Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Lesbian couple win legal battle to get fertility treatment on the NHS

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 February 2009
A LESBIAN couple yesterday won their battle for free fertility treatment on the NHS from their local health authority.
In what is believed to be the first case of its kind in Scotland, Caroline Harris and Julie McMullan said they had suffered discrimination because of their sexuality and wanted £20,000 in damages.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC) initially refu
sed to offer them help at a specialised conception service as they were not classified as an infertile couple.

The board at first stood by its refusal – but yesterday performed a U-turn and the couple will now be offered the treatment at an assisted conception unit.

A judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh was told the couple had run out of funds after spending more than £11,000 on private treatment, but the health board would not add them to its waiting list.

The board insisted its decision had nothing to do with sexual orientation, but that Ms Harris and Ms McMullan simply had not met the necessary criteria of being "an infertile couple". It added that more than 700 couples were on the list.

An NHS GGC spokeswoman said yesterday "treatment acceptance criteria" had at first been applied to the couple as they would have been to any other.

She said: "As a couple, these two individuals are biologically incapable of conceiving and the board, therefore, initially took the view that the couple did not meet the necessary criteria to receive NHS-funded treatment.

"The board has, however, reconsidered its position in light of other regulations, including the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 2008 and Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) regulations 2007, and has now decided to offer treatment to this couple."

The couple, of Maryhill, Glasgow, said in their petition to the court they had been in a relationship for seven years and approached their doctor in January 2007 to find out about assisted conception services that would allow them to have a child.

The doctor said they would have to pay privately and they were referred to the Nuffield Hospital, Glasgow. Ms Harris underwent six unsuccessful treatments of intrauterine insemination (IUI).

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) was then tried, but Ms Harris miscarried on implantation.

The couple had spent more than £11,000 and could not afford further treatment, and asked their doctor again about being treated on the NHS.

The doctor contacted the assisted conception unit of the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Board, but was told Ms Harris and Ms McMullan did not meet IVF criteria, the petition said.

The consultant's letter had stated: "As they are a same-sex couple, they would not be eligible for NHS-funded treatment."

Under a freedom of information request, Ms Harris and Ms McMullan obtained a copy of the treatment acceptance criteria, which nowhere specified that only an opposite-sex couple could obtain assisted conception services on the NHS.

The petition said: "In October 2008, the Equality and Human Rights Commission wrote to the board inquiring why assistance had been refused."

The document added: "The statement in the letter from the consultant that Ms Harris and Ms McMullan, as a same-sex couple, would not be eligible for NHS-funded treatment constitutes an unlawful act of direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation."

Lawyers for Ms Harris and Ms McMullan further contended that the refusal breached their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Board said it provided IVF services free to couples who were infertile, and for a charge to all other persons.

Infertility could have a medical cause or be unexplained. The board had been advised that both Ms Harris and Ms McMullan could feasibly conceive.

"The decision to refuse NHS-funded services was not made on grounds of sexual orientation.

"The definition of infertility does not proceed on (those] grounds," said the board.

HOW IT WORKS

THE Scottish Government's health department published a report on infertility services in 2002 and recommended conditions for health boards to provide free treatment.

The clinical criterion was that a couple in a stable relationship of more than two years' standing must be infertile, with a diagnosed medical cause of any duration, or have unexplained infertility.

Unexplained infertility is: "Failure to conceive after two years during which there has been sexual intercourse and no use of contraception."

Each cycle of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) costs £3,300. The health board in yesterday's case, Glasgow and Clyde, has 460 infertile couples from its area waiting for an appointment and about 250 couples from other areas.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 February 2009 12:50 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

27/02/2009 10:30:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

hubris,

27/02/2009 10:36:47
I am surely dreaming

This cannot be real
3

yockel,

27/02/2009 10:38:32
Good news, but remind me. Why do I have to pay for it?
4

Zugspitze,

27/02/2009 10:46:34
"The clinical criterion was that a couple in a stable relationship of more than two years' standing must be infertile, with a diagnosed medical cause of any duration, or have unexplained infertility."

