And did you read the rest of my post (the bit you didn't highlight)? It is bloody difficult to adopt in this country and people who would make fantastic parents are refused for the most petty reasons. I've spoken to people who felt the social workers were looking for excuses to refuse them and were rude and sneering.
I actually know people who have had IVF AFTER trying to adopt because the adoption process and the way they were treated and spoken to made them feel like they were banging their heads against a brick wall.
If adoption was the easier answer, many more people would be doing it but the current situation is ridiculous.
Maybe if you'd seen the heartbreak of genuinely good people being torn apart by their experiences of trying to adopt, you would realise that just telling people to adopt rather than go through IVF is not that simple
Agree, well said.
Both processes are arguably out of our control but at least with the IVF I can blame my body and pull that apart. To be at the behest of a body of social workers terrifies me even more.
The solution is to be more flexible with adoption but children are not vegetables that you can do BOGOF's!
IVF should be completely banned until there are no children in care. If childless people are so selfish that they will only care about children if they are biologically connected to those children, the more difficult it is for them to have children the better.
Okay so how would you realistically reform the adoption process and what counselling to you recommend for me to overcome my selfishness? C'mon I'm fascinated that you appear to know me that well yet we've never met...:rolleyes:
IVF should be completely banned until there are no children in care. If childless people are so selfish that they will only care about children if they are biologically connected to those children, the more difficult it is for them to have children the better.
how would you realistically reform the adoption process
People who want to adopt should be CRB checked. If they have no convictions, they should be able to adopt. Their medical history should also be checked to ensure that there are no problems that would prevent them from being able to parent.
If councils refuse to let people who haven't committed a crime and have no medical problems that could prevent them from being able to parent adopt, the entire cost of IVF treatment for those who want it should be deducted from the wages of the members of staff in those councils who refused to let them adopt.
People who want to adopt should be CRB checked. If they have no convictions, they should be able to adopt. Their medical history should also be checked to ensure that there are no problems that would prevent them from being able to parent.
If councils refuse to let people who haven't committed a crime and have no medical problems that could prevent them from being able to parent adopt, the entire cost of IVF treatment for those who want it should be deducted from the wages of the members of staff in those councils who refused to let them adopt.
I am not aware of any social workers, councillors or managers who have had a significant amount of their wages deducted to pay for people they wouldn't let adopt to have IVF.
I am not aware of any social workers, councillors or managers who have had a significant amount of their wages deducted to pay for people they wouldn't let adopt to have IVF.
I bolded the first part of your post, that's what i was referring to.
People who want to adopt should be CRB checked. If they have no convictions, they should be able to adopt. Their medical history should also be checked to ensure that there are no problems that would prevent them from being able to parent.
If councils refuse to let people who haven't committed a crime and have no medical problems that could prevent them from being able to parent adopt, the entire cost of IVF treatment for those who want it should be deducted from the wages of the members of staff in those councils who refused to let them adopt.
But back in the real world, couples are being turned down for being overweight (even being a stone too heavy can be enough), smoking, being over 40, having too nice a lifestyle (apparently, being middle class gives the children false aspirations) and a whole host of other ridiculous reasons. Because obviously no biological parents are any of these things. :rolleyes: I know of somebody who was refused for having too many bathrooms which, according to social services increased the risk of the child drowning. Also, any child with mixed heritage will only be placed with a couple of the same ethnic mix. So a mixed race Nigerian and Lithuanian child (for example) would have very little chace of ever finding a perfect match.
These are the barriers that are put up to stop people adopting in the UK. So how can people who are refused the chance to adopt under these rules be
so selfish that they will only care about children if they are biologically connected to those children, the more difficult it is for them to have children the better.
But back in the real world, couples are being turned down for being overweight (even being a stone too heavy can be enough), smoking, being over 40, having too nice a lifestyle (apparently, being middle class gives the children false aspirations) and a whole host of other ridiculous reasons. Because obviously no biological parents are any of these things. :rolleyes: I know of somebody who was refused for having too many bathrooms which, according to social services increased the risk of the child drowning. Also, any child with mixed heritage will only be placed with a couple of the same ethnic mix. So a mixed race Nigerian and Lithuanian child (for example) would have very little chace of ever finding a perfect match.
These are the barriers that are put up to stop people adopting in the UK. So how can people who are refused the chance to adopt under these rules be
I don't believe those barriers would exist if the people who use those reasons to justify not letting people adopt had the entire cost of IVF treatment for the people they refused deducted from their wages. IVF treatment is not cheap, and having to fund it from their personal wages would be an unattractive consequence, which would ensure that the decision makers did not deny people the opportunity to adopt for the reasons stated in your post.
