Is it right abortions are free yet IVF costs?
Saturday 28th November 2009, 2:30PM GMT.
THE Health minister wants to know why the States pays for abortions but not to help people become pregnant with IVF.
Deputy Hunter Adam, a former obstetrician, questioned the ethics of the policy. ‘I often wonder why we pay for terminations of pregnancy but not to help people get pregnant.’
He brought up the controversial subject during this week’s States meeting.
Deputy Adam (pictured) yesterday said that he was not saying the States should not fund abortions,
But as a doctor he had seen patients who wanted terminations, followed by patients who were desperate for IVF.
‘I saw patients who were trying to get pregnant and were very stressed and psychologically upset,’ he said.
‘If they had all the tests and no abnormality was detected that was causing the complications they could be referred for IVF but they had to pay for it.’
Under the current set-up abortions would fall under the remit of the Medical Specialist Group, and would be paid for if approved. A 12-week abortion in the UK is thought to cost around £500. It is not clear what the local cost is. IVF can cost up to 10 times as much.
Deputy Adam said that in parts of the UK, NHS patients could get up to two courses of IVF free.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
“It is not clear what the local cost is. IVF can cost up to 10 times as much.”
Probably why it’s not free over here, taxes are pretty high without adding IVF into the mix.
“Deputy Adam said that in parts of the UK, NHS patients could get up to two courses of IVF free.”
The NHS is free, he should really know this, what with him being the health minister.
Report abuse
GG – as this is a forum for voicing our opinions I will risk the wrath of the “pro-choice” lobby and voice mine: Personally I would rather my taxes went towards helping couples conceive instead of funding the killing of fellow human beings.
Report abuse
Mot all treatments are free on the NHS.
Report abuse
Please, please, please resign and stop embarassing everyone
Report abuse
What GG does not realize is that the National Health Service is the publicly-funded health care system in England. The NHS is largely funded from general taxation including a proportion from National Insurance payments – therefore funding comes from taxes – which are considerably higher in the UK compared to 20% flat rate in Guernsey.
Report abuse
I’m not surprised that Hunter Adam’s silly statement has begun to get the anti abortion nutters coming out of their shells. Perhaps it was calculated to do so. I’m going to risk the wrath of the anti-choice lobby now by stating that abortion is a perfectly legitimate and civilised extension of birth control that is accepted by most in our free society.
Report abuse
If abortions werent free we would have a hell lot more single mums claiming money which would cost us all more in our taxs. Even though i have never had a abortion and i have a child i am very pro choice. I think sometimes its better to abort a child then that child live in a unwanted home. I know some people who grew up unwanted and abused, no one should have to live like that.
Report abuse
I take my hat off to Deputy Hunter Adams well-done that man. I have an enormous amount of respect for him. He is not afraid to stand by his convictions. At least he does represent the minorities in the island and yes he does get it wrong sometimes so Steve, why ask for his resignation is silly. . I remember that Roffey’s stance on the state paying for one IVF treatment for couples….’’Get a loan’’ was this mans policy……A man of the people…….never was and never will be…… God help us if he ever gets back in…….
I am not pro-choice and therefore will not pass judgment on those women and couples who choose abortion it is such a complex complex area to pass judgment on. However, I strongly support the state offering one free IVF treatment to couples who have fertility problems. There are hundreds of couples in the island who have fertility issues and would love a child of their own. The massive problems caused to a couple and the state is both destructive and expensive, with these costs compared against one course of IVF being around £5,000 including accommodation it is a small price to pay in the long run.
Report abuse
Once again my personal opinion will be disagreed with but nevermind.
Abortion is necessary, the alternative is a whole load more unwanted babies. Guernsey already suffers from a rather high number of very young pregnancies and they would only increase if abortions were not free. I am a big supporter of adoption if you can’t have a baby then take a child that has nothing and give it everything it could ever dream of. As a tax payer I would be devastated if the states started to pay for people to have children.
Report abuse
Martino – you are of course entitled to your opinion.
Just one thought though – I trust you are grateful to your mother that she didn’t decide you were conceived at an inconvenient time. Otherwise you wouldn’t be here to label people like me as nutters who believe you have a right to live….makes you think eh?
Report abuse
I can see where he is coming from. However people have the freedom to choose and there are sound tests that have to be done before an abortion can take place, albeit they are not the most ruthless of tests.
I am not agreeing with what he has said at all. As mentioned before abortion is seen by many as a method of birth control, right or wrong, and it is used as such. Can you imagine the drain on taxes if 10 abortions were denied for 1 couple to have possible unsuccessful IVF?
Report abuse
A ridiculous argument Paul. If my father had been wearing a rubber at the time I was conceived I wouldn’t be around either but does that mean I should be against the use of condoms?
Report abuse
Tony – the purpose of a forum like this is to voice opinions and spark reasoned debate, so I don’t have a problem reading yours, whether I agree with them or not.
You make a good point about adoption. From my perspective it’s no good being pro-life and not providing a viable alternative.
For example, I know of some churches (who are generally pro-life) around the world who instead of just spouting the “abortion is wrong” message, also actively encourage their members to adopt children who might otherwise have been aborted, or born into unwanted homes. Like Claire said, nobody should have to grow up unwanted and abused.
Report abuse
Deputy Adam hasn’t stated that funding for terminations should be stopped but that there should be some debate about whether the States would fund any cycles of IVF rather than forcing all patients to pay for it. I’m an ex-Guern nurse, now living in the UK and know that some regions will fund 2 cycles of IVF, some 1 and some none at all. An IVF cycle can cost between £3000 and £5000 depending on the type of treatment necessary.
Good on Deputy Adam for raising the issue – after all, the NHS funds IVF and terminations so why shouldn’t Guernsey?
Report abuse
I think it’s terrible that some people think of Abortions as a form of birth control. Surely it should be a final option and not people main form of family planning. Free Condoms cost guernsey a lot less than abortions.
Report abuse
I am sorry J but unfortunately people do use abortion as a method of birth control and in it’s barest terms Abortion is birth control, it controls the amount of births taking place. The same as other methods of contraception ‘prevent’ a pregnancy taking place.
Yes condoms to cost less, however they are not always 100% and accidents do happen.
Report abuse
While I understand people would prefer their own biological child it does not seem ethical to go to extraordinary lengths to help couples to conceive when there are so many homeless children in the world.
Before couples are given IVF treatment will they be checked to make sure they will be good parents and have not already been turned down by an adoption agency and where will we draw the lines? OK we don’t check parents conceiving naturally but they are not doing it on taxpayers money.
Will children conceived by IVF also have problems in becoming parents?
Do people who cannot fund their own treatment realise how much money they will need to bring up a child (especially if the treatment leads to a multiple birth).
Report abuse
Marie
The NHS also funds many, many other treatments that Guernsey rightly does not. If Guernsey funded all treatments that the NHS did then tax rates would probably have to double. IVF should not be funded and abortions should be charged for unless there are medical reasons for the abortion.
Report abuse
Martino, au contraire your comparison between abortions and condom usage is ridiculous. Before you ask, although obviously I haven’t had an abortion myself, I am well acquainted with people that have – so I have some observational experience of the emotional and psychological side-effects on the woman and I can assure you they’re slightly worse than the emotional scars of using a condom.
The condom and other contraceptives such as the pill (if effective) prevent conception – no problems there; an abortion kills a conceived and developing child.
Before you come back with the classic “it’s not a child it’s a foetus” kindly explain to me when a child stops being a foetus and becomes a child?
