quote:This so much reminds me of many of my pro-choice friends' positions on abortion. That is, they are pro-choice with regards to IVF, too, even if it is not a procedure they would do themselves.
Exactly, the majority of people who are pro-choice are just that - for the right to choose it - not necessarily pro-abortion. Although I am against abortion, I don't know that I would support criminalizing it in its entirety. I do support placing greater restrictions on its access, however, and certainly greater education and efforts to prevent women from having to be in the position to decide to have an abortion.
quote:Many couples create embryos with the intent of donating, but they consistently tend to change their minds about that after they have born a child of their own. That is what happens, over and over, across the country. Not for all, but definitely as a general trend. It is a complex issue.
The fact that this happens really bothers me. I'm not quite sure why. Certainly people have a right to change their minds, but I'm curious as to why so many people do. It seems so....hmmm....stingy?
I wish adoption in the US could be improved so that it were easier for people that really want to adopt to adopt. Not that it's wrong or anything, but it makes me really sad that people have to look outside the US to adopt children. On a personal level, as much as I want children (at some time in the future, not right now), I honestly don't think we could afford to adopt (and certainly not afford the more expensive fertility treatments).
quote:I honestly don't think we could afford to adopt (and certainly not afford the more expensive fertility treatments).
ludosti, I don't know if this will be consolling or concerning to you, but if you were to move to one of the following states, whatever insurance company covers your basic care would be mandated -- by law -- to cover your infertility treatments, at least in part. (From Sereno Fertility Clinic.)
quote: Arkansas Mandates insurance carriers to cover IVF, and allows insurers to impose a lifetime benefit cap of $15,000. Health maintenance organizations are exempt from the law.
Hawaii Mandates insurance carriers that provide pregnancy-related benefits to cover one cycle of IVF, only after several conditions have been met.
Illinois Mandates insurance carriers that provide pregnancy-related benefits to cover the diagnosis and treatment of infertility, including various ART procedures, but limits first-time attempts to four complete oocyte retrievals, and second births to two complete oocyte retrievals. Insurance carriers are not required to provide this benefit to businesses (group policies) of 25 or fewer employees.
Louisiana Mandates insurance carriers to cover the "diagnosis and treatment of correctable medical conditions." Thus, insurers may not deny coverage for treatment of a correctable medical condition to someone solely because the condition results in infertility. Coverage is not required for fertility drugs; in vitro fertilization or any other assisted reproductive technique; or reversal of tubal ligation, a vasectomy, or any other method of sterilization.
Maryland Mandates insurance carriers that provide pregnancy-related benefits to cover IVF after a two-year wait following diagnosis, with no wait required for certain diagnoses. Insurance carriers are not required to provide this benefit to businesses (group policies) of 50 or fewer employees. Religious organizations can choose not to provide coverage based on their religious views. A carrier may limit IVF benefits to three attempts per live birth, not to exceed a lifetime maximum benefit of $100,000.
Massachusetts Mandates insurance carriers that provide pregnancy-related benefits to cover comprehensive infertility diagnosis and treatment, including ART procedures.
Montana Mandates HMOs (but not other types of insurers) to cover infertility treatment as a basic health care service. The law does not define "infertility services," and some HMOs exclude IVF.
New Jersey Mandates insurance carriers that provide pregnancy-related benefits to cover comprehensive diagnosis and treatment of infertility, including assisted reproductive technology procedures, but limits attempts to four complete oocyte retrievals per lifetime. Insurance carriers are not required to provide this benefit to businesses (group policies) of 50 or fewer employees.
New York Mandates coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of correctable medical conditions. Requires coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility for patients between the ages of 21 and 44, who have been covered under the policy for at least 12 months. Certain procedures are excluded, including IVF, GIFT, reversal of elective sterilization, sex change procedures, cloning, and experimental procedures. Plans that include prescription coverage must cover drugs approved by FDA for use in diagnosis and treatment of infertility (including ovulation induction). The law does not apply to HMOs.
Ohio Mandates HMOs (but not other types of insurers) to cover infertility treatment as a "preventative" benefit. The treatment must be "medically necessary," and the Ohio Department of Insurance has ruled that GIFT, ZIFT and IVF are not medically necessary.
Rhode Island Requires insurers and HMOs that provide pregnancy-related benefits to cover the cost of medically necessary expenses of diagnosis and treatment of infertility. The law defines infertility as "the condition of an otherwise healthy married individual who is unable to conceive or produce conception during a period of one year." The patient's copayment cannot exceed 20 percent.
West Virginia Mandates HMOs (but not other types of insurers) to cover infertility treatment as a preventative benefit. The law does not define "infertility treatment" and HMOs have interpreted the term as excluding IVF.
Insurers in these states must offer employers a policy that provides coverage of infertility treatment, but may also offer policies that don't provide this coverage. Employers are not required to pay for infertility treatment coverage. They may choose a policy that covers infertility treatment or one that does not.