If that was the prevaling attitude, only those who were rich and didn't rely on the state for any help at all would be allowed to have children. The right to have children shouldn't be determined by wealth.
I am not aware of any social workers, councillors or managers who have had a significant amount of their wages deducted to pay for people they wouldn't let adopt to have IVF.
If you docked people's wages for 'refusing to allow people to adopt', surely you would create a situation where they could not make a rational decision as they would not want to lose money, consequently placing vulnerable children with unsuitable parents
I don't believe those barriers would exist if the people who use those reasons to justify not letting people adopt had the entire cost of IVF treatment for the people they refused deducted from their wages. IVF treatment is not cheap, and having to fund it from their personal wages would be an unattractive consequence, which would ensure that the decision makers did not deny people the opportunity to adopt for the reasons stated in your post.
If that was the prevaling attitude, only those who were rich and didn't rely on the state for any help at all would be allowed to have children. The right to have children shouldn't be determined by wealth.
If you docked people's wages for 'refusing to allow people to adopt', surely you would create a situation where they could not make a rational decision as they would not want to lose money, consequently placing vulnerable children with unsuitable parents
No, because people who want to adopt would be CRB checked and drug tested, and their medical history could be taken into consideration.
Yes it is. There are some people who shouldn't be able to have children, such as people who have committed child abuse or sexual abuse, but under current laws, everybody can have children. Baby P's mum will be able to have more children when she gets out of prison. Karen Matthews will be able to have more children when she gets out of jail. You may not agree with them being able to have children, but they do have the right to have children.
Of course I sympathise with couples who are desperate for a child (and I understand that there's often a drive for a child that's biologically 'theirs', and that adoption is not always suitable), but I don't think the NHS should be funding IVF, especially considering the relatively low success rate.
No, because people who want to adopt would be CRB checked and drug tested, and their medical history could be taken into consideration.
Yes it is. There are some people who shouldn't be able to have children, such as people who have committed child abuse or sexual abuse, but under current laws, everybody can have children. Baby P's mum will be able to have more children when she gets out of prison. Karen Matthews will be able to have more children when she gets out of jail. You may not agree with them being able to have children, but they do have the right to have children.
I think you are confusing thier ability to havechildren with their right.
It is unlikely that either women would be left in sole charge of any child in the future.
And did you read the rest of my post (the bit you didn't highlight)? It is bloody difficult to adopt in this country and people who would make fantastic parents are refused for the most petty reasons. I've spoken to people who felt the social workers were looking for excuses to refuse them and were rude and sneering.
I actually know people who have had IVF AFTER trying to adopt because the adoption process and the way they were treated and spoken to made them feel like they were banging their heads against a brick wall.
If adoption was the easier answer, many more people would be doing it but the current situation is ridiculous.
Maybe if you'd seen the heartbreak of genuinely good people being torn apart by their experiences of trying to adopt, you would realise that just telling people to adopt rather than go through IVF is not that simple
I appreciate that it is hard to adopt but obviously when the idea i suggested is set up the whole procedure for adoption would get an overhaul anyway.
I also appreciate that some social workers are completely OTT in their actions. Unfortunately it's the world we live in now. I think many are scared to make any mistakes because it can get blown up into something more than it actually is.
Many people in the various social services and emergency services are no longer allowed to be human and error occasionally.
As no doubt you would have noticed, when something goes wrong like the Baby P case or Damiola Taylor it's not just one error. There is an whole catalogue of errors often from many departments. You do wonder if it's an whole collection of people realising something isn't right and they are desperately either trying to shift the problem/blame in another direction or an collection of people desperately trying to cover up each others mistakes and forgetting to actually step in and do something practical to sort out the issue itself.
I'm quite happy for the money I've paid in to the system to fund IVF treatment.
I'd rather the government regulated the amount that drug companies can charge, makes more sense to me than penalising some childless couple for having a medical condition they can do eff all about.
Plenty of Catholic priests would have passed that limited scrutiny :rolleyes:
They would have passed through what ever criteria they had to go through. Children are in need of care. It should not be so difficult for people to care for them.
If it was made as easy as it should be, there would be no need for IVF.
Of course I sympathise with couples who are desperate for a child (and I understand that there's often a drive for a child that's biologically 'theirs', and that adoption is not always suitable), but I don't think the NHS should be funding IVF, especially considering the relatively low success rate.