Unexplained infertility is: "Failure to conceive after two years during which there has been sexual intercourse and no use of contraception."

They do not meet the criteria. It's that simple! They have not been having sexual intercourse that could lead to a natural pregnancy and therefore they are possibly NOT infertile. The fact that ONE of them has tried "alternate methods" simply means that like many IVF attempts, they are as last ditch effort and not foolproof, not that either of them are incapable of getting pregnant.
Stop being so selfish and consider the hundreds of other desperate couples who have TRIED and TRIED the normal method, don't have £11,000 pounds to use for artifical insemination and aren't using IVF simply because they find the usual way of getting pregnant distasteful.
5

It's Leith for me!,

27/02/2009 11:05:04
I have no problem with a lesbian couple getting fertility treatment if other couples can (though as the world is massively over populated I find the whole IVF thing a bad a idea), but 11k already spent by them - couldn't they just buy a turkey baster?
6

,

27/02/2009 11:22:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

,

27/02/2009 11:25:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Tartan Viking,

27/02/2009 11:26:07
Can't use the word sp*rm (where * = e).

Unbelievable!!
9

,

27/02/2009 11:30:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

wee_one,

27/02/2009 11:55:11
#5 - I don't think IVF is to blame for the world being massively overpopulated. People who undergo IVF are desperate for a child, therefore that child will be loved, cherished and cared for. Perhaps if we are worried about overpopulation, we should concentrate our efforts on stopping teenagers/drug addicts/alcoholics from reproducing until they are capable of looking after their children properly.

I also have to laugh at people talking about homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice". If it were a lifestyle choice, please tell me who would actually choose it? I certainly wouldn't, not when there are clearly still so many people around intent on treating homosexuals as second class citizens.

And no, I'm not homosexual, and I don't agree with fertility treatment for lesbians on the NHS - I just take issue with some of the ridiculous comments on here!
11

,

27/02/2009 11:58:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 27/02/2009 11:59:51
I don't think IVF should be available on the NHS for anyone at all, irrespective of sexuality or marital/relationship status. Infertility isn't an illness and I don't see what the NHS has to do with it.
13

wee_one,

27/02/2009 12:06:19
#12

So infertility is not an illness?

Tell that to someone who has suffered the psychological distress of not being able to get pregnant. It can cause depression, anxiety, obsessive behaviour and relationship problems. I read one study that suggested that the psychological impact of infertility on a woman can be as bad as the psychological impact of a diagnosis of cancer. But then who cares about mental heath, eh?
14

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 27/02/2009 12:13:36
#12, of course it isn't an illness. As such, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the NHS. Not being able to get pregnant may be disappointing to someone who wants a child, but to call it an illness is just silly.
15

wee_one,

27/02/2009 12:25:03
#14

Disappointing??? I can safely assume you are not infertile. Disappointing does not even begin to cover it. It might not be an illness in itself, but it can cause severe mental distress. Stress and anxiety can also have an adverse effect on physical health.

I am about to start fertility treatment privately as I am lucky enough to be able to afford it. I can't begin to imagine how I would feel if I could not afford it and had to wait 2 more years for NHS treatment.
16

Number 6,

Germany 27/02/2009 12:37:55
#15 Wee one, why not just adopt. There are more than enough "off the shelf kids" available, all desperate for a loving home.

You would save a fortune, money you could lavish on your new child, and no stretch marks to boot.
17

Calum Crubag,

27/02/2009 12:38:45
#1 why?

If nature has decreed that a heterosexual couple are infertile and cannot 'naturally' conceive then why should they get treatment. Why should anyone have a 'right' to have children? Some can, some cannot.

The rules should be the same for everyone who can't conceive, no matter why.

