Ivf and church view

eviltwin

Can someone clarify this for me.

Family member and his wife are going to be starting ivf in Aug, no donor eggs or sperm involved. Certain members of the family are finding this hard to accept as they see it as a sin...I thought the sin was when a donor was involved, as there is no third party in this situation is it the same?

prinz

The Vatican are not big fans... from themselves...

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

. With regard to the treatment of infertility, new medical techniques must respect three fundamental goods: a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from conception to natural death; b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse;[19] c) the specifically human values of sexuality which require “that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses”.[20] Techniques which assist procreation “are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life”.[21]

In light of this principle, all techniques of heterologous artificial fertilization,[22] as well as those techniques of homologous artificial fertilization[23] which substitute for the conjugal act, are to be excluded

and in relation to IVF in particular..

In vitro fertilization and the deliberate destruction of embryos
14. The fact that the process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos was already noted in the Instruction Donum vitae.[26] There were some who maintained that this was due to techniques which were still somewhat imperfect. Subsequent experience has shown, however, that all techniques of in vitro fertilization proceed as if the human embryo were simply a mass of cells to be used, selected and discarded.
It is true that approximately a third of women who have recourse to artificial procreation succeed in having a baby. It should be recognized, however, that given the proportion between the total number of embryos produced and those eventually born, the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high.[27] These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in vitro fertilization as the price to be paid for positive results. In reality, it is deeply disturbing that research in this area aims principally at obtaining better results in terms of the percentage of babies born to women who begin the process, but does not manifest a concrete interest in the right to life of each individual embryo.
15. It is often objected that the loss of embryos is, in the majority of cases, unintentional or that it happens truly against the will of the parents and physicians. They say that it is a question of risks which are not all that different from those in natural procreation; to seek to generate new life without running any risks would in practice mean doing nothing to transmit it. It is true that not all the losses of embryos in the process of in vitro fertilization have the same relationship to the will of those involved in the procedure. But it is also true that in many cases the abandonment, destruction and loss of embryos are foreseen and willed.
Embryos produced in vitro which have defects are directly discarded. Cases are becoming ever more prevalent in which couples who have no fertility problems are using artificial means of procreation in order to engage in genetic selection of their offspring. In many countries, it is now common to stimulate ovulation so as to obtain a large number of oocytes which are then fertilized. Of these, some are transferred into the woman’s uterus, while the others are frozen for future use. The reason for multiple transfer is to increase the probability that at least one embryo will implant in the uterus. In this technique, therefore, the number of embryos transferred is greater than the single child desired, in the expectation that some embryos will be lost and multiple pregnancy may not occur. In this way, the practice of multiple embryo transfer implies a purely utilitarian treatment of embryos. One is struck by the fact that, in any other area of medicine, ordinary professional ethics and the healthcare authorities themselves would never allow a medical procedure which involved such a high number of failures and fatalities. In fact, techniques of in vitro fertilization are accepted based on the presupposition that the individual embryo is not deserving of full respect in the presence of the competing desire for offspring which must be satisfied.
This sad reality, which often goes unmentioned, is truly deplorable: the “various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life

georgieporgy

Why not try NFP first. Works for many who have difficulty concieving.

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/serenabc/nfp.html

eviltwin

georgieporgy wrote: »

Why not try NFP first. Works for many who have difficulty concieving.

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/serenabc/nfp.html

I would say they have tried that, they have been trying for a long time.

thanks for the info Prinz, I had a feeling it would be something like that, its a shame

okiss

I would tell the family members who think this is a sin to grow up.
Any couple who are willing to go though ivf treatment here in Ireland have to have counselling and are made aware that you may not have a baby at the end.
Ivf treatment is expensive and hard.
One of my friends was married for a number of years. She had miscarriages and then tried Galway clinic who offer natural fertility treatment and had another miscarriage after this.
She had a much wanted baby over a year ago.

Onesimus

She had a much wanted baby over a year ago.

For a Christian its not about what we want but what God wants. Playing God is a big no no.

gawker

Onesimus wrote: »

Playing God is a big no no.

So you will refuse all medical treatment?

IVF is medical procedure that allows people to overcome medical issues that prevent them from reproducing. Same way medical procedures can help people breathe if their lungs aren't doing the trick, or help hearts beat etc. It's amazing how a church can use the "It's god's will" line whenever it comes to ovaries, but doesn't seem to use the same line when it comes to a bit of viagra for the men - obviously that problem wasn't God's will then... :rolleyes:

OP, I hope everyone in your family learn to appreciate the IVF decision. It creates life and that life is as precious as any - it shouldn't have any stigma attached to it.