If you say that happens at birth, then please explain to me why abortions aren’t permitted after 24 weeks? Would you be happy for terminations at 35 weeks?
Before responding in the standard manner about “viability” then please tell me how “viable” a full-term newborn is without any intervention from it’s parents/carers?
Face facts – your parents conceived. If they had decided it wasn’t a convenient moment to have a baby, you’d be dead now….think about that when saying that abortion is a civilised method of birth control. You might also want to thank your Mum next time you see her!
If people want to be pro-abortion then of course they are entitled to their opinion – I won’t judge them as I’m not perfect either. Just don’t try and hide behind euphemisms like “choice” “viability” “birth control” and “foetus” and accept that an abortion is the deliberate killing of a developing human child.
Report abuse
Sheila
There are plenty of people who ARE actually conceiving naturally on tax payers money. The single parents who choose to keep having children and us tax payers have to support their ‘benefit lifestyles’ because they won’t/don’t want to sort out childcare and go to work.
Some of these parents maybe should have been checked instead of reproducing at will and not being able to look after their offspring properly.
Report abuse
Paul, a foetus is NOT a human being or a developing child. It has no sentience and is only a potential being. Most people apart from fundamentalist religious types (I suspect you are one) agree that this is the case. Society agrees that this is the case.
You answer me one question and we’ll all know exactly where you are coming from.
Do you subscribe the same ‘human’ rights to a foetus (of 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, whatever) as you do to those doctors and nurses who have been murdered in the US by ‘pro-life’ fanatics just for doing their jobs in health care. I know I don’t. The two don’t even begin to compare.
Thank you.
Report abuse
I’m glad Hunter Adam has made this comment.
I’m not anti-abortion, but knowing the amount of people who really struggle to conceive, it really makes you ask the question…..
Is it fair to pay to bail out people who cant be bothered wearing a condom… or going to get a morning after pill… or worse still have had an accident and conceived, have the means but cant be bothered having the child. When there are people who want children and cant conceive, and who probably wont have children if they cant afford IVF.
No I dont think it is fair.
Report abuse
CheesedOff
That’s a very slippery road we don’t want to go down. While such parents are not very good role models some of their children will break out of the cyle. A lot of great men and women had rotten parents. It would be tyrannical if government got to say who could have kids and who could not. There are already some cases now where social services intervene in the UK. Possibly it happens in Guernsey too.
I am just thinking that where our money is being used it might be a good idea not to give it to people who want a dear little baby in the same way they would get a puppy for Christmas. It is a life commitment.
Not everyone on benefit is a ‘scrounger’. If you are not a high earner child care may cost more than doing it yourself and it is not very fair to expect granny to do it either. Not so long ago career women were scorned for not spending enough time with their children. It may be a better choice to stay home and look after the kids until they reach school age.
Report abuse
Hi again Paul, I am not going to go through all the well rehearsed arguments pro choice on my side to answer all the well rehearsed arguments anti abortion your side. That was all done and dusted in 1995 when Guernsey’s inhuman, anti-woman old laws on abortion were rightly consigned to history by an enlightened States assembly.
What I do want to answer is your bizarre hypothetical notion that I would be ‘dead’ if my parents (they’re no longer alive as it happens) had decided to abort me. Yes, but so what? I wouldn’t have know anything about it so it wouldn’t have bothered me any more than if they had decided to use a condom on the day I was conceived. I simply would not have come into existence either way.
Report abuse
What makes my stomach turn is the amount of loose slappers that see abortion as a convenient solution to not having a condum with them at that particular time.
I don’t believe in abortion unless there are exceptional circumstances such as rape or other unsavoury scenarios.
The old bikes that have numerous abortions should at least be made to face up to the financial implications with counselling courses to make them more responsible in future.
I have known a few that have had up to a dozen abortions simply due to the fact that they are so spaced out on drink and drugs they cant remember whether they have taken the pill or not.
Sex education should be a bigger part of the educational system. There are consequences to ones actions. Its these actions that need reinforcing so that youngsters can still have a good time without needing to get off their faces and ending the night by getting laid by a number of people in similar states.
Parents of children should set better examples too. More often than not it is these easy going couldn’t care less attitude parents that have children that repeat the same mistakes time after time!
Things need to change from the top down. For some its all a bit easy. Get pregnant have an abortion or have the child?
Well its a guaranteed income with a roof provided free of charge by the system. When the child starts school simply have another to guarantee not having to work for a living for at least the next five years or so.
The end result is a family that have been produced as a means to an end due to the parent or parents low self esteem with life!
Report abuse
The point is, it’s the same old, “I want something I can’t have, therefore the taxpayer should buy it for me”.
If you can’t concieve and don’t want to adopt, save up and pay for it.
Report abuse
@ Paul LP – I see your point, and maybe the states could subsidise the cost for under 40s. Because usually over 40 is when there’s less of a chance to have a baby, as you’re too old and perhaps you should’ve decided to have a baby way before then.
@ILVBC – Exactly my point, they have to pay more tax.
Report abuse
Martino – Despite your attempts to wriggle out of it, the fact remains that if your Mum had decided to abort you wouldn’t be here – end of. So I still think you should thank her that she decided you weren’t an inconvenience.
In answer to your question:
Yes, I do subscribe the same human rights to the unborn child as to the doctors who were murdered. What this means in practice actually is that I oppose the murder of those doctors as vehemently as I oppose abortion. So, I’m sorry to disappoint you if you thought I would condone killing people – that dubious honour is yours alone my friend.
Now, since I’ve answered your question, would you kindly answer my earlier questions starting with when does a “foetus” become a child?
Bearing in mind that by scientific definition a foetus is a developing creature between embryonic stage and birth, why are abortions not allowed after 24 weeks? Since therefore a 35 week old foetus is still a foetus, would you agree that a termination is acceptable? If not, why not?
Report abuse
Martino
Not everyone who thinks that foetus’s is a religious fundamentalist. There are plenty of people who think abortion is wrong and many of them have no religious reasons for this. Also not all religious people are fundamentalists.
Also, A foetus at 24 months has sentience. I’m not really sure how you can claim it doesn’t.
Report abuse
My Parents had IVF and i’m living proof that it works and i can have children so Shelia your comment is rather stupid.
I would much rather all my tax money went on couples trying for a baby than some drunken teenager getting pregnant because she was “wrecked” and i have to pay for her mistake!? No thanks!
Personally, i think IVF is fantastic and all you people that seem to know so much about, know nothing! You have no idea how not being able to have a child can impact your life. But having an abortion is a quick and easy thing now adays and girls dont realise what they are throwing away!
Report abuse
For those arguing about the rights and wrongs of abortion can you please find somewhere else to discuss this issue.
This article is not about that and there are some here trying to discuss the topic raised.
Report abuse
Steve LC
So I presume from your comment that you are happy to pay for the lazy, loose and inconsiderate…
..But not for a genuine medical concern??
Report abuse
@Paul le Page – Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I’d be interested to hear your views on the morning after pill? Surely this is just a potential extended early version of the abortion, looking at your previous comments?
Report abuse
It’s interesting how people generalise the reason for abortion on here, assuming it is only “slappers” that request them. What about a woman who has been raped and does not want to live with a permanent reminder of the attack? What about those in absolute destitution, or those from abusive partnerships, where a link with the abusive partner would be there for life? I know there are always other options to all those arguments I have raised, but still…. it’s not always as general as you’re making out.
Report abuse
Vee,
I have not searched for research on the subject which is why I put it as a question.