What is this drive or need for a child that is biologically "theirs"? Not saying that it is wrong, just don't understand it
Here is a perspective from a couple who have been down all routes and been through IVF.
We tried for many years to have children, but it never happened naturally. We looked into adoption, but the process was so difficult and so many barriers were put up. They can be very condescending, and we were told we would struggle to adopt as my wife was overweight.
We tried for IVF on the NHS but the process is so difficult, it's simply not a case of "Can I have a baby please", "Yes here's some IVF". The process consisted of 8 years of moving goalposts, being transferred from pillar to post, every possible obstacle put up in our way. One consultant said it would be risky to offer us IVF due to my wife's weight, but 2 days later we went to an open evening at a private clinic, and the same consultant just happened to be working there as well. Naturally his response then was that there would not be any problem or risk with us having IVF if we went privately. Eventually we thought we were getting somewhere, only to be told we couldn't because of our postcode.
You only get 1 attempt at IVF in the UK, and if the dates when you have to have the procedures done don't suit (eg Bank Holiday or Sunday), they scrap that attempt. They have a "1 size fits all" approach to the drugs as well, rather than tailoring your requirements. Everybody gets the same, which isn't necessarily appropriate for everyone.
We decided to try for IVF privately in Norway, which is half the cost of the UK with the success rate double the UK's average. At our consultation, we were told exactly what the problems were, within half an hour we had more information than 8 years of NHS consultations had taught us. We now knew exactly what the problems were, and that they would be able to help.
Thankfully, and very fortunately, we were successful first time. When we returned home and tested a few weeks later, an NHS doctor told us my wife was not pregnant and the IVF had not worked. 9 months later, we were very happy to prove them wrong.
We now have a gorgeous 7 month old little boy.
We are not rich in any way, shape or form, we just happened to want a baby so much that we would do anything to achieve it. £1700 was a very small price to pay. We also feel that the NHS failed us in the whole fertility process, it really is not something that is handled very well.
Should the NHS fund IVF? That depends. In Norway, IVF is funded by their health system with few barriers placed (only restrictions are if you have HIV or are homosexual you cannot have IVF by law). Because of that, it forces them to raise their standards and lower their prices for those wanting to go private. Would that happen in the UK? Probably not, at least they way fertility on the NHS is handled at the moment.
Here is a perspective from a couple who have been down all routes and been through IVF.
We tried for many years to have children, but it never happened naturally. We looked into adoption, but the process was so difficult and so many barriers were put up. They can be very condescending, and we were told we would struggle to adopt as my wife was overweight.
We tried for IVF on the NHS but the process is so difficult, it's simply not a case of "Can I have a baby please", "Yes here's some IVF". The process consisted of 8 years of moving goalposts, being transferred from pillar to post, every possible obstacle put up in our way. One consultant said it would be risky to offer us IVF due to my wife's weight, but 2 days later we went to an open evening at a private clinic, and the same consultant just happened to be working there as well. Naturally his response then was that there would not be any problem or risk with us having IVF if we went privately. Eventually we thought we were getting somewhere, only to be told we couldn't because of our postcode.
You only get 1 attempt at IVF in the UK, and if the dates when you have to have the procedures done don't suit (eg Bank Holiday or Sunday), they scrap that attempt. They have a "1 size fits all" approach to the drugs as well, rather than tailoring your requirements. Everybody gets the same, which isn't necessarily appropriate for everyone.
We decided to try for IVF privately in Norway, which is half the cost of the UK with the success rate double the UK's average. At our consultation, we were told exactly what the problems were, within half an hour we had more information than 8 years of NHS consultations had taught us. We now knew exactly what the problems were, and that they would be able to help.
Thankfully, and very fortunately, we were successful first time. When we returned home and tested a few weeks later, an NHS doctor told us my wife was not pregnant and the IVF had not worked. 9 months later, we were very happy to prove them wrong.
We now have a gorgeous 7 month old little boy.
We are not rich in any way, shape or form, we just happened to want a baby so much that we would do anything to achieve it. £1700 was a very small price to pay. We also feel that the NHS failed us in the whole fertility process, it really is not something that is handled very well.
Should the NHS fund IVF? That depends. In Norway, IVF is funded by their health system with few barriers placed (only restrictions are if you have HIV or are homosexual you cannot have IVF by law). Because of that, it forces them to raise their standards and lower their prices for those wanting to go private. Would that happen in the UK? Probably not, at least they way fertility on the NHS is handled at the moment.