Sonics2k

Onesimus wrote: »

For a Christian its not about what we want but what God wants. Playing God is a big no no.

That's an interesting conundrum you've come up with there.

Possibly one for another thread, but by this statement it'd mean:

- No death penalty, or non-natural/accidental death by any means.
- Absolute refusal of medical treatments. No radiotherapy, blood transfusions, organ donations etc.
- No painkillers. I suppose with the exception of the herbal kind, but Panadol would be a big no no.

But it also raises the perplexing question of this. Why would any God allow us to create life in a such a way? Obviously an omnipotent being could set things to be in a such a way that they cannot be replicated by us through simple science and intellect.

How exactly do we define "playing God"?

gimmebroadband

Onesimus wrote: »

For a Christian its not about what we want but what God wants. Playing God is a big no no.

Exactly!!!


In obedience to the CC, I chose NOT to have IVF, but adopted instead - we couldn't happier!

Sonics2k

gimmebroadband wrote: »

In obedience to the CC, I chose NOT to have IVF, but adopted instead - we couldn't happier!

But, that's obedience to the Catholic Church, not God.

Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely happy you adopted a child and honestly applaud you for it. One of my cousins was adopted and she is by all intensive purposes a true member of the family.

I guess I have a hard time understanding why anyone would have such an issue with the purposeful creation of life by a loving couple, using their own eggs and sperm.

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

I would say they have tried that, they have been trying for a long time. thanks for the info Prinz, I had a feeling it would be something like that, its a shame

You're welcome. It is a hard one. My own brother and SIL tried for kids for many years, and went through IVF unsuccessfully for quite a while. They had literally pushed themselves to the brink of marital, emotional, financial collapse trying, when it finally worked. They're not religious so that wasn't an issue. On the other hand my wife has a couple of foster siblings.. and her parents are in the process of adopting one of the kids they fostered.... it's no easy option either
but it's an option all the same.

I can see where the RCC are coming from in terms of being consistent in defending the rights of the silent, i.e. the embryos which are destroyed, or possibly worse kept frozen until...? It's not a very simple case. The court case with the woman who was trying to use frozen embryos against the wishes of the man who had originally agreed to them was a signal of the problems that can arise. I read recently about an audit of stores of frozen embryos in facilities in the US, and the percentage of frozen embryos kept on behalf of people who couldn't be traced, because they had died, they had moved state, changed name whatever. I would have concerns over what becomes of them for example.

On the other hand I have seen how desperate some parents are to have a biological child. The RCC has acknowledged that in the piece above. It's a toughy, but I'd agree with the RCC that research should be done into new ways to improve fertility that don't involve so much of a problem of 'by-product'

gawker wrote: »

So you will refuse all medical treatment?

Did you even read the document I quoted from?....

Techniques which assist procreation “are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine.

It's nothing to do with all medical treatment or even all fertility treatments for that matter.

georgieporgy

Sonics2k wrote: »

But, that's obedience to the Catholic Church, not God.

.

The Catholic Church is God!

A longer version of this statement can be found here http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm

Benny_Cake

georgieporgy wrote: »

Sonics2k wrote: »

But, that's obedience to the Catholic Church, not God.

.

The Catholic Church is God!

A longer version of this statement can be found here http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm

I'm going to forego reading a papal encyclical here and say that the Catholic Church isn't God - hopefully the comment was tongue in cheek. At best, it is an imperfect instrument of God in this world, and it's failings are ours, not God's.

I would say to the original poster that while I would personally have some ethical concerns over IVF, and were I in the unfortunate situation I'd probably want to try for adoption, the decision is ultimately for the couple in line with their consciences. It isn't an easy one to take - we live in an imperfect world, and IVF often involves much pain and heartache, so the most important thing is to be there for them if they need support - which they will.

doctoremma

I can't add anything to the religious rules but...

eviltwin wrote: »

Family member and his wife are going to be starting ivf in Aug, no donor eggs or sperm involved.

...would they be different if donor sperm/eggs WERE involved?

Sonics2k

georgieporgy wrote: »

The Catholic Church is God!

A longer version of this statement can be found here http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm

How can the Catholic Church be God? Surely if anything it's a representation of Gods (possible) word? A spokesperson so to speak.

I'm pretty sure claiming to be God is a big no no.

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

I can't add anything to the religious rules but......would they be different if donor sperm/eggs WERE involved?