You are a sample of one so your ‘living proof’ that I am wrong does not stand up.
There are many reasons for infertility. Chemicals, like pthalates, can be to blame. However where the problem is genetic it seems likely that the next generation will also have a problem.
Report abuse
Delgado – The situations you mention are not normal and i’m sure the majority of people would have no issues with Abortions in these situations.
The issue most people have is that tax payers are covering the cost of people who don’t take proper precautions. whereas people who have a valid medical issue aren’t being assisted.
Report abuse
Sheila, your ignorant comments absolutely disgust me!
We have been trying to have children for almost a decade, including IFV several times, and have just found out that the latest attempt has failed.
I can’t describe how your comparison to getting a puppy makes me feel, not in words that would ever be allowed on here. I quote you:
‘I am just thinking that where our money is being used it might be a good idea not to give it to people who want a dear little baby in the same way they would get a puppy for Christmas. It is a life commitment.”
What a stupid and insensitive thing to say. Have you any idea of the discomfort and stress involved with having IVF? You make it sound like kids going to a petshop on whim.
Also, for your information, many couples who cannot conceive have absolutely nothing wrong with them, or if they do it’s not hereditary. I can’t believe that you feel the need to comment on such an emotive subject in such a ridiculous way without knowing anything about it.
Now that i’ve got that off of my chest, I can understand in these difficult financial times that people feel we can’t afford to spend money on something else. However we have been paying income tax and social security for a long time, some of which pays for young single mothers to sit at home without lifting a finger to earn their keep. I think it’s only fair that we should benefit from a little of the money that we have paid out to help us have a family of our own.
Steve Le Cheminant…one day if we are unsuccessful maybe we will adopt, but we would like to have our own children if we can. You make it compare to having a car or something…it’s not the same old, it’s a bit more significant than that. We have been saving, but it costs a small fortune each time by the time all of the associated costs are paid.
Finally, this is not about the pros and cons of abortions, so please take that argument somewhere else.
Report abuse
Sorry Captain Oveur and Digusted, I didn’t start the abortion debate, I was just responding to someone else’s extremist fundamentalist view that abortion = murder, which it plainly does not, either in law or in the view of most enlightened reasonable people. My final word on embryonic entities is that a foetus is no more a human being than an egg is a chicken!
Report abuse
This is a really interesting debate but I do feel that if the States continue to pay for abortions then they should at least consider funding at least 1 cycle of IVF. Afterall,it’s not JUST those who are in States houses who have the need for terminations or IVF. How about a means-test being considered for both treatments…..and if you can pay for them, you should.
Russm (and others too!), whilst I appreciate that funding all these treatments could cause a tax increase, I truly hope that you are never in need of any non-funded healthcare,….it’s easy to justify non-funding when you’re not in need of them but when you do need them (and I hope you never do), your opinion can and does change.
I write as somebody who lived in Guernsey and had a termination prior to the States funding them – I didn’t live in a States house nor claim benefits but I did have an 18 month old and was in a deteriorating relationship at the time. I didn’t want to be reliant on State benefits or my ex for support and it was the best option at that time. I have thought about that decision every day since (though not regretted it as I still think it was all I could do at the time) and that was 13 years ago.
Report abuse
I can’t agree that the abortion debate has no place here, it clearly does at is was a fundemental part of the original article.
Personally what I find sad when reading this thread that people seem more concerned about their pockets than people’s health and wellbeing – regardless of whether you agree with abortion, IVF or not. That is as damning an indictment of the self-centred nature of our society as I’ve seen in a while.
Delgado – my family believes that life begins at conception. Therefore in regard to the morning after pill, I don’t think we would use it.
Martino – I’ve read your comments, thanks for responding. I will try to resist the urge to think you’re wriggling out of answering tough questions in respect to when a foetus becomes a child, and why abortions aren’t permitted after 24 weeks. I do however thank you for your response to the question regarding your own development, which I think clearly illustrates the point that an abortion destroys life. Since you have declined to explain your position further, I’ll end our little conversation on a lighter note by saying this is the first time in a long while I’ve heard our States described as “enlightened” – I couldn’t help but chuckle and that brightened my day. See…even a “fundamentalist” has a sense of humour! :-)
Report abuse
“I can’t agree that the abortion debate has no place here, it clearly does at is was a fundemental part of the original article.”
But did it? Deputy Hunter-Adam didn’t seem (to me) to be raising the quesion of funding terminations, which was agreed by the States some years ago but whether the additional funding of IVF treatment should be considered…..
Report abuse
J – Unfortunately the pro-choice zealots like nothing more than to attempt to silence the pro-life lobby by stereotyping them as dull-brained, murderous, inhuman, women-hating religious lunatics who hate women. The irony is that when one asks perfectly reasonable questions based on scientific evidence – dare I say, such as the ones I’ve asked above – they are not forthcoming with detailed responses and prefer to hide behind the rather borish but amusing “you’re a fundamentalist” argument. I’m afraid one has to conclude that either they can’t be bothered to discuss it because they’re far too “enlightened” to lower themselves to the level of ignorant fundamentalists; they haven’t thought things through; or they’re just happy to be sheep and listen to whatever they’ve been told by the mass media.
The fact is that, far from hating women (I married one for starters and didn’t even need a club to get her up the aisle!) although I’m opposed to abortion, I am not ignorant of the human tragedy that so often accompanies it – or the emotional cost to the women involved.
Report abuse
Accepted Marie however since abortions were used as a comparison, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to feel at liberty to raise ones views on them on an opinion forum. If others disagree they are at liberty to complain to the moderators – I will happily defer to them.
Report abuse
Martino – I promise this is my final post unless you respond! :-)
I wasn’t aware that your parents were no longer around, so I hope I haven’t upset you by pushing that particular argument. If I have, for that I apologise.
Report abuse
Paul – totally agree – they were raised as a comparison through this discussion. I was just pointing out that Deputy Adam wasn’t reported as mentioning non-funding of abortions, nor the rights or wrongs of them, but that the issue of whether IVF is funded should be considered.
It’s a difficult issue as funds in Guernsey, as elsewhere, are limited but for people going through infertility and IVF, it’s certainly not straight forward.
I digress somewhat but was amazed some time ago when a family member had varicose veins, were on the point of ulceration and was told that the States didn’t fund treatment for them. I can understand not funding surgery for cosmetic reasons but when a person’s leg is starting to ulcerate and will potentially need hours of District nursing care for dressing changes and bandaging, it doesn’t seem to make sense.
Report abuse
“I can’t agree that the abortion debate has no place here, it clearly does at is was a fundamental part of the original article.”
No it wasn’t, the question raised was “why do we fund one and not the other?” To make sure I haven’t missed anything I re-read the article above and nowhere did I see anything about asking the question of whether it should be an option or not – this is to do with who pays for it NOT whether it’s fundamentally right or wrong.
Report abuse
PLP’s, and many of the evangelist religious believers are well known. Life is a life and killing life is murder.
The Pro choice argument, in my not so humble opinion, is far more humanist. As much as may believe in the sanctity of the miracle of biological mechanisms, unwanted pregnancies cause more problems for society than they benefit.
A few decades back, some societies sent unmarried pregnant women to what was an effective prison, their children sold to the childless. Those societies were on our doorstep.
It is an entirely separate issue that teenagers, victims of abuse, and the uneducated are lumbered with a responsibility they cannot cope with.
The stigma caused by PLP’s very popular viewpoint exacerbates the problem and keeps the young girls in fear until those foeti (foetuses? – too multitasking for google) become arbitrarily sentient.