California Mandates insurance carriers to offer group policyholders coverage of infertility treatment, excluding IVF but including GIFT. (Group health insurers covering hospital, medical or surgical expenses must let employers know infertility coverage is available.)
Connecticut Mandates insurance carriers to offer coverage of comprehensive infertility diagnosis and treatment, including IVF procedures, to group policyholders.
Texas Mandates insurance carriers that provide pregnancy-related benefits to offer coverage of infertility diagnosis and treatment, including IVF, to group policyholders.
For more information about any of the mandates listed here (and to determine if your state has recently changed or enacted an infertility insurance mandate), you should contact your state's Department of Health or Department of Insurance.
posted
That's always good to know. I also know that our church offers adoption services (I read recently that it is the largest private adoption service in the world). I have no idea how much their services cost, but I would imagine it can't be astronomical, since a know a couple of similar economic status who have pursued adoption through them (she ended up getting pregnant right after they'd been aproved, so they didn't complete the process). Oh well, hopefully all this worrying will be for nothing and we'll do fine the natural way....
posted
Yeah. There are probably a lot of things in this area (like your church's adoption service) that we may not know much about unless we need them.
Good luck. Have fun trying.
[ November 04, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gamete IntraFallopian Transfer Zygote IntraFallopian Transfer
and you are correct on ART. There are important differences between some of the acronyms, likely relevant to many discussions of morality as well as of the medical aspect. I'll look for a good webpage.
This site looks both accurate and useful. I can't vouch for it, though, as I am not familiar with it.
quote:As its name suggests, GIFT takes advantage of a woman's fallopian tubes as a natural incubator for fertilisation. Aside from that difference, this procedure is identical to a standard in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment.
quote:ZIFT (Zygote Intrafallopian Transfer) is a similar procedure to GIFT, except that it is the newly fertilised egg (zygote) which is returned to the woman's fallopian tubes rather than the mixture of eggs and sperm.
[ November 04, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not abortion is legal may soon be a non issue - the new focus is access.
If enough doctors lose their licenses for their incompetence, or retire, and enough clinics get shut down because there aren't enough doctors to keep them open, then the pro-life movement doesn't even need to get it done in the courts.
A clinic recently shut down in Mississippi, taking the total number of abortion clinics in the state from 2 down to 1. The clinic closed because the doctor that was operating it had his license suspended, after a couple of deaths and some emergency hysterectomies due to perforated uteruses.
Mississippi suspended his license after Alabama suspended it - because you see, this guy is also the operator of the Summit Medical Clinic in Birmingham, AL where there were still more deaths and emergency hysterectomies. Now he's likely to have his license revoked. His hearing on the issue was Sept. 22nd and the decision should be handed down soon.
Yes, it would be best to make abortion unnecessary - I would love it if there were no unwanted pregnancies. But, both sides need to understand that it regardless of how you feel about it, abortion may soon be unavailable - no matter how legal it is you can't get one done if there are no doctors willing to perform them.
According to a study, more than half of all current abortion providers are approaching retirement. Young doctors don't seem eager to enter the field.
Here's some info from a pro-choice medical student site.
quote:Since 1982, the number of abortion providers in the U.S. has fallen by 37%
Over half (57%) of all ob/gyns who perform abortion are 50 years of age or older (7). Many of today’s abortion providers are approaching or have reached retirement age, and few doctors have been trained to replace them.
Regardless of where you stand on the subject - this is very interesting. What kind of situation would we have if abortion were still legal, but there were so few doctors that waiting periods were high and there was no way to get all of them performed until late into the 2nd or 3rd trimester? Or maybe not enough time to have them done at all?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, Sara - I can move that post to a new thread if you like - I just hated to start another front page thread on abortion, but the issue has been weighing on me for a while and I wanted to see other people's reaction to it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I read somewhere (sorry I don't remember where) that some religious organizations were fighting against peoples right to donate those surplus embryos to medical research facilities, particularly for stem cell research.
Now, I understand the religious implications of that type of research, I really do, and I even sympathies with the people who have a problem with it...
But when they are fighting the parents, trying to legally deny them the right to donate them to research, they are in effect forcing the parents to dispose of them otherwise.
In a field where there is no other way to get the genetic materials to do this research, here is a fantastic oppertunity....the scientist would get the genetic material they need without "creating" it just for research, and the parents aren't disposing of it in other ways that don't benefit others...wasting the genetic material.
There are more surplus embryos in the US than the scientist could ever use, all created in search of life, and they are going to be disposed of, legally, one way or another. Why not allow the parents to donate them...not require it, or allow access to anyone not authorized by the parents...for the common good?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
There are important differences between some of the acronyms, likely relevant to many discussions of morality as well as of the medical aspect. I'll look for a good webpage.