As to 'natural'. Do we want to get to the same religious based arguments on sexuality? I'd say that almost everyone has used their sexual organs at one time or another for somethine other than reproduction. Usually it's for pleasure. So what?
18

Sgian Dubh,

27/02/2009 12:39:17
Under no circumstances should IVF treatment be given to ANYONE on the NHS.
19

Calum Crubag,

27/02/2009 12:42:25
#12 - agree. Humans are too greedy and selfish when it comes to what they WANT. If they WANT a child, it's for their own selfish reasons and not for the child who has yet to born or conceived.

We don't all have the 'right to breed'. Lots of humans and other animals are infertile too. It's part of nature. I can't sing or dance very well. Some people can't swim or do maths. None of us can fly naturally. Is it a right that others should pay for?
20

wee_one,

27/02/2009 12:42:50
#16 - I would adopt in a second if it were up to me. My husband, on the other hand, will only agree to adopt once we have tried everything we can to have our own child. It's easy for him as he doesn't have to go through all the IVF drugs (not to mention the pregnancy itself!) I think it's a male ego thing, about passing on the genes etc, but unfortunately in a marriage you need to compromise!

Also, from what I can gather, the adoption process isn't easy and you can be rejected for the most silly reasons.
21

Zugspitze,

27/02/2009 12:50:29
#17

The point is that the NHS provides treatment for those who CANNOT concieve naturally. That means the sp-rm meets the egg inside a womans body.
If a heterosexual couple refused to try to concieve naturally and went in demanding IVF THEY should be told no as well.
It is there for infertile couples, not those who won't try at all. It really is that simple, no need to bring religion, politics or any other nonsesne into it. There is NO proof that these women are infertile other than through choice and that is not a sufficient reason to pay for treatments for them.
22

wee_one,

#19 27/02/2009 12:51:11
#19

I cannot even begin to describe how much I disagree with you. The female desire to nurture is not about selfishness, nor is it a question of "wanting" something. Reproducing and raising children is a basic biological instinct. If someone cannot do this because they or their partner are infertile, this can cause severe depression, feelings of worthlessness, anguish, bitterness, hopelessness... need I go on?

I may be paying for my treatment privately because I am not willing to wait 2 years on a NHS wating list. However I am sticking up for those who are not as lucky as me and cannot afford private treatment.

As I have explained above, I would adopt in a second if my husband felt the same way. Perhaps my husband is being slightly selfish, but compromise is the only way to make a relationship work! He will not consider adoption unless we have given it our best shot at having a biological child.
23

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 27/02/2009 13:15:16
I believe that your sexuality is your own business, with rights comes responsibilities, these two ladies might not like to read this.

When you accept that you are gay you must also accept that mother nature has chosen you not to reproduce as you are not attracted to the opposite sex biologically.

They are being selfish, a very human trait, but selfish none the less.
24

,

27/02/2009 13:29:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

Number 6,

Germany 27/02/2009 13:36:40
#22 Wee one , that's some comprimise you are making.
Tell him youv'e taken your best shot last time you
tried to concieve.
26

Number 6,

Germany 27/02/2009 13:37:54
24# Tormod,

Simple yet brilliant point !
27

Number 6,

Germany 27/02/2009 13:40:17
Do those who approve of fertility treatment think it's right or wrong for China to maintain a one child policy?
28

wee_one,

27/02/2009 13:48:53
#26 - tell me about it - and to think some people are calling me selfish....! However the last thing I want is him going into the adoption process unless he is 100% sure - now that WOULD be selfish, not to mention unfair on the child we adopt.

Your point at #28 - no, I don't approve of China's policy, not when it leads to thousands of baby girls being abandoned in orphanages.