The logical conclusion to pro life is not to have sex until you want a baby.
If you cannot, for a whole myraiad of biological reasons, why should you get state aid? Pro life would suggest ‘you’re not worthy’.
There is no black/white. Abortions of diseased, inflicted or accidental conceptions is preferable to suffering to the adult (or child) involved.
The issue is how society views this as a problem. Similar to drug use, really. Why ostracise a junky for being rubbish, then criminalise them. Why not accept and rehabilitate. If people knew that was the outcome, then education would sink in.
Only education and faith in humanity will solve these knotty mazes.
I understand PLP because half my family is Catholic, but I am human, that trumps any imposed theology.
Report abuse
Thanks for the apology Paul but no need on that count. I wasn’t upset because my parents have died – just bemused by your argument because the fact is that when they were around my parents did decide to ‘have’ me and if they hadn’t I wouldn’t have minded because I wouldn’t have been around to mind. I don’t see why you can’t accept the logic of that.
What I do think this debate opens up is the much wider question of exponential human population growth that threatens all of life on this planet. We are a rampant species, like a plague of devouring, procreating locusts let loose on an oasis, yet we (some of us) possess the intellect and intelligence to realise that unless we do something to curb this growth both we and most of the other species we share this planet with are doomed to die out within a generation or three.
We should be taking radical action across the planet and especially in the developing world where most of the unchecked population growth is taking place. We should be enforcing extremely strict and mandatory birth controls (through contraception rather than through abortion) on our populations. Unfortunately this will not happen -partly as a result of the religious sensitivities of those who believe that we have some sort of God given right to expand our numbers no matter what.
Report abuse
I don’t recall saying in my post that I support abortion, or that lazy people should have IVF paid for.
For clarity, I believe people should pay for their own abortions, other than for serious medical reasons or rape or situations that make it imperitive.
I also believe people should pay for their own IVF.
I understand some people want children badly, but why should the taxpayer have to pay for it.
Whilst there can be serious reasons to justify an abortion, I fail to see how the same can be said of IVF. Other than, it can be done, so it should.
Should cosmetic surgery be paid for?
Should people with no children be paid the same as people with children get for child support, to make everything fair and even?
Report abuse
Captain Oveur – I’m sorry to labour the point but it IS valid to discuss abortion here.
The article clearly stated that Deputy Adam had, I quote, “questioned the ethics of the policy.” I, like Deputy Adam, am also questioning the ethics of the policy – albeit from a different standpoint to his. Others like Martino (although he/she would appear to have said their piece) are agreeing with the policy and we are having a discussion. That is perfectly valid and within the context of the article.
I won’t waste any more time trying to justify myself. If Martino, or anyone else, wants to discuss abortion on this page I will feel at complete liberty to respond. Whether you happen to like it or not is not my problem…
Report abuse
Shelia, what medication are you taking? Your comments are extremely discriminatory, silly and worrying.
I support the state 100% in paying for one or even two courses of IVF treatment. We pay hundreds of thousands of pounds annually on sending off island treating drug addicts, alcoholics and of course carrying out abortions locally. I have no problem with any of these forms of treatment or funding. However, let’s get a balance. My son is an IVF baby so my wife and I have empathy with couples who are struggling to have a family. Without feeling the wrath of PLP on his forum my wife and I were 100% against adoption as an alternative to having our own child. It was, is not and never will be an option for us. I strongly suggest that couples who have fertility problems lobby their Deputy before this extremely important social issue just vanishes.
Report abuse
We are a young couple in our early 30′s who are desperate to have our own child but are unable to as my husband under went an operation when he was younger that caused him to have problems later in life. We own our own home after both being bought up in states accomodation and have never once between us claimed any benefits from the states of any kind. Our treatment will cost in the region of £8-10,000 which is a massive amount of money considering that the treatment may not work first time around. I think the states should at least give you one try. The situation would be completley different for me if I’d have rolled out of school didn’t bother to get a job and just shelled out child after child from numerous father’s in order to get a roof over my head and food on the table and let’s face it there are many islanders in this situation. We’ve paid our tax’s so where’s the assistance for us when we really need it I ask you ????
I’m so glad Deputy Hunter has bought this to the for front, the last health minister I actually telephoned when we first got told of our situation only to be told there was no funding for this sort of medical assistance and actually there was no symathy for our terrible news, it was almost like I was wasting the minister’s time by calling. I am a local girl with both set’s of grandparents local, I am a Guernsey girl with no hope of ever having my own child. I hope this comment pulls on the heart strings of the states this should be looked at and now at least let people like me and my husband have that one life changing chance to be good parents and bring our child up to have the good values of that a Guernsey person has.
Report abuse
There is a quote saying “Deputy Adam (pictured) yesterday said that he was not saying the States should not fund abortions” – Paul, can you tell me how this can be interpreted into “should abortions be permitted?”.
If you wish to debate the rights and wrongs of abortion I think it should be discussed elsewhere.
To make it even clearer, if I asked a question in the pub “should tax payers pay for IVF”, I wouldn’t expect the people around me to tell me the rights and wrongs of abortion.
Report abuse
But Cap’n
HA’s quote was “I often wonder why we pay for terminations of pregnancy but not to help people get pregnant”
Not “should taxpayers fund IVF”
HA has specifically brought up abortion.
There is a very thin line between HA’s quote and the moral justification or otherwise of abortion.
Although I agree that the line exists, I do see how some people feel its relevant.
Although I do find it ironic that there is now a discussion on “should we be discussing the rights and wrongs of abortion” as well :p
Report abuse
There is always place for such debate, what I am trying to suggest is that it’s done elsewhere as it’s detracting from the question raised which is to do with “Funding”.
Why do we fund one and not the other? Should we fund both? Should we fund neither?
NOT, should we allow abortions.
Report abuse
The Man – good comments and good reasoning. I too find it ironic which is why I’m not going to continue that particular thread of debate any more.
Pete Burtenshaw – I’m not sure why you think you’d incur my wrath for wanting your own child before adoption. I don’t have a problem with State funding of IVF whatsoever! I do have a problem with State funding of abortion, on the grounds that I have a problem with abortion.
Quote Arnald “The logical conclusion to pro life is not to have sex until you want a baby.”
I can see how you might reasons that however I don’t agree. I would suggest a more accurate conclusion is not to have sex until you are prepared to accept the responsibilities attached to it, as well as enjoying the pleasure. If you don’t want a baby then use contraceptives whilst accepting of course that they are not 100% effective and pregnancy may happen. If you do get pregnant, which is after all the natural outcome of sex, accept the responsibility. My wife and I certainly didn’t wait until we wanted a baby ;-) but we were aware that it might happen, even with contraception use and were prepared to accept that responsibility.
Of course I accept that not all sex is consensual. These are tragic circumstances for the woman concerned and I have seen first hand the devastating consequences of abuse. I do not pretend it is easy however I honestly believe that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Martino – I do see the logic of your argument however I don’t agree with the conclusion because you are basing your standpoint on presuppositions that we disagree on. I come from the angle that life begins at conception; you’ve yet to tell me when you believe life starts.
Coming from my standpoint, I could also counter by arguing that unless you believe in life after death, if you kill anyone they are no longer aware they had ever been alive either, so why is that wrong?