Yet again, no ever died from not having a kid, it is a want not a need. The state should not pay for people to have a child.
IVF should be completely banned until there are no children in care. If childless people are so selfish that they will only care about children if they are biologically connected to those children, the more difficult it is for them to have children the better.
Surely by your logic, no-one should have children, until all children in care are cared for.
Surely is equally selfish to have a children natually, as having medical help whilst children are in care?
Why would the those suffering with infertility be automactially the ideal parents for children in care.
Children in care, have additional needs, and should be cared for by the most suitable enviroment. This maybe an infertilie couple, it maybe a very expereinced parents. The needs of the child should be the priority not the parents.
Yet again, no ever died from not having a kid, it is a want not a need.
Actually I would beg to differ. I have witnessed the effects of depression on those close to me, and have seen first hand how being unable to have children can cause it.
I would say this depression from being unable to have children can have a pretty close link to going the step further and ending it all. Thankfully, I have not witnessed this for anyone close to me, but it can and does happen.
Actually I would beg to differ. I have witnessed the effects of depression on those close to me, and have seen first hand how being unable to have children can cause it.
I would say this depression from being unable to have children can have a pretty close link to going the step further and ending it all. Thankfully, I have not witnessed this for anyone close to me, but it can and does happen.
Comments
Agree, well said.
Both processes are arguably out of our control but at least with the IVF I can blame my body and pull that apart. To be at the behest of a body of social workers terrifies me even more.
The solution is to be more flexible with adoption but children are not vegetables that you can do BOGOF's!
Okay so how would you realistically reform the adoption process and what counselling to you recommend for me to overcome my selfishness? C'mon I'm fascinated that you appear to know me that well yet we've never met...:rolleyes:
Who are you God?
Wow:eek:
Sit on the fence why don't you.:rolleyes:
People who want to adopt should be CRB checked. If they have no convictions, they should be able to adopt. Their medical history should also be checked to ensure that there are no problems that would prevent them from being able to parent.
If councils refuse to let people who haven't committed a crime and have no medical problems that could prevent them from being able to parent adopt, the entire cost of IVF treatment for those who want it should be deducted from the wages of the members of staff in those councils who refused to let them adopt.
Isn't that all done now anyway?
I am not aware of any social workers, councillors or managers who have had a significant amount of their wages deducted to pay for people they wouldn't let adopt to have IVF.
I bolded the first part of your post, that's what i was referring to.
But back in the real world, couples are being turned down for being overweight (even being a stone too heavy can be enough), smoking, being over 40, having too nice a lifestyle (apparently, being middle class gives the children false aspirations) and a whole host of other ridiculous reasons. Because obviously no biological parents are any of these things. :rolleyes: I know of somebody who was refused for having too many bathrooms which, according to social services increased the risk of the child drowning. Also, any child with mixed heritage will only be placed with a couple of the same ethnic mix. So a mixed race Nigerian and Lithuanian child (for example) would have very little chace of ever finding a perfect match.
These are the barriers that are put up to stop people adopting in the UK. So how can people who are refused the chance to adopt under these rules be
No-one needs to have children.
I don't believe those barriers would exist if the people who use those reasons to justify not letting people adopt had the entire cost of IVF treatment for the people they refused deducted from their wages. IVF treatment is not cheap, and having to fund it from their personal wages would be an unattractive consequence, which would ensure that the decision makers did not deny people the opportunity to adopt for the reasons stated in your post.
If that was the prevaling attitude, only those who were rich and didn't rely on the state for any help at all would be allowed to have children. The right to have children shouldn't be determined by wealth.
If you docked people's wages for 'refusing to allow people to adopt', surely you would create a situation where they could not make a rational decision as they would not want to lose money, consequently placing vulnerable children with unsuitable parents
Having children is not a right.
No, because people who want to adopt would be CRB checked and drug tested, and their medical history could be taken into consideration.
Yes it is. There are some people who shouldn't be able to have children, such as people who have committed child abuse or sexual abuse, but under current laws, everybody can have children. Baby P's mum will be able to have more children when she gets out of prison. Karen Matthews will be able to have more children when she gets out of jail. You may not agree with them being able to have children, but they do have the right to have children.
Plenty of Catholic priests would have passed that limited scrutiny :rolleyes:
I agree, somewhat reluctantly.
Of course I sympathise with couples who are desperate for a child (and I understand that there's often a drive for a child that's biologically 'theirs', and that adoption is not always suitable), but I don't think the NHS should be funding IVF, especially considering the relatively low success rate.