29

redcliffe62,

27/02/2009 14:11:04
serious for a second here, i know a happy lesbian couple who now have 2 sons from a semen donor and the guys are great. been together 15 years actually. kids now 4 and 1.
my offer to provide some good scottish seed was refused on the grounds that they could do better elsewhere and even worse it might look like me..............
whilst the idea was offputting at first to me, my natural conservatism coming to the fore, they are great and unless one knew them well one would assume one was the mother and one was a sister or the like as it is so unusual as a relationship.
i am reliably informed that neither boy will grow up a lesbian.
end of serious comment.
30

Geomac 1,

Scotland 27/02/2009 14:15:16
Well put #24 - but such logic counts for little in tis mad world we inhabit.
Being gay precludes having children naturally (so to speak) so why should great sums of money be spent by society to subvent this? Crazy!
31

Garry Otton,

Glasgow 27/02/2009 14:27:16
Yes, the lesbian couple could've resorted to a turkey baster just like any other woman, but the principal of equality was administered here and they were simply treated no differently than anyone else. Of course, there are a lot of people who are likely to be uncomfortable with this: Daily Mail readers and militant religionists spring to mind. (Although I have to thank The Scotsman for NOT adding a quote from the Catholic Church). But you don't hear a squeak when the grasping Churches suck over £10m annually out of the NHS for their services. Funny that.
32

,

27/02/2009 14:33:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

Zugspitze,

27/02/2009 14:39:29
#32

They are NOT being treated equally. They are being given special consideration that other couples are not. As I mentioned earlier, if a heterosexual couple did not want to have sex in the way that could create a pregnancy but instead looked to the NHS despite the fact that they were not proven to be infertile THEY would be refused as well. These two women do not meet the criteria full stop.
As for the church being the only ones who do not agree, I am not religious at all but I can see the idiocy of this whole arrangement and am not afraid to say so for fear of falling foul of the PC brigade.
34

hubris,

27/02/2009 14:41:52
#25 Ribbonman.....No I don't.

Abortion is a different issue.
35

Miss H,

27/02/2009 15:04:23
31 'Being gay precludes having children naturally'

No it doesn't.

It precludes having children with your partner but gay men can father children and gay women can give birth to children same as everyone else. They do not have different equipment, they just use it in a different way.
36

Eve,

Scotland 27/02/2009 15:06:40
What ever happend to adoption and fostring a child?

Just out of pure curitsity, How on earth do they decide who has the baby and/or whos eggs are used? Surely that will be something that could cause arguments, within the relationship.
37

Miss H,

27/02/2009 15:07:15
24 That is rubbish Tormod.

The desire to have sex and the desire to have children are so not the same thing.

Most people have sex because they like it not for the purposes of procreation!

38

wee_one,

27/02/2009 15:13:04
#33

Yeah, that makes sense! Obviously all those 14 year olds/drug addicts/neds that seem to be able to procreate with terrifying ease are going to be so much better parents than a loving couple who long for a child so much that they are willing to go through the mental and physical trials of fertility treatment.

That is an incredibly cruel remark.
39

sam the god,

27/02/2009 15:13:46
What was wrong with getting it on draught?
Turkey baster anyone
40

Stan Butler,

27/02/2009 15:19:12

Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to send super stud Alfie round?

Are they both infertile or just one of them?

How long before the Equality and Human Rights Commission funds a legal challenge by a homosexual couple fed up with waiting to adopt a child?


41

sam the god,

27/02/2009 15:20:32
Thousands of blind and visually impaired people are being discriminated as they can walk they do not get the higher rate of mobility. That is fine if they actually know where they are going but as is often the case they are going to unfamiliar places and the extra money could be used for a taxi to take them where they want to go but here we have 2 lesbians getting money for nothing they if really wanted a child could get someone’s seed and self impregnate at no cost to the NHS it is time that this country stopped pandering to the PC brigade
42

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 27/02/2009 15:31:18
38 It's not rubbish Miss H, as I said I believe that your sexuality is your own business.

Sexual attraction is the driver for procreation, throughout the natural world, and it is the same for humans. Because humans have large brains and have developed to dominate the globe and develop science, doesn't change the primary reason why one human being is attracted to another.

Crudely put mother nature uses lust to want us to procreate, if folk were asexual, what would the birth rate be?

As I have stated is I believe that you should have the freedom for sexual expression and freedom to live your life without fear and shame.

Sadly was this case highlights is that most human quality selfishness.