I would still like to know why it is considered OK to abort up to 24 weeks and not afterwards if a foetus is not a sentient human being? The usual response is viability however I would suggest from a medical standpoint (let alone the ethical) that this is a flawed argument. Medical knowledge and skills are advancing so fast that premature babies are surviving much earlier – proving that they are in fact sentient human beings. So much so that the UK government lowered the abortion rate in 1990 to 24 weeks from 28 weeks. Here’s the catch – since it had been medically established that babies are viable at between 24-28 weeks, doesn’t that make the previous abortion of babies between 24-28 weeks the killing of a sentient human being? My argument from a medical standpoint (ignoring my religious beliefs for a moment since you won’t accept them as a valid claim) is that we are basing our laws on current knowledge which could well be proved inaccurate in future years – as it was in 1990. Do we have the right to take that risk with human lives?
Report abuse
Sorry Captain Oveur, I must answer Paul because he’s pressing me on this. For me when we talk about life we’re talking about an independent life – not dependent on the woman who is carrying it – so life begins at birth. A wanted birth. In other words I have no problem with later terminations.
What I do have a problem with is the desire of people like Paul to see some sort of Christian version of Sharia law, with women forced by the church and the state to continue with pregnancies that they clearly do not want to go through with, which is exactly what happened in the bad old days.
On the subject of IVF and IVF funding I have no problem with the IVF procedure, which again is rightly the personal choice of the woman concerned and nobody else. I also have no problem with the principle of IVF treatment funded by the States/taxpayers but I don’t think this is the right time to introduce it simply because our health service is under enormous strain right now and is likely to face further cuts next year, including some reductions in front line services.
I do think terminations should continue to be supported and funded by the State(s) because this is an established free medical service and the social and financial cost of not funding it would clearly be counter-productive.
One final word for Paul. Don’t try to divorce your personal religious beliefs from your anti-choice views on abortion. It is obvious that you are trying to impose your own personal morality on others who do not share it.
Report abuse
Paul, some interesting points regarding the dates which are considered by the Law acceptable. I think there is definitely a legitimate question in there.
BUT, could you explain how this relates to the article which is raising the question why do we FUND abortions and not IVF and should we look for a change in FUNDING policy.
Report abuse
Marie
I will never have a problem with being denied healthcare where such healthcare has no effect on my health. IVF, elective plastic surgery, gender reassignment and many other services should be paid for by those wanting the treatment. Tax payers money should be saved for helping those with real illnesses.
Report abuse
Martino
I was going to let this whole thing slide, but your last post is pretty scary stuff. My daughter was born three months ago and she’s an absolute joy (usually). You’re implying that one day before she was born, you’d be happy if I had aborted her. That suggestion is pretty abhorrent.
And then on you go, devoid of any coherent argument, choose to round on Paul’s obvious faith as the root of everything he is saying and, as he predicted in an earlier post (although not about you personally) try to deflect from the inadequacies of your position by in essence calling him a woman hating, murderous inhuman being.
Nice try. But futile. Not all Christians derive all their morals from their faith, although to be honest, most good morals will tend to be mirrored in most faiths, making it all to easy to seek to establish a connection.
Rather, there is a pleathora of accredited study showing the extent to which unborn children before 24 weeks are able to feel pain, feel emotion, react to light and sound, particularly those of parents (establishing recognition).
By your position, that of those capable of independent life, anyone on life support should have it switched off immediately. In fact, show me an infant that is capable of independent life.
Finally, Paul is no more trying to impose his own personal morality on others than are you. Currently your morality (should I interpret it correctly) is being forced onto Paul in that he is compelled to fund abortions he does not agree with and as you are comforatble with abortion as part of your personal morality, it is you who are imposing it on those who do not share it.
Report abuse
Ahoy there Captain! For me, the issue of funding is inextricably linked to the issue of ethics, which as I mentioned in an earlier post is part of the article and therefore a valid point for discussion here.
I wouldn’t worry too much though, as I think I’ve explained my position adequately now – ably assisted by Billythefish, thank you.
So unless I’m directly asked a question I will not be participating any further in this debate.
Martino – I am glad you have finally publically shown your true colours. You have clearly shown by your final post and its approval of late term abortions that you are content with killing sentient human beings in the name of choice. I rest my case – something that the Captain at least will be glad to hear!
One final point if I may – of course you are right that I shouldn’t divorce my religious beliefs from my argument as they are the foundation of it. On that point at least we can agree and I must thank you for correcting my error. I would however say that what I was trying to achieve was demonstrating that, apart from being dogmatic lunatics as you have tried to suggest, there is also sound reasoning behing the pro-life arguments.
Report abuse
Oh dear, Billythefish, I do wish you would read other peoples’ postings more carefully.
First, where on earth did I accuse Paul of being murderous? Anti women yes, fundamentalist yes (he showed that by revealing in one of his previous posts that he could not even condone a raped woman having an abortion). No, the only one leveling accusations of murder are the people on your side of the argument by equating legal terminations with murder and killing, which in this day and age is a plainly ludicrous stance.
Second, what on earth has my previous post got to do with denying you the birth of your daughter? For me it’s scary and abhorrent that you think that. You seem to have taken a hysterical pill.
(For the record, I think the present limit of 24 weeks is about right)
Report abuse
Martino
I think Billythefish has summed it up pretty well. And your bit about late abortion being ok with you is shocking, the day before natural birth and the baby is aborted is ok? That most definately is murder.
I don`t have a very strong opinion either way to be honest.
Report abuse
Martino – please equate your statement “I have no problem with later terminations” with your later comment “For the record, I think the present limit of 24 weeks is about right” – which is it then? Why do you think the present limit is about right, since you’ve previously stated you wouldn’t have a problem with later terminations?
Your accusation of anti-women is the classic fundamentalist hogwash of the extreme pro-choice lobby. Claims like that are designed to stir up hatred and stifle reasoned debate. For starters many of the strongest pro-life advocates are women – are they anti-themselves?
By your accusations you are implying that pro-life advocates condone rape – utter rubbish. Rape is a terrible crime against women as I know all too well – people close to me have been raped. They need counselling, compassion and care.
The pro-life stance is based on the belief that EVERY child has a right to life. We believe that a child should not die to pay for the crimes of the father. Does that make us anti-women? Of course not and anyone with a modicum of intelligence who hasn’t been brainwashed by pro-choice propaganda can see that.
In fact, rather than listen to me ramble on, listen to this “anti-women” Christian Pastor who was the child of a raped woman. He is far more qualified to speak about this than any of us:
http://www.theresurgence.com/abortion-testimony-pastor-aj
If you can equate his story with an anti-women standpoint, you have an extremely vivid imagination.
Report abuse
Disgusted
I am so sorry my comments hurt you.
What I am trying to question is whether if funding becomes available people who DO think having a child is like going to the petshop should be excluded.
There is a limited amount of money in the kitty and lots of other urgent needs for it so surely some barriers would have to be put up?
Looking back at my ideas on this I think they are too subjective and could not be fairly applied. Perhaps the only fair way would be a one off treatment for all.
What do other people think?
Report abuse
Just to clarify, by ‘later’ I meant the 28 weeks Paul had referred to in his post immediately before my response post in which I said “I have no problem with later terminations”. I stand by both statements. In other words I’d have no problem with the limit being extended to 28 weeks but I’m not calling for that (and didn’t actually call for it in my previous posts) because I do, indeed, think that the present limit is ‘about right’.
The trouble with the anti-choice brigade is that it reads things ‘between the lines’ that aren’t there, it doesn’t read things properly and, on occasions, it deliberately misinterprets things as it goes off on a hysterical tangent.