You answered your own question in a way. I'd imagine the reason eviltwin included that information precisely because she thought the religious rules might be different in the case of parents having a child that is not biologically completely their own... in the sex with your husband/wife is ok, sex with somebody who isn't your husband/wife....isn't ok, sort of way.

doctoremma

prinz wrote: »

You answered your own question in a way. I'd imagine the reason eviltwin included that information precisely because she thought the religious rules might be different in the case of parents having a child that is not biologically completely their own... in the sex with your husband/wife is ok, sex with somebody who isn't your husband/wife....isn't ok, sort of way.

So, a baby created using a donor sperm or egg would be viewed in the same way a baby created by infidelity would?

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

So, a baby created using a donor sperm or egg would be viewed in the same way a baby created by infidelity would?

Yes, that's exactly it! Cue soapbox in 3......2........1............... :rolleyes:

I gave the reason I suspect eviltwin included the extra information, that IVF with the couples own egg and sperm might be viewed differently to IVF using donor material. Creating a baby by infidelity is your invention..

Statistician

A few points I'd like to raise:

1. I do not believe the Catholic Church should be denying Catholics God's love. It disgusts me that people are missing out on one of Gods great gifts, that of a child - because of something the Catholic church has made up.

2. This:

In vitro fertilization and the deliberate destruction of embryos

Not all IVF requires the destruction of embryos. Indeed quite the opposite is often the case. Many people only have one or two embryos to transfer. You do not have to create lots of embryos with IVF, and many people do not.

Some people will be able to naturally create the embryo but there are other problems that IVF can solve. This means that IVF is actually saving a human life (rather than an infertile couple constantly creating embryos that die each cycle)

3. God had granted us with such powerful knowledge. It all come from Him, and IVF is good.

This issue alone is enough for me to say that I do not want to be a Catholic.

prinz

Statistician wrote: »

3. God had granted us with such powerful knowledge. It all come from Him, and IVF is good..

Is Sarin gas good too?

georgieporgy

Knowledge alone isn't necessarily a good thing though. If we go back to the Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden story we will remember that God told them to avoid the fruit of a particular tree.

Statistician

prinz wrote: »

Is Sarin gas good too?

It probably has uses. Maybe there is a cure for cancer locked in there somewhere.

It all of course depends on context. If no embryos are being destroyed, I can't see the problem with IVF.

Statistician

georgieporgy wrote: »

Knowledge alone isn't necessarily a good thing though. If we go back to the Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden story we will remember that God told them to avoid the fruit of a particular tree.

Why should we cripple ourselves? If this is God's wish, than I'd rather not exist.

Should we not use the gifts that God as granted? - especially ones that can cause such good, and actually promotes God's love?

ford2600

Believe me IVF is tough enough without family members doing a guilt trip on it.

Family members can tell them it's a sin when then have a new baby...

eviltwin wrote: »

Can someone clarify this for me.

Family member and his wife are going to be starting ivf in Aug, no donor eggs or sperm involved. Certain members of the family are finding this hard to accept as they see it as a sin...I thought the sin was when a donor was involved, as there is no third party in this situation is it the same?

doctoremma

prinz wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly it! Cue soapbox in 3......2........1............... :rolleyes:

I gave the reason I suspect eviltwin included the extra information, that IVF with the couples own egg and sperm might be viewed differently to IVF using donor material. Creating a baby by infidelity is your invention..

Sigh, you can't even ask a genuine question round these parts.

All you're doing is telling me that eviltwin emphasised the point that there might be a difference with a donor egg/sperm, as if that somehow answers my question. It was the phrase which prompted my question in the first place!??!

So then, when I ask WHY this might be the case (giving a reasonable guess as to what the difference might be), you again tell me that there might be a difference when a donor egg or sperm is used (in big text this time, to really get your point across) and mock my reasoning.

And still I don't know the freaking answer to a very simple question.

Statistician

doctoremma wrote: »

And still I don't know the freaking answer to a very simple question.

According to Catholics, sins are either venial or mortal. I do not believe there is a divine scale as such (although I could be wrong!).

(from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venial_sin)
A venial sin meets at least one of the following criteria:

- It does not concern a "grave matter",
- It is not committed with full knowledge, or
- It is not committed with both deliberate and complete consent.

What is a 'grave matter'? - more subjective stuff there I suppose.

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

Sigh, you can't even ask a genuine question round these parts.

I think eviltwin would disagree. She asked a genuine question and got genuine responses on the RCC's position.

doctoremma wrote: »

So then, when I ask WHY this might be the case (giving a reasonable guess as to what the difference might be), you again tell me that there might be a difference when a donor egg or sperm is used..

