about following American laws and adopting a child of my own race. I'm not racist, but I'd like the child to look like his/her new family so that the adoption is less obvious and so the child feels like they fit in.
Whatever my reasons, I've heard that the adoption process can take many many years. That could potentially make me 40 by the time it actually goes through. Fertility treatments could result in a child in just a year or two. I'd much rather be a younger mother than an older one. By the time the kids would be old enough to do anything outside beyond playing tag, I'd be 50 and I'd be 60 by the time the kid is in college.
The point being, adoption can be great if you have no other alternatives, but in no way is it any woman's first choice. At least none that I've talked to. Adoption fills the need to nurture a child, but it does not fill the need to leave a genetic legacy by procreation. - sfhock, on 08/28/2008, -3/+8Closed Minded ***** shouldn't be allowed to adopt.
They shouldn't be allowed custody of any children. They are
unfit for parenting. - raybury, on 08/28/2008, -1/+6The human desire to reproduce with one's own genes is strong. I could have written your post a little more than two years ago, but when I got my testicular cancer diagnosis, with the very small possibility that I would be infertile, BANG. Mind: changed. I found the thousand bucks to store some low-octane backup supply pre-surgery, and even now that I know I'm capable of producing viable sperm -- albeit solely for conservative babies -- I still pay for the bank to keep my deposits.
My public policy prescription would be to use the bully pulpit to encourage those who use fertility treatments to make their next addition by adoption.
This country would be just fine with half the fertility clinics we have now, and as in most industry declines the best would be most likely to survive. - LocalDocal, on 08/28/2008, -2/+7That's rather self-righteous of you, Morpheus.
To start, who are you to call people selfish for desiring to have their own children using the money they earned? A couple who chooses to adopt a child over spending money at fertility may be called 'noble' (if you so want to call them that), but remember that it's their choice and not an obligation on their part. You may think it's 'selfish' for them to not adopt, but frankly, I don't think your opinions should affect the choices people get to make concerning how they want to achieve their family. - Barackalypse, on 08/28/2008, -2/+7So you' support incest then, since preventing close relatives from engaging in sexual relations is really a form of eugenics. Also, why, when nature does it, do you call it evolution and defend it all throughout the public school systems, but when we try to do it ourselves to reduce incidence of birth defects and minimize human suffering, its despicable?
- BSDaemon, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5Well said.
- TexTurboesq, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5Godwin's Law in action.
- aladrin, on 08/28/2008, -2/+6That only applies if it is a non-health related issue. A doctor should not be able to refuse medical care to anyone if it impacts their health, as per the oath they swore.
This obviously doesn't impact their health at all, and should be something the doctor can choose.
I do draw the line at racial discrimination, though. I'm not a minority, but I see no reason people should be able to base their decisions on that factor. - PopcornDave, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4Haven't you had 9th grade history yet?
- mcquitty, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4I know my case is different (as they are lesbians).. But, the easiest way to get pregnant is to adopt.
Since adopting our oldest, we have had two children. - FiP0, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4That's your point ? People who are not "hot" are the scum of society ?
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -6/+10Sorry, gotta agree - fat, ugly, & stupid shouldn't breed, much less get assistance to do so.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5God bless you.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -3/+7You are free to practice medicine only for those that follow your faith (or morals).
- PicklesNCheese, on 08/28/2008, -0/+41) This isn't an insignificant issue for someone who is infertile. Many people cite having children as the happiest moment and most meaningful accomplishment of their entire lives. This isn't some petty whim for them. It's EVERYTHING to these couples. 2) Yes, we should be concerned about loss of civil liberties...like discrimination. This is clear cut discrimination in my book. And "marginalized populations" need the most protection of all.
- mcquitty, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3How is it any different than a restaurant that has a sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?
People can refuse service for anyone. For example, you might be a very liberal, Bush hating person. You run a business producing bumper stickers. A customer comes in asking for Bush '08 stickers, saying "4 more years!".