You did it again Paul when you accused me of accusing anti-choicers like yourself of condoning rape. That is, indeed, utter rubbish Paul. I know and accept that you are appalled by the crime of rape but what I accused you of (if you read my previous post more carefully) and still accuse you of is NOT condoning/approving of a raped woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy caused by a rapist. Sometimes you’ve just got to spell it out, which I’m sorry I didn’t do when I referred to ‘later abortions’.
On the matter of extremism, I am confident that my personal stance (ok with the law as is up to 24 weeks) represents the mainstream view. You’re the ones who are out of step.
Report abuse
Martino – thanks for the clarification on the “later” stance. Agreed, sometimes it is good to spell things out clearly.
Your “accusation” that I am “NOT condoning/approving of a raped woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy caused by a rapist.” is correct – I have spelled that out clear enough in previous posts and given an explanation why.
In actual fact, the comment that I seriously objected to was the label of being anti-women. I hope you will accept that such a definition (which means against women in general) cannot reasonably be applied to someone with a pro-life viewpoint, simply on the basis that they oppose one specific item of law.
I think we’ve probably said enough now, and Captain Oveur will soon be compelling us to walk the proverbial plank if we don’t stop the abortion debate. I’ll therefore sign off….however if you would like to continue this discussion elsewhere, feel free to email me at plepage[at]cwgsy.net
Report abuse
PS one final piece of advice: Don’t always follow the mainstream view or use it to justify & validate your position. The mainstream view isn’t always right – in fact history has proved it often isn’t…. :-)
Report abuse
Martino
I have been following your debate with Paul with some interest and let me just say I’m not taking sides here. In fact I’m trying to stay well clear of it.
As I made clear before I am not anti-abortion, but I wouldnt call myself strong pro-choice either because I think “choice” is a mis-noma.
With regards to your very last comment, regarding mainstream view it is my beleif that the public at large are generally unaware of the in depth facts of Foetal development. Unfortunately, abortion debate generally descends into a “murderer vs religious fundamentalist” arguement, the extremes of which can cloud the underlying issues.
If there was a continued rational debate leading to greater publice awareness I honestly beleive that there would be a call to lower it to 20 weeksm, I’m interested to know what your opinion would be if that were to happen.
Report abuse
Sheila – you raise an interesting question. Like you I have my opinions on who should be allowed to receive IVF treatment. In my case these aren’t based on economic but rather social factors – such as a committed parental relationship.
I can certainly see reasonable concerns where all and sundry approach asking for IVF. The problem with applying selection criteria though is that (as you point out) they will always be subjective. Then there is the issue of human rights legislation which could be brought to bear if treatment was refused due to certain criteria not being met.
To conclude I think if you are going to make IVF treatment State funded it needs to be available to everyone who has been referred by their doctor. Although it is certainly not a flawless system, it is surely the fairest way.
Just one final thought on funding since this is the main point of the article (as the good Captain has constantly reminded me) – I wonder what would happen if a state-funded IVF pregnancy was aborted? Unlikely I accept, but certainly possible.
Report abuse
Paul, I feel the need to correct you on something. Abortions under Guernsey Law are only offered to those 12 weeks pregnant or under. I think 12 is right. Going back to someone elses point about my scenario’s not being the norm – agreed, however it is extremely difficult to obtain an abortion here as “contraception”, as people here think, most women only being “allowed” one (two and three need to have seriously robust grounds for acceptance and 3 is the absolute limit).
Report abuse
Perhaps if we stopped funding all the single mothers we may be able to help fund IVF for people who want children for the right reasons?
Report abuse
Delgado – I’ve done some research on the web and, although it is actually quite difficult to get straighforward information, it appears you are correct on the 12 week limit. I was quoting the UK law assuming (silly me!) that Guernsey had followed suit.
It doesn’t actually change my particular standpoint though as I oppose abortion at any stage, but I will gladly accept correction on that point.
Report abuse
I’m not going to get involved in the moral abortion debate which has developed here, but wish to go back to the original topic of funding abortions/IVF. It is important to note that if abortions were no longer free under the specialist health insurance scheme then it wouldn’t save that scheme [i.e. the Guernsey public who pay contributions into it] a single penny. The MSG get a payment per consultant, not per procedure. So making women pay for abortions would only increase their private income without any saving to the States.
On IVF – in an ideal world there is no doubt that it would be paid for. However it is a very strange time for Deputy Adam to be raising this issue. With the HSSD budget due to be stretched to breaking point it seems unlikely they will be able to maintain all of their existing services never mind start paying for IVF.
Report abuse
Peter
I hadn’t thought abotu the fact that abortions are effectively free.
Delgado – I’m glad that abortions are questioned if they occur more than once and this will hopefully lead to people take more responsability themselves.
As much as i disagree with abortions in most circumstance i don’t think they should have been brought up in this situation. This was obviously done just to rile up the pro-life brigaade (whom i would in most cases side with)
A better comparison (and i don’t if these treatments are paid for)would be IVF and treatments for self inflicted illnesses (smoking related lung cancer, alchol related liver dieseases etc).
Report abuse
We have given IVF a go a couple of times now and yes it is extremely costly and although I would love the states to pay for this, even if it was one attempt I am not sure this would be feasible. What I would like to see however is the additional costs covered by the states such as the visits in Guernsey to see Haskins. As soon as you go down the route of IVF you gat classed as a private patient which means that each visit to Haskins is £90 and each blood test is approx £74 and each cycle you need approx 4 or 5 of these visits on top of the cost of the treatment in the UK. (if you lived in UK all this would be included in the initial cost). I do begrudge abortions being funded though for girls who have more than one of these a year.
Report abuse
I think even if the IVF treatment in the UK is not paid for the doctors visits to see the specialist should be covered. it is £90 per visit and £74 per blood test and there are a number of these that are required on each IVF attempt that is additional to the costs of the treatment in the UK. The states could help out with these costs.
Report abuse
Peter Roffey – why shouldn’t Deputy Adam raise this issue? I appreciate these things cost money and the HSSD isn’t exactly flushed with cash. However, social and ethical issues can’t just be brushed under the carpet until there’s enough money to pay for them. If he believes there is an ethical issue with the non-funding of IVFs he is right to at least bring it to our attention, irrespective of financial cost.
We elect the States to address social and ethical issues as well as economic ones. If, after the appropriate research and debate, an ethical shortcoming is found, it is then up to the States to make decisions to correct that. If this means that more money is required, again we elect our States to make the difficult decisions necessary to either raise more funds via taxation; transfer funds from other areas; or explain to the people of Guernsey that it isn’t a priority at this time.
I would rather know that our Deputies are constantly at work assessing our public services, than just sitting around waiting for the next gravy train to pull in.
Report abuse
Cheesed Off, Vee, Disgusted and Heide have the right idea – the single mum benefit scroungers are to blame for this dilema – just as they are for too many feral cats, too much graffiti, too much boxing, too much bling, too many nappies, too much zero 10, too much global warming and too much terrorist threat. Let’s sort ‘em once and for all – flush ‘em out with their parasite spawn and round them up in the Truchot before marching them en masse at the point of our torches, pitch forks and Porsches to Les Tielles and over they go!!! No more threat to civilisation and lots of saved benefits on match box rents and rusks – plenty for the IVF ers !! What are we waiting for.
Report abuse
No Paul, of course he has the right to raise the subject if he feels strongly about it. My only concern is over the raising of false hopes for people who are desperate for children. It seems to me that the HSSD finances makes this the least likely time to be able to introduce free IVF for some years. If he finds a way to do it while still maintaining other vital, life saving services then hats off to him.