I think you are confusing thier ability to havechildren with their right.
It is unlikely that either women would be left in sole charge of any child in the future.
I appreciate that it is hard to adopt but obviously when the idea i suggested is set up the whole procedure for adoption would get an overhaul anyway.
I also appreciate that some social workers are completely OTT in their actions. Unfortunately it's the world we live in now. I think many are scared to make any mistakes because it can get blown up into something more than it actually is.
Many people in the various social services and emergency services are no longer allowed to be human and error occasionally.
As no doubt you would have noticed, when something goes wrong like the Baby P case or Damiola Taylor it's not just one error. There is an whole catalogue of errors often from many departments. You do wonder if it's an whole collection of people realising something isn't right and they are desperately either trying to shift the problem/blame in another direction or an collection of people desperately trying to cover up each others mistakes and forgetting to actually step in and do something practical to sort out the issue itself.
I'd rather the government regulated the amount that drug companies can charge, makes more sense to me than penalising some childless couple for having a medical condition they can do eff all about.
They would have passed through what ever criteria they had to go through. Children are in need of care. It should not be so difficult for people to care for them.
If it was made as easy as it should be, there would be no need for IVF.
What is this drive or need for a child that is biologically "theirs"? Not saying that it is wrong, just don't understand it
We tried for many years to have children, but it never happened naturally. We looked into adoption, but the process was so difficult and so many barriers were put up. They can be very condescending, and we were told we would struggle to adopt as my wife was overweight.
We tried for IVF on the NHS but the process is so difficult, it's simply not a case of "Can I have a baby please", "Yes here's some IVF". The process consisted of 8 years of moving goalposts, being transferred from pillar to post, every possible obstacle put up in our way. One consultant said it would be risky to offer us IVF due to my wife's weight, but 2 days later we went to an open evening at a private clinic, and the same consultant just happened to be working there as well. Naturally his response then was that there would not be any problem or risk with us having IVF if we went privately. Eventually we thought we were getting somewhere, only to be told we couldn't because of our postcode.
You only get 1 attempt at IVF in the UK, and if the dates when you have to have the procedures done don't suit (eg Bank Holiday or Sunday), they scrap that attempt. They have a "1 size fits all" approach to the drugs as well, rather than tailoring your requirements. Everybody gets the same, which isn't necessarily appropriate for everyone.
We decided to try for IVF privately in Norway, which is half the cost of the UK with the success rate double the UK's average. At our consultation, we were told exactly what the problems were, within half an hour we had more information than 8 years of NHS consultations had taught us. We now knew exactly what the problems were, and that they would be able to help.
Thankfully, and very fortunately, we were successful first time. When we returned home and tested a few weeks later, an NHS doctor told us my wife was not pregnant and the IVF had not worked. 9 months later, we were very happy to prove them wrong.
We now have a gorgeous 7 month old little boy.
We are not rich in any way, shape or form, we just happened to want a baby so much that we would do anything to achieve it. £1700 was a very small price to pay. We also feel that the NHS failed us in the whole fertility process, it really is not something that is handled very well.
Should the NHS fund IVF? That depends. In Norway, IVF is funded by their health system with few barriers placed (only restrictions are if you have HIV or are homosexual you cannot have IVF by law). Because of that, it forces them to raise their standards and lower their prices for those wanting to go private. Would that happen in the UK? Probably not, at least they way fertility on the NHS is handled at the moment.
Yet again, no ever died from not having a kid, it is a want not a need. The state should not pay for people to have a child.
Surely by your logic, no-one should have children, until all children in care are cared for.
Surely is equally selfish to have a children natually, as having medical help whilst children are in care?
Why would the those suffering with infertility be automactially the ideal parents for children in care.
Children in care, have additional needs, and should be cared for by the most suitable enviroment. This maybe an infertilie couple, it maybe a very expereinced parents. The needs of the child should be the priority not the parents.
Actually I would beg to differ. I have witnessed the effects of depression on those close to me, and have seen first hand how being unable to have children can cause it.
I would say this depression from being unable to have children can have a pretty close link to going the step further and ending it all. Thankfully, I have not witnessed this for anyone close to me, but it can and does happen.
Articles here and here just to get you started.
Once again, I am unsure about it being offered on the NHS. I just wanted to try to clear up some of the common misconceptions.
Actually dying from something is a lot different to killing yourself because you are unable to accept the hand you have been dealt.