43

,

27/02/2009 15:39:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

Mad Jock,

East Lothian 27/02/2009 15:44:02
I desperately want a Ferrari, a Supermodel girlfriend and a house in somewhere like Monaco. It has caused depression, anxiety, obsessive behaviour and relationship problems. I know of people who have managed this without trying very hard at all (Beckham, Ronaldo, Fred Goodwin, George Clooney) but sa hard as I try, it just won't happen for me.
Why won't the NHS fund this?
45

Eve,

Scotland 27/02/2009 15:44:29
#36 Miss H: IVF isn't natural. A wonderful thing it's for some childless cuople, i.e. the ones it works for. Puts the woman through a lot of prosedures and sadly doesn't always work.

A woman's body relases between 1 & 2 eggs a month. With IVF they do something like egg harvists kind of things. I've heard that these egg harvests things is a very uncofterable procedure for a women to go through.

IVF should be a cuoples last resort after all other avenues have been exused. Why go through something that can have a lot of complcations involed when it's not nessary.
46

wee_one,

27/02/2009 15:51:40
#45

Because it is not a basic human instinct to own a Ferrari or have a big house. It is a basic human instinct to have and raise children, and therefore if someone cannot do what they were put on this earth to do, it is natural that they suffer psychologically as a result.

Please stop trivialising what is a heartbreaking problem for many.
47

Eve,

Scotland 27/02/2009 15:53:29
#40 sam the god: Does that really work???

I know it worked on Brookside, but that was soap and lots of things happen in soaps that wouldn't happen in real life.

48

Hugh Roscombe,

27/02/2009 15:55:02
wee_one

I'm not against anyone having fertility treatment. I just don't see why it should come out of my pocket. Are you an ally of Linskaill?
49

wee_one,

27/02/2009 16:00:01
#49

No, I am not. I am also paying for my fertility treatment because I can afford - but why should people less well off than myself be denied that opportunity?

I was merely taking issue with your comment that infertility is nature's way of telling you you'd be cr*p parents. What a load of bull that is!
50

Hugh Roscombe,

27/02/2009 16:08:44
50 wee_one

Good for you wee_one. I hope you are successful with the fertility treatment. May there be many more wee_ones in the future.

Regarding my "nature's way" you are indeed correct. It was a load of bull. Sorry about that. I type quicker than I think!

51

john z,

edinburgh 27/02/2009 16:49:26
For poster number 1 and similar bigots,

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Do you seriously think anybody actually chooses to live a life subject to bigotry from the likes of you or the Scottish religious fascists??

A good court decision by those involved. The NHS is for ALL Scottish citizens, not just heterosexuals.

Let's try to make Scotland a modern progressive country, and NOT a parochial backward thinking, small minded land of bigotry and envy.


52

Zugspitze,

27/02/2009 16:57:35
#53

Absolute nonsense, this is nothing to do with being a backwards country, bigoted, homophobic, blah blah blah.

This is all to do with affording these two women medical intervention for something that they don't even know that they NEED simply because they WANT it. Whilst doing that it is causing those who really Do need it a great hardship by making them wait even longer.

How on EARTH is this a good thing for ALL Scottish citizens.

In this instance your points are completely invalid and to try to fight the argument about "lifestyle choice" when that isn't the issue is simply try to deflect from the idiocy of this ruling!
53

Chaplin,

27/02/2009 17:00:50
We've got pensioners unable to afford heating etc., rotting schools with no books, loads of worthwhile projects dropped cause we dont have the cash, the lists go on and on. Yet we are paying for a couple of lesbians to have fertility treatment.
Like plenty of other commentors I despair for this country when we allow PC rubbish like this.
54

Stan Butler,

27/02/2009 17:04:56
#53 john z

There is no court decision.

The result of the Health Board deciding not to contest the publicly funded court action and to provide treatment to Ms Harris and/or Ms Mcmullan (it's not clear whether one or both are to receive treatment) means of course that fertility treatment will now be denied to a heterosexual couple, who presumably will have exhausted all natural methods of conceiving. I can't see the justice in that.

