The BBC's Breakfast show was buzzing with discussion about the results of a survey of fertility specialists which shows that, while 72% think IVF should be offered on the NHS more widely than it is, 47% of those questioned think lifestyle should restrict access. In other words, smokers and fatsos don't get to have help having children. At the moment, many doctors offer lifestyle change advice (as, I think, they should to any prospective parents) but access is not denied on the basis of bad habits.
There's a practical point behind the discrimination - the treatment is hideously expensive and possibly less likely to take if you are physically unfit. But all this does is create a discussion on the cusp of the dilemma because we're all too emotionally involved with the idea of having children to face the truth.
If you are to make judgments on lifestyle to decide who's allowed help to have a baby, it stands to reason you should make them about those who don't need help to conceive - after all, disabled children of mothers who drank, smoked and took drugs throughout pregnancy cost too, right? And studies have shown that fat parents raise fat children who drain the NHS of resources to treat their diabetes / heart disease and so on - tut tut. But we simply can't go down that route of discussion because that way madness, erosion of civil liberties and possibly compulsory sterilisation lies.
So instead we have to turn to the root of why we offer IVF at all: because we think having children is a right. It's not. For some people it's a privilege, for others their worst nightmare. What it isn't is something we have some innate ethical right to do - our bodies (this includes men) work or they don't. We fix other health problems because we argue that it'll keep us alive or make a substantial difference to our quality of life. But the fact is that there are enough children needing good homes that we don't need to fix our reproductive bits to indulge in our desire to have a child.
Furthermore, IVF is mainly the preserve of the spoiled, developed countries - you know, the ones who are spawning consumers who are destroying the planet.
Bear with me. I know I sound a tad fascist, but I'm coming to a point here.
My point is this: if we are to start regulating who's allowed to have the right to try and give birth (whether for ethical or financial reasons), we have to discuss why we think it's appropriate to help them at all.
Personally, I really want children, and should I discover I can't conceive naturally I will do everything within my power to have my own, because my genetic / societal imperative and personal choices have led me to this point. I totally and utterly understand how overwhelmingly devasting it must be to a woman to think she might never carry a child of her own. I'm all for IVF treatment being opened up to those who feel they need it.
But all of my views are personal, selfish and emotional. Yes, I'm very glad the UK government is not a body of relentlessly rational beings who will take that choice away from otherwise apparently infertile women. If we argue that IVF ought to be regulated according to lifestyle, however, we might as well argue that it ought to be taken away altogether. It's not vital, it's not necessary, it's a drain on resources and it helps damage the environment even further. I think our sense of humanity demands that it stays in spite of all these things, and sweating the small stuff is deeply unnecessary and only serves to scaremonger.
Alexandra Roumbas is a writer and editor living in London. A version of this post also appears on her personal blog.
[Image Source]