oh no no no no no...

as a lefter than left leaning person there are a lot of things that i think the government should fund. healthcare is one of those things, education(including post secondary and graduate), fixing roads, public transit. you know, those kinds of things.

i think in this country our basic health care should cover eyes and teeth for everyone, because we need to see and eat.

i think our tax dollars should be used to make the country more accessible and make people and children healthier and smarter.

i don't think this covers infertility treatments.

in the star today i read a story about an "expert" infertility/adoption panel that is recommending the government cover infertility treatments like invitro fertilization, an insanely expensive procedure.

they're also calling on the government to overhaul the outdated adoption system which leaves thousands of children in bureaucratic limbo every year.

i agree with the adoption system needing an overhaul, but who are these infertility experts and why do they feel that childless couples should have their invitro paid for when there are children that need homes in canada?

doesn't it kind of seem like they cancel eachother out? infertility, adoption, you know they do go together in some way.

can't have a baby? adopt a baby!

oh wait, no, let's ask the government to fund invitro treatments so that people can have biological children at all costs.

so what does in vitro cost? according to the panel's report the "single greatest barrier to assisted reproduction services is the cost, with one cycle of IVF costing about$10,000," anyone who has actually had invitro will tell you that it takes more than one cycle to become pregnant though because it has a pretty low success rate.

not only is there a financial cost but women's bodies get put through the ringer for invitro. not only do they need to get constant hormone injections to prepare themselves for the procedure but the procedure itself is extremely invasive and puts a lot of stress on the body itself.

part of this plea for funding is because of the high multiple birth rates associated with invitro. apparently in canada fertility clinics do not have to be accredited to operate and so often will cut corners and end up having a really high multiple birth rate, which costs the health care system "millions".

according to the sarnia observer the 14 clinics that perform in vitro treatments are unlicensed and unregulated.

um, maybe they should just have to be accredited? doesn't that make sense?

i just find it completely ridiculous that any "expert panel" would suggest that the government subsidize infertility treatments when we don't even have basic eye or dental care in this country.

why is it that i can't even get my wisdom teeth out, but couples should be able to spend any and all tax dollar resources to ensure they have a biological child that looks like them? how many mothers with children skip their routine dental appointments or put off having their own eyes checked so that they can buy food for their children instead?

fix the adoption system and find those children homes, that should be a top priority.

not surprisingly when this panel was formed the adoption council of canada wrote a letter of opposition to the minister because the committee's purpose was "to help find solutions for people who are trying to start or expand a family." the ACC wrote that this mission suggested that the interests of the adopted child are second to those of the adults who are struggling with infertility.

they wrote that adoption is about finding a home for a child, "not a family building service for those unable to conceive" and that any discussion on adoption must focus on children's rights and needs.

this panel seems entirely focused on finding ways to make sure people have families, like this little gem:

"single women need access to donor sperm and single men need donor eggs and a gestational carrier"

yes, this is a fabulous idea. maybe we can have a government bank of "gestational carriers" that way single men who want babies can have one and women who need work really badly can become government gestational workers.

it doesn't help that the president of waterloo is the panel chair, because we all know university presidents only represent bad things in this world. but something just seems off about these recommendations.

find the thounsands of children who need homes a home, fix kids eyes, fix their mother's eyes, then we'll talk about funding in vitro, yes?