55

steve52,

Kinfauns 27/02/2009 17:20:26
Thats it I am off to Mars......I thought this was April first when I read it.

I blame the NHS as they should have went through with the Court case.
56

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/02/2009 17:22:00
I am not in favour of IVF treatment on the NHS. Which really means that I am not in favour of it at all, as that would mean that only rich infertile couples could have a child.

But as we as a society have approved NHS treatment for infertile couples then these two qualify. They have been down the turkey baster route - read the article they have tried to get one of them pregnant but haven't been successful. There is nothing to stop a lesbian getting preggers, they can have sex just the same as anyone else, or can artificially inseminate themselves just like anyone else. They've tried that and have run out of money. So by the NHS rules they do qualify, although as I said I don't agree witht his treatment in the first place.
57

Zugspitze,

27/02/2009 17:28:00
No, they don't qualify. IVF and artificial insemination are notoriously unreliable. Therefore, having tried that does NOT mean that they are infertile, it means that THAT avenue has been exhausted (but yet they want to keep going for free). If they want to qualify they would need to do what all the others couples on the waiting list have done, try the traditional way for 2 years.

Once THAT is exhausted, THEN they qualify! How difficult is that to understand?
58

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/02/2009 17:46:32
61 It doesn't say anything about the ''traditional way'' does it ? It does say that they initially approached their GP in Jan 2007, which is I believe 2 years ago ?

By it's very definition IVF is not natural conception. So if you are going to offer it to straight couples you can't really knock back gay couples on the basis that they can't conceive ''naturally'' can you ? That is not logical.
59

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 27/02/2009 18:14:05
#62, > By its very definition IVF is not natural conception. So if you are going to offer it to straight couples you can't really knock back gay couples on the basis that they can't conceive ''naturally'' can you ? That is not logical. <

Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way before (although I still remain opposed to IVF on the NHS for anyone, irrespective of their sexuality).
60

Zugspitze,

27/02/2009 18:31:38
Sorry but that doesn't wash.

If a heterosexual couple have tried for 2 years they then go on to fertility tests to try to determine the problem. They are sometimes encouraged to try other things if there is no serious problems. If that doesn't work they then may be placed on the waiting list for the procedures once they are proven to be infertile.

NO ONE should be allowed to simply decide that they want children and therefore they want to go on the list by choice alone. It is a last ditch effort for people and THAT is how it should remain, not just an option for those who don't WANT to try the traditional way or those who find it easier.

By the way, I would assume that the reason "traditional way" was left out and therefore left a loophole for these two was that the people who wrote the regulations never thought it would be an issue. Just becuase the loophole exists does not mean it should be exploited!

It comes down to pure selfishness and the knowledge that to complain against something like this makes you somehow repulsive in today's society.

61

,

27/02/2009 18:32:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
62

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 27/02/2009 19:39:53
Let us look at this properly:
1. There is every indication that homosexuality is a natural, non-pathological state that will always occur in a certain percentage of the population.
2. Homosexuals can be wholly committed to a stable, monogamous relationship, and be financially secure.
3. There is no reason why homosexuals should not wish to have children. There is no evidence that children raised by homosexual parents suffer due to the parents' homosexuality.
4. If we ask homosexuals to commit adultery to have children, as opposed to IVF etc., then we MUST also require heterosexual couples to commit adultery in preference to NHS fertility treatment.
5. If the majority of the population does not wish infertile couples to be forced to try adultery before falling back on NHS fertility treatment, then the real problem is offering fertility treatment on the NHS.
6. Thus the REAL question has nothing to do with sexuality, but is instead: "In an overpopulated country and overpopulated world, in which there are millions of AIDS orphans, should the NHS pay for infertility treatment?"
7. The answer is obvious. I leave it to the reader.
63

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/02/2009 19:47:44
64 I find myself in the weird position of not actually approving of this procedure at all, as I don't think anyone has a right to have a child, but if you are going to make babies in test tubes then I don't think you can exclude potential mothers merely because they don't normally choose to have sex with men.

