AboutShe can be contacted at cheryl [at] americasfuture [dot] org. Read my other blog. The one that's not obnoxious and self-absorbed! Recent publications"Scary Rise of the 'Sanctimommy'" in The Washington Times "Why Malamud Faded" in Commentary "Blogging Infertility" in The New Atlantis "Outsourcing Childbirth" in The Wall Street Journal "The Painless Peace of Twilight Sleep" in The New Atlantis "The Genius of Old New York" in The Claremont Review of Books "Parenthood At Any Price" in The New Atlantis "Modern Girls and the Moral Revival They Are Leading" in The Washington Times ARTICLE ARCHIVE Links |
Monday, February 4, 2008 This might all sound far out or outlandish, but it got me re-thinking many of the questions I discuss in an upcoming article on fertility bloggers in The New Atlantis. What does it mean to be infertile? Is infertility a "lifestyle choice" or a medical condition? And are the infertile really a unified bloc or community? Melissa's post puts these questions into sharp relief, particularly the divide between the socially or functionally infertile and the biologically infertile. People might not be having children with robots anytime soon, but many of the functionally infertile are--e.g., gay and lesbian couples, single mothers by choice, older mothers, etc. Do their interests diverge with those of the biologically infertile? Melissa is pretty optimistic on this front. Her post ends with the suggestion that as more people join the ranks of the functionally infertile, there will be more understanding and sympathy for all infertiles. I have my doubts, especially when it comes to the holy grail of infertility activism: mandated coverage for infertility. It seems here that the interests of the functionally infertile and socially infertile diverge. Most states that mandate coverage have some kind of criteria for who's eligible: e.g., age limits, married heterosexual couples only, etc. This seems unlikely to change, especially as health costs continue to rise. Are we really going to delay granny's hip replacement so Joe and his cyborg girlfriend can have a baby together? Doubtful. Exhibit A: Wesley Smith's post on the recent debate in the U.K. over whether to cover surrogacy for the infertile. He writes: This is unbelievable: The NHS is seriously considering paying 15,000 Pounds (about $32,000) to surrogate mothers to gestate babies for infertile couples. This, from the same NHS that rations care to the elderly[...] Moreover, I think this will not only be the attitude of fertiles, but of many infertiles too. I recently had an interview with Gabrielle of Fertility Notes where we discussed just this question. (N.B.: I sort of blindsided her, so you probably shouldn't take this as her considered views on the subject.) She's a strong supporter of mandated coverage and an active "blogtavist." She's also a very sympathetic case: a young, married woman whose childhood cancer left her unable to have children. Most people would say her treatment should be covered. But her case, I pointed out, is weakened when combined with the functionally infertile. Resources are limited, and while most people would probably see Gabrielle's situation as deserving, they'd likely balk at the idea of funding a 62-year-old woman's IVF cycle with tax money. Gabrielle saw the problem, and agreed that there might need to be some limits on what we cover, though she wasn't sure what those limits should be. I think a lot of the biologically infertile would agree. So is it really "all for one, one for all" in the infertility community? Given the limits on the public purse (and public sympathy), is it better to get coverage for the few? And how do we decide who those few should be? Labels: coverage, infertility posted by Cheryl # 11:58 AM Archives December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 December 2008 January 2009 |