Do you have to give them bumper stickers? - Gonthim, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3Agreed. If someone wants to discriminate they can go right ahead, but the government can't discriminate and therefore cannot support someone who does. That would be fine.
- triumph6, on 08/29/2008, -0/+3@Betterth If you were directing your comment to me, I do not see how your statement is different from mine, other than semantically.
And, if you are saying that hospitals that are not state funded, do not ship out clinically stable patients that do not have insurance to hospitals that are state funded, then there may be an issue with regards to us living in different states. Because where I live this type of thing happens regularly. - nullcodes, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4Yes, umm but doesn't your argument apply to fertile couples as well?
Regardless of a couple's fertility status .. why have kids of their own if there are kids out there waiting to be adopted?
It's easy for fertile couples to knock people for not adopting, but I tell you that couples NOT going through fertility treatment are equally guilty of not wanting to adopt as those who are. - laughandsing, on 08/28/2008, -4/+7Gordonj-- Doctors need some type of morality code to go by. Why should it be ok to be forced to do something that you think is unethical. Prejudice is wrong, I agree...but I do not want to live in a country where doctors are forced to do procedures that they think are wrong. The good thing about living in a capitalist country is that there are options. These women may have been denied treatment at one facility, but there is a company somewhere that will perform the procedure on them. Everything comes down to money. If there's a will, there's a way.
- binaryloop, on 08/28/2008, -4/+7thank god for common sense. "won't someone please think about the children?!?!"
- PopcornDave, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3I would think that older women would be more often turned away just because of the failure rate of the procedure. It's a very emotional procedure that women go through when they're doing this because it's usually a last resort, and after a woman hits 40 if I recall correctly, her eggs are not as feasible for generating a pregnancy as they are prior to that. Couple that with the fact that women having children in later years are more subject to having birth defects, and you can see why clinics might be less inclined to try this with older women.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -2/+5Hey a Doc has the right to chose.....or is that wrong...LOL
- thecoolestguy, on 08/28/2008, -5/+8-----Lesbians, the disabled, and older women are often refused.-----
owned! - mcquitty, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3I adopted my son internationally. He was from the Marshall Islands.
Ours was an exceptional case, but took less than 30 days. The process cost just over $12000.
We had issues having children, until we adopted.
If you have the need to nuture, what does it matter if it's biologically yours or not.
Unless you have adopted, I don't want to hear excuses. - linuxpenguin, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4Doctors cannot deny essential services. They are required to treat illnesses and injuries.
If you're going to the doctor for something other than one of these, your health is not in danger. Worst-case scenario is you don't get your plastic surgery, or you don't get fertilized.
MOST of what a doctor encounters on a day-to-day basis is not something they can deny treatment for. They can't say they won't try to help you with your high blood pressure because you're fat - they have to give you some recommendations and/or prescriptions. Now, maybe you won't like it when they tell you to try diet and exercise, but you don't have to like what they tell you.
In fact, doctors are required to take patients from EMS. I've had that happen before where my doctor has to have the assistant tell me to wait because the EMS just brought someone by who needs medical attention.
THAT'S why doctors get public funding - because they are required to treat *anyone's* medical illness if someone's health is in danger.
There's no medical reason why these women need a child, and thus the doctors have the right to deny them these operations. - triumph6, on 08/28/2008, -2/+5@bjornski the area of medicine you are talking about is within the context of negligence. For example a private hospital has a patient come in that has no insurance and is in medical distress. The hospital has a legal responsibility to stabilize this patient but does not have to admit and treat them. What happens in these situations is once they stabilize the patient they are shipped to a state funded hospital that will pay for the uninsured.
As a private facility one does not HAVE to provide a service. But each of us does have a legal responsibility to help an individual that is in mortal distress.
There is a BIG difference. - MrFurious2k, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4Good luck to you. I understand your desire to have your own child and I wish you the best of luck.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is