Report abuse
Sheila
I know you have now apologised for your puppy comments but I still feel the need to comment. People who go through IVF do so because they long for a child of their own. It is a very difficult process both physically and emotionally and is never as far as I’m aware done on a whim. Doctors will not put a couple forward for IVF unless there is a legitimate medical problem causing them to be unable to conceive, including unexplained infertility which still requires rounds of medical tests. Therefore your comment about couples using IVF like a petshop makes absolutely no sense!
Also about your earlier comment “do people who can not fund thier own treatment realise how much it money they will need to bring up a child” Yes I think everyone knows how much it costs to raise children but I am sure a lot of people including couples with good joint incomes who can afford to pay for day to day living would struggle to come up with £5-10,000 as a lump sum payment! So that argument also makes no sense.
Please think carefully before writing such insensitive comments about such an emotive subject. My husband and I both work and pay taxes and neither of us has ever claimed benefits however due to a few medical problems we are unable to get pregnant naturally. We will provide a loving, safe environment for our children when our time comes be it through IVF or adoption. The fact we have had to work so hard to have children will surely make us apreciate our children all the more and take the best possible care of them.
russm “Tax payers money should be saved for helping those with real illnesses”
I also need to take issue with your comments. Neither I nor my husband are overweight or smokers but we are unable to conceive natuarlly. A lot of the illnesses that are treated by states funding and therefore tax payers money are caused by people eating too much, not exercising enough and choosing to smoke. I would rather my taxes were spent on people who need treatment through no fault of their own than people with ‘real illnesses’ as you put it that are self inflicted.
Report abuse
Peter R, you should know in your political experience choosing when is the time to obtain an increase in ones Department funding is never the right time. I therefore question why you are undermining Deputy Hunter Adams in questioning why he raises the funding of IVF at this stage.
I admire Deputy Hunter Adams for his stance and I for one hope that he gets the funding for not one but two IVF treatments for those couples who so want a child of their own but require IVF. One IVF course of treatment can be successful and make an enormous amount of difference to the lives of couples.
Your dire stance on IVF summed up you’re out of touch relationship you had with those who support one course of IVF treatment being paid for by the State. Did you not say that couples who wanted IVF treatment should pay for their IVF by getting a loan and you have the nerve to undermine Deputy Hunter Adams at least he is listening and understands the personal and social issues which impact on couples who want a family but can not because of the cost implications.
It angers me that you continually sit in judgment of those in gov via your morel soap box (your self important appalling column in the Press) when in reality there are those in power who have their fingers on the pulse far more then you ever did during your time in power.
Emma, I notice you mention costs in seeing the likes of Mr Haskins and others at the MSG. I am surprised you put more of an emphasis on these initial costs then the cost of IVF treatment. There again if these initial costs and one course of IVF can be met by the state then this would release the stress factor and work towards a positive frame of mind that couples need in moving forwards with their IVF treatment.
May I just say that if it were not for Mr Haskins giving the support and advice with regards IVF my wife and I would not have the beautiful, loving and happy little 2yr old son we have. Mr Haskins is a credit to his profession and the MSG.
Report abuse
I have followed this discussion with some interest and suggest that the story in the following link is relevant to the debate.
http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/video/The-mircle-of-premature-baby.5885323.jp
When this little life is considered, surely we have got it wrong when we suggest that termination up to 28 weeks is perfectly OK? It cannot be right that a life is only a life once the child has breathed on its own can it?
Report abuse
Abortion is a subject which concerns people post conception whereas ivf concerns pre-conception. Would it not therefore be more fitting to be discussing what our policies are regarding sterilisation verses ivf. Last time I looked sterilisation wasn’t free either.
Is Hunter-Adam just ‘talking his own books’ being as that if ivf was state funded gynaecologists would receive more business.
Sterilisations not being funded seems strange to me in an over populated world. Further, I know of a case where a child was concieved after a couple had decided to postpone a sterilisation an the grounds of cost (£350 at the time). To date child allowance has amounted to approx. £6600
Report abuse
Nicola
re my ‘senseless comments.
Tell me, honestly, don’t you know at least one person who will go through hell and high water to get something they perceive as absolutely vital to their happiness only to lose interest when they achieve their goal?
Try searching ‘cost of bringing up a child’. The latest 2009 report quotes £193,000 from birth to leaving uni at 21. Another report estimates £18,000 for the first year. There are lower estimates and there are tax rebates and other help available but does ‘everybody’ really realise how much a child costs.
Please don’t take my comments as a personal attack. I really do wish you the best of luck in having a child.
Report abuse
Sheila
I think your last comment sums up how little you relate to the people suffering through infertility. I can assure you they do not see a child as “something” as you put it but rather a longed for member of their family. We are not talking about a possession here but a human being!
As for quoting the cost of a child, that is something that applies to every parent whether they are having the child through IVF or not. However as I said in my last post, I am sure peole going through IVF have though long and hard about the process before they embark on treatment as it is so physically and emotionally difficult, and in my experience of talking to couple going through IVF they have thought about and dreamed about bringing that child up and giving them the best possible life so I am sure they have appropriate funds to pay for the childs living costs etc. Perhaps you would be better quoting those figures to the Mums and Dads who dont work and expect the states benefits to pay for their rent, bills, shoppping etc.
Thank you for your best wishes.
Report abuse
Blah
Now you’re just being silly. If Sheila’s figures are correct then I don’t see why hard working tax payers, some of whom are struggling financially, should have to fork out for those single mothers who keep having kids just to top up their benefits so they don’t have to work.
There are, of course, some single mothers out there who manage to work and arrange appropriate childcare. Yes they must find it a struggle but they are doing things the right way. It’s a shame they are in the minority though.
Blah – you also don’t seem to realise that a large number of these single mothers can tell a very good sob story when they are in Social Security pleading for more taxpayers’ money. As soon as they get what they want they’re laughing all the way to the shops…..
Report abuse
To Pete Burtenshaw
Hi Pete
Believe me I would love to see the whole cost of the IVF treatment being covered by the states.Maybe I should have made that a little clearer in my initial comment. We have had 4 attempts at IVF with no luck. The way I was thinking really was on a compromise in case discussions went against the full funding of IVF, the payment of the Haskins bills and the blood tests could be a huge help to enable to budget our costs better as it is easy to forget that these costs are additional.Like a lot of people who have commented so far we have always worked and have always paid our social security therefore we feel we should be entitled to all Gsy doctors visits free of charge. I agree with you though that both Mr Haskins and his PA Jackie (she is a godsend)have been a great deal of support, and make what is a stressful time a little easier. It would just be good if that service was free and not an additional £500 odd each time.I am so pleased that you now have your son you are very lucky and it helps he know that all the trouble can be worth it in the end.
Report abuse
Nicola,
Please stop and think a minute. I’m trying to help you here. Let me spell it out.
1. The States are unlikely to fund IVF for everyone.
2. If a smaller number of people were eligible maybe treatment for some would be possible.
3. What criteria could be used to exclude some people?
I’ve admitted I haven’t come up with anything that could be fairly administered but maybe someone else could.
I said ‘something’ because I am trying to describe a general personality type. I don’t for a minute imagine that more than a tiny minority wanting a baby fit this profile but they do exist.
To you and Cheesed Off
Why are mums claiming benefit always under attack. To my mind the figures I quoted suggest they are receiving too little.
Report abuse
Sheila
I am merely stating a fact. There are too many single mothers taking advantage of our benefit system which was originally introduced to help those suffering genuine hardship.