Parental instinct is not confined to heterosexuals, how much more so in the case of women. This decision should be made on clinical grounds, and clinical grounds only. To knock them back purely because they are gay, when the procedure does not involve any form of sexual intercourse, is illogical.

The recent embryo bill specifically cleared the way for lesbians to become mothers through IVF, so this scenario was envisaged. It used to be compulsory to have a named father, now it isn't. Perhaps that is really the source of the objections. If that is the case, then that would be to apply double-standards as non IVF mothers are not required to name a father, so why should these mothers.
64

sam the god,

27/02/2009 19:48:08
it would be cheaper to give them money to buy drink get pished and some other drunk podgers them they might then end up in pup
65

,

27/02/2009 20:34:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
66

im brian and so is my wife,

edinburgh 27/02/2009 21:59:06
#73 well thats what my parents named me -brian
yes very good of monty python to giveus brians a film lol

theres more spam to these lesbians,than you could shake a viking at
"its fun to charter an accountant,to sail the wide accountancys,
67

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/02/2009 22:01:27
74 Are you available for functions ?
68

Russell M,

Stirling 28/02/2009 08:48:39
Is bullying pathological? Even if homosexuality is not, resorting to a threat to get your way is selfish. In some ways Caroline and Julie are the perfect British couple. By turning to the NHS to fulfil a most basic wish they reinforce the notion that the State is fundamentally essential. Isn't open homosexual parenting a little like GM crops? We do not yet know the long term effects. Do we as a species have the wisdom to take over the elementary processes that make life possible on this planet? We certainly seem to be doing a good job with the environment.
69

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

28/02/2009 10:54:23
Homosexual parenting has been with us since the year dot. GM crops is mans interference with nature...many a single mother or father has brought up their kids...many a household has only had females or males being the parent...some people are brought up in extended families...what makes a good parent or good parents?...maybe we dont actually know the answer to that question..
70

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 28/02/2009 11:43:02
#24 Tormod,Auld Reekie. Perfectly put mate. No matter how the social engineering cabal slice and dice it these two were not meant to conceive.They can try and convince anyone they wish that this is normal and necessary.Then nature makes liars of them.
Self-serving selfishness at it's normal best in PC (Panda Cr*p)UK! A family they will never be, just two wannabes and a artificially produced baby fashion accessory.
71

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

28/02/2009 23:33:21
80...Try telling that to the other women trying to conceive via IVF on the NHS...I dont think NHS funds should be diverted to IVF...BUT as they are...then yes lesbian couples and heterosexual couples should benefit..
72

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

28/02/2009 23:35:28
79...You have no idea what you are talking about...a woman does not need to be heterosexual to desire/need to be a mother...being a lesbian does not cancel out maternal instincts...a baby is not an "Accessory" for a lesbian or a heterosexual woman...it is the result of a basic driven instinct...not that you would know anything about that..
73

wee_one,

01/03/2009 11:10:33
Thank you #82, I was starting to despair that the world was full of people with no compassion whatsoever, especially the idiot who likened wanting a baby to wanting a Ferrari.

Having a baby is a biological instinct, a bit like having sex. Would anyone come on here and say that living your life without having sex was either natural or healthy? Is having sex "selfish"? Of course not - it's just a base human instinct. Why then do some people think it is "selfish" to want to fulfil the most basic of human needs - ie. to procreate??

Not being able to procreate is one of the most emotionally painful experiences a human can go through. Some of the callous comments on this board really do beggar belief. I'd love to know if anyone who thinks IVF should be banned has any fertility problems themselves. I'd wager a large sum of money that the answer is no.
74

Ewan Oosami,

01/03/2009 12:51:13
The NHS was not created to give this sexual circus any kind of credance, when people are denied life-saving drugs because of lack of funds then this politically correct deviation of funds is not acceptable. If these 2 want a kid they can get one naturally. IVF should be available to nobody - play the cards you are dealt with.
To say that people have a 'right' to things is a load of blox

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.