The first tentative legal steps towards opening up fertility treatments such as IVF to a broader scope of the population are underway in Australia. With the endorsement of the ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) bill in early October 2008, treatment will be made available to not only infertile couples but will be accessible to lesbians and single mothers as well.

It was an emotive topic by the sounds of it where legislators were allowed to vote with their conscience.  You can read about it all here.

Interestingly, the article states too ” the laws - which were subject to a conscience vote - would also remove the infertility requirement placed on a surrogate mother seeking treatment on behalf of a commissioning parent.”

I take that to mean that if a couple wanted to use IVF to boost their chances of the surrogate getting pregnant, then they could get the surrogate treatment, even if she has no previous record of fertility problems.

I can't make up my mind how I feel about that. On the one hand, it might be a complete waste of money as she may well have got pregnant anyway. On the other, the conception could maybe be faster. Perhaps a parent would rather try themselves with IVF again than do that unless it had been ruled out as an option. I think it would be terribly hard to make a decision on that.

What happens though if the surrogate were for example to have triplets or quintuplets? I don't know much about how surrogacy works, so maybe that's already discussed prior to the arrangement being made.

Any thoughts on this bill?

oh wow!  very close vote, isn't it?

I don't know about the IVF for surrogate mothers, either Kay.  I worry about messing with nature as it is, but forcing IVF on a woman (or a woman choosing it anyway) who may not have any difficulties getting pregnant seems risky to me.  kind of like treating a disease you don't have … sometimes it causes more damage than good.

Well, I'm a great believer in the freedom of the individual. If I want to be free to live my life as I choose and that doesn't involve commit terrible crimes like murdering anyone, then I have to give others that same right. Each can choose whatever partner, church or belief system they want or none at all and so can I. Fair's fair.

Diane, you put into words there what I was feeling - that it's like treating a condition you don't have any need to. Who knows what the consequences of that would be? Perhaps they looked into it as part of setting down the legislation but if so I've never heard any mention of possible repercussions.

Well, I'm a great believer in the freedom of the individual. If I want to be free to live my life as I choose and that doesn't involve commit terrible crimes like murdering anyone, then I have to give others that same right. Each can choose whatever partner, church or belief system they want or none at all and so can I. Fair's fair.

I feel the same way.  I believe that people should be free to live their lives in a way that suits them. I am friends with a gay couple and they are amazing moms!  I adore them and so do my kids.

Diane, you put into words there what I was feeling - that it's like treating a condition you don't have any need to. Who knows what the consequences of that would be? Perhaps they looked into it as part of setting down the legislation but if so I've never heard any mention of possible repercussions.

I am curious, I have never heard of repercussions either, but I am wondering how many people have tried IVF without having tried to get pregnant naturally.  Although, I guess gay couples wishing to experience child birth would fit this scenario, wouldn't they?  things that make you go hmmmm ….

I don't remember either, but like you I try hard not to assist those mags in their success!  lol  I know that she had adopted in the beginning, right?  I figured it was because of her lifestyle, but maybe it was fertility related …

I think we can add the yams and orange juice to the superstitions thread, huh?  lol