Nowadays many of these women choose this path in life to avoid having to go our to work. Why should hard working tax payers be supporting these women to walk around Town during the day and go partying out in the Town at weekends?
There are many deserving people out there who long to start families and are far better deserving of support.
Report abuse
Sheila
I suppose you would think it fair for me to continue working more than one job and hand over ALL my hard earned wages to the single mothers???
Why do the likes of you think it’s OK for people to choose not to work?
I would rather have a choice where my money went and I would far prefer to assist somebody needing IVF than some youngster “needing” to have another baby to boost her income.
Report abuse
Cheesed off – you don’t get it do you? You make appalling, moralising, judgemental comments against single mothers claiming benefits. You do not attack single fathers on benefits. You do not attack the absent men who fathered the kids. You have not a shred of hard evidence proving any single mother has deliberately had one baby just to gain benefits, let alone has KEPT having kids just to top up their benefits. You cannot provide one shred of hard evidence to show single mothers have children because they do not want to work or to do a job on Social Security. Do you know what any benefit rate is for one dependant child? Single mothers have been scapegoated in this island, as they have been in the uk for at least 30 years, for just about every social problem known to man, including IVF funding problems – almost entirely without factual justification. You reflect a hateful attitude to these people who are one of the most powerless in our society and thus the easiset target for the moral lynch mob. Tax avoidance in the island by the rich probably costs you much more – ask those people for an IVF loan.
Report abuse
I at 17 had a abortion.I paid for it myself out of my savings-and it left me flat broke but it was something i had to do for me as it was my fault.If i had not had a abortion i would be a single mother in a states house claiming benafit and at the age of 17 i had not lived my life let alone paid any stamp et to justify taking anything out of the system.I now 14 years on am having to go for IVF i am also paying for that.I think if you cant afford a child you should not expect some one else to pay ie states or the public.Abortions should be funded IF the persons can not fund it them selves and can prove that they cant fund it- women who need IVF should get help to.We need to some how balance it out.
Report abuse
Blah
I think you’re the one who doesn’t get it. I have heard one of these single mothers with my own ears admitting that she asked the Social Security for a new buggy. She then sold this buggy for £50 as she didn’t need it at all and wanted the money for a night out. She was advising her single mother friend to pull the same stunt.
I am not saying that all single mothers avoid working, some do and I just don’t understand why so many are allowed to be supported by us hardworkers.
What about the cases we continually see in the Press of single mothers claiming benefits, paying a minimal rent of £25/week, less in some cases, and having the latest partner living with them? That’s fraud. Benefit fraud. All these poor dears get is community service and brag about getting away with it.
How about that woman (won’t name her) who now has 15 kids at the last count. Living on benefits by having more and more kids. That is irresponsible.
Report abuse
cheesed off i agree- i hear the same thing all the time, i also hear how women will churn out kids just so they can stay on benafit- it makes me laugh tho how they plead poverty yet a lot of them are out most nights can aford cars,new cloths every week trips away et et it makes you wander just where they get the money from. As for the girl with 15 kids I bet if she had to pay for them her self she would not have so many-We are the ones paying for them.now there is a thought if we are paying for all those kids dose that mean we can go pick one up when we are short of cash and take them down to the states and colect some money to treat us!
Report abuse
What the states could do is steralize all the women that have kids just for the sake of claiming benafit-that would then save a lot of money that could be used for women that need IVF et-…………Oh and for those who say well it is there right.NO it is not there right to keep having kids if they cant aford to pay for them .end of.
Report abuse
Coco
That’s exactly what I was trying to say. The system as it stands at the moment is far from fair.
It seems to be those in genuine need have to do without despite paying their stamp and therefore adding to the pot.
Those who are allowed (maybe encouraged is a better word) not to work get everything handed on a plate.
Coco is absolutely right, why keep having kids if you can’t afford to pay for them? I can’t believe that so many women out there have never heard of contraception…….
Report abuse
or what the states could say to these women…for the benafit of the doubt….we will help pay for child number 1 but for every child you churn out after that you my dears -YOU THE PARENTS THAT IS- have to pay for it yourselfs. The problem with the states is that they need to put there foot down but they wont.
They should put people like us on the states we would soon have this island running ship shape
Report abuse
Coco
Yes we would but sadly there are too many doo-gooders around who haven’t got a clue what’s going on in this island and what real life is all about. More people like us should be running things or at the very least dealing with the “sob stories” given to Social Security. We wouldn’t be a pushover.
Report abuse
To coco amd Cheesed off – one and one make a mob so easily it seems. getting pregnant for the majority of females is very easy – that’s the main driving purpose of our existence. sadly for a minority it is hard. it is NOT the fault of all the females who get pregnant that the minority cannot. the benefit paid to single mums is only a small percentage of tax payers’ money gained from all who pay. so why target them so disproportionately? believe me -the real reason the island is short of funds is because it is populated with many rich individuals and many rich companies who are excused fair tax levels and / or use the power of their wealth to employ countless accountants and tax specialsits to creep their way through the laws to avoid paying tax and social insurance contributions – just to become richer and greedier. they are invisible in faceless suits in and around the Truchot and st peters farmhouses, whereas the single mums with buggies in and around the Truchot have the full attention of your spotlight towers. ‘sterilisation’ is a typical, easy and unthinking response to complex individual situations – one step away from the victorian workhouse or mnaybe the Nazi final solution. after the single mum on benefeit, who next for your pitchfork? You condescendingly declare that there are some deserving single mums on benefits – so give me hard statistical evidence of the percentage that are deserving in your eyes and the percentage who are not? Go on. Do not give me heresay, gossip and tabloid rumour. I have witnessed how a simple fact has been purporsly poisoned to be spread among people who should know better, to suit their hypocritical, hysterical and vengeful mindset. why? search me. i seem to see mostly women with relativley comfortable, secure lives attacking their own powerless gender in this way. why? single mums on benefit have had sex and the had a baby. there are some people who have a big problem with that, maybe because it reminds them of issues in their own lives that they need to deal with.
Report abuse
Coco
Stand for election and see how popular you are. I’m sure you’d be surprised by the support you’d get.
Report abuse
Blah
I’ve not mentioned any single mothers on benefits who deserve to be.
And as for heresay, gossip and tabloid rumour – get a grip. I think you have got your facts wrong. Guernsey is not a so called “tax haven” for the rich, maybe once upon a time but not these days.
The subject of this forum is free abortions and either way those who do have sex and get pregnant should be more careful. One accident is a possibilty but you only have to look around and see just how many of these wonem have several children. That, as I have said is careless. The only issue I have is that there are too many people on this island who are screwing the benefit system and getting away with it.
Report abuse
Blah
It’s not just single mothers by the way but they are relevant to this topic.
Report abuse
blah-like i said i had a abortion at 17 and paid for it. Guess what i at 17 was living in a states house down the bouet with my mother who let me tell you was not claiming benafit she worked very hard and after 5 years of hard slug doing 3 jobs saved up a deposit and moved us into a private house.I first hand have witnessed what goes on with a lot of these so called churning out machines.(so they are not rumours) I have worked hard (have my own business) paid all my stamps ie TAX. and guess what i now own a farm house and have a accountant.Guess what i am not excused any tax. So dont you dare tell me i do not know what is going on.And let me tell you something just because i thrive on bettering my self that dose not make me a greedy person.
Report abuse
steve.. the only people i would not be popular with is the people that i would not let get away with fiddling the states.I presume your not one of them
Report abuse