I gave you a reasonable guess as to the answer. I am not an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church.. if you aren't happy with my answer perhaps you should contact one, instead of taking my answer and trying to get smart with it.

doctoremma wrote: »

(in big text this time, to really get your point across)..

Would you prefer if I used !???!?!?!???!?!?!?! instead?

doctoremma

Prinz, I have no idea what I've done to warrant such responses from you. I think it best to leave it there.

Can anyone else explain why the Catholic guidelines on IVF might be different if a donor sperm or egg are used (if, indeed, they ARE different)?

Benny_Cake

doctoremma wrote: »

Prinz, I have no idea what I've done to warrant such responses from you. I think it best to leave it there.

Can anyone else explain why the Catholic guidelines on IVF might be different if a donor sperm or egg are used (if, indeed, they ARE different)?

I'm open to correction, but I don't think they are different. I think the OP thought that the Catholic objection to IVF related solely to when donors were involved - linking it to infidelity, but I'm unaware of any church statement on it.

smokingman

Jesus, supposedly born out of wedlock and by artificial means by a donor...

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

Prinz, I have no idea what I've done to warrant such responses from you. I think it best to leave it there.

Perhaps it was the fairly obvious attempt to portray the RCC as regarding some babies as second class when compared to others...

doctoremma wrote:

So, a baby created using a donor sperm or egg would be viewed in the same way a baby created by infidelity would?

Nothing up to this point related in any way to how you 'view' a baby. We were discussing fertility treatments... not discussing how one baby is somehow a cut above another in any way shape or form.

The reality couldn't be further from the truth for what you seemed to be insinuating.

doctoremma wrote:

Can anyone else explain why the Catholic guidelines on IVF might be different if a donor sperm or egg are used (if, indeed, they ARE different)?

OK, back we go to the second post on the thread..

With regard to the treatment of infertility, new medical techniques must respect three fundamental goods: a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from conception to natural death; b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse;[19] c) the specifically human values of sexuality which require “that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses”.[20] Techniques which assist procreation “are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life”.[21]

In light of this principle, all techniques of heterologous artificial fertilization,[22] as well as those techniques of homologous artificial fertilization[23] which substitute for the conjugal act, are to be excluded

Now I can see two issues in bold right away... and...

The term heterologous artificial fertilization or procreation refers to “techniques used to obtain a human conception artificially by the use of gametes coming from at least one donor other than the spouses who are joined in marriage”

doctoremma

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps it was the fairly obvious attempt to portray the RCC as regarding some babies as second class when compared to others...

WTF? Really, WTF? You think I was trying to say that the Catholic Church would think donor egg/sperm babies were second-class?

Of all the things I might have I thought your issue was, it wasn't that.

You're not even wrong.

prinz wrote: »

Nothing up to this point related in any way to how you 'view' a baby. We were discussing fertility treatments... not discussing how one baby is somehow a cut above another in any way shape or form...The reality couldn't be further from the truth for what you seemed to be insinuating.

I'll repeat, just so we're clear, WTF?

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

WTF? Really, WTF? You think I was trying to say that the Catholic Church would think donor egg/sperm babies were second-class?

Well let's see...

doctoremma wrote: »

So, a baby created using a donor sperm or egg would be viewed in the same way a baby created by infidelity would?

"Viewed" by who? I assume the RCC seeing as that is who we were dicussing. "Created by infidelity".... yes the Church sees adultery as a negative. I don't think it was a huge leap to come to the conclusion that you were trying to link the Church's position on adultery (i.e. a negative one), with how the Church would 'view a baby created by infidelity', and by extension a baby created by a donor.

doctoremma wrote: »

You're not even wrong.

Quite. Now no doubt you'll say I was wrong and play the offended, indignant card but let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time you'd have taken an underhanded swipe on the forum? Can you blame me?

georgieporgy

Sonics2k wrote: »

How can the Catholic Church be God? Surely if anything it's a representation of Gods (possible) word? A spokesperson so to speak.

I'm pretty sure claiming to be God is a big no no.

Well, it says so in the bible....

The inseparable relationship of Jesus and the Church is highlighted in the story of Paul’s conversion. Saul/Paul, on his way to Damascus sees a great light and is knocked to the ground on the road. He hears a voice speaking to him: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. . .” (Acts 9:4-5).
Note here Jesus’ exact words: “Why do you persecute me?” Saul could have easily answered, “I’m not persecuting you―I am going after your disciples.”
But such a protest would seem to miss the major theme Luke-Acts stresses: Jesus is to be identified with his Church. I think Paul reflected on the significance of these words his entire life. The ecclesiology of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ seems to flow from reflection on this thought. As Paul says elsewhere, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20).
Thus, as Christ lived in his earthly body, he now lives in the Church. What he did in his earthly body he now does in his Mystical Body. The ministry of the Church continues the ministry of Jesus.
As we shall see, these ideas are underscored throughout the book of Acts.


http://www.salvationhistory.com/blog/understanding_the_book_of_acts_part_1--why_do_you_persecute_me/

philologos

You mean that the Christian church, is Christ's body on earth?

If so I agree.

I think that adoption is favourable to IVF. IVF results in the waste of embryo's, which I can't really agree with. An embryo is a fully formed human life, just at a really early stage.

angeleyes

Sonics2k wrote: »

But, that's obedience to the Catholic Church, not God.

Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely happy you adopted a child and honestly applaud you for it. One of my cousins was adopted and she is by all intensive purposes a true member of the family.

I guess I have a hard time understanding why anyone would have such an issue with the purposeful creation of life by a loving couple, using their own eggs and sperm.

Sonics2K - adoption is not for everyone and the same can be said for IVF. Couples make their own choices.

My daughter is the result of IVF/ICSI. Every day I thank God for her. My DH and I could not conceive naturally so we used the assisted human reproductive technology for which we are eternally grateful. Science can do so much and it helped us greatly but once the embryos are put back in the woman's uterus and during that very long two week wait, for me all that is in the hands of God. We must remember that He gives life, yes medical science did a lot for us and only for medical science we would now be living life without children.

Sonics2k

angeleyes wrote: »

Sonics2K - adoption is not for everyone and the same can be said for IVF. Couples make their own choices.

My daughter is the result of IVF/ICSI. Every day I thank God for her. My DH and I could not conceive naturally so we used the assisted human reproductive technology for which we are eternally grateful. Science can do so much and it helped us greatly but once the embryos are put back in the woman's uterus and during that very long two week wait, for me all that is in the hands of God. We must remember that He gives life, yes medical science did a lot for us and only for medical science we would now be living life without children.

That's actually kinda my point though. I respect that you believe God gave you the child, if only because you also acknowledge the highly important role science played in the whole thing.

My point is more, if God is the one who chooses who gets pregnant and when, then how can he (or the Church) logically be opposed to the use of IVF treatment.
After all, under their own beliefs, it's him who creates the life. So if he was against it, then surely he wouldn't allow the pregnancy to happen.

edit: I see both IVF and adoption as perfectly legitimate ways of having a child, and support them both for however the prospective parent chooses it.

smokingman

philologos wrote: »

I think that adoption is favourable to IVF. IVF results in the waste of embryo's, which I can't really agree with. An embryo is a fully formed human life, just at a really early stage.

What of the waste of embryos when unprotected sex results in one that doesn't attach to the womb?
There are far more of them than IVF treatments have ever produced.

If anything, the ban on contraception some sects try to impose on their followers turns them into the greatest "baby murdering" group in history.

JimiTime

smokingman wrote: »

What of the waste of embryos when unprotected sex results in one that doesn't attach to the womb?
There are far more of them than IVF treatments have ever produced.

If anything, the ban on contraception some sects try to impose on their followers turns them into the greatest "baby murdering" group in history.

I think you need to look up what 'to murder' means.

smokingman

JimiTime wrote: »

I think you need to look up what 'to murder' means.

I think a lot of people on this forum need to look that up too when describing IVF procedures.

Gregor Samsa

angeleyes wrote: »

We must remember that He gives life, yes medical science did a lot for us and only for medical science we would now be living life without children.

This brings up some interesting points. The main reason that the CC (and other Christians) regards IVF as sinful seems to be that there are sometimes leftover embryos that are either destroyed, or left frozen indefinitely. And quite obviously this is regarded as sinful due to their belief that human life begins at conception.

It was pointed out earlier that not all IVF cycles result in excess embryos. This is indeed true.

So, is IFV still a sin when there are no embryos left over?

What if you pray to God that the treatment will only result in one embryo for transfer?

Or even, what if you instructed the clinic to only fertilise one egg?

Statistician

phutyle wrote: »

This brings up some interesting points. The main reason that the CC (and other Christians) regards IVF as sinful seems to be that there are sometimes leftover embryos that are either destroyed, or left frozen indefinitely. And quite obviously this is regarded as sinful due to their belief that human life begins at conception.

I read on another forum that the Catholic Church is against IVF because it comes between the couple in the 'marital act'.
(I'm not making this up!)

prinz

phutyle wrote: »

So, is IFV still a