by Eleni Hale August 02, 2009 12:00am
The new AMA (Australian Medical Association) President Dr Andrew Pesce decided to share his informed views on In vitro fertilisation treatment (IVF).
“Fertility treatment is there to treat diseases that cause infertility, it shouldn’t be there as a lifestyle choice,”
The good doctor just stuck both feet in his mother, IVF may be useful in treating infertility however, where does the lifestyle choice tag factor into this equation.The view expressed by the good doctor smacks of 1950’s patriarchy, although I may be wrong? I have seen too many child safety cases to say that having a child is some universal right it is not. Although, I do admire women who commit themselves to undergoing this treatment because of the impact on every dimension of their being.
He went on and qualified his position
“For example, single women (who choose IVF) don’t have a disease, they just don’t have a partner. Same-sex couples, they don’t have disease but they are using an option that gets around the natural order of things.”
Who says it was a prerequisite for the woman to be infertile or “have a disease”? Just in clarifying single women cannot receive treatment because they do not have a partner and same-sex couples cannot receive treatment because it is something about getting around the “natural order of things”. Who determined this natural order and what is it precisely.
The inference taken here is that
- IVF , does not involve using a med8ical 0proceedure to get around the arbitrary acts of biology
- eligibility the key criteria being applied here is that women can only have treatment if they have a man as a partner?
- A Single woman and/or a woman who identifies as a Lesbian do not experience fertility issues
In conclusion, it is not only the Law that is an Ass but some in the medical profession also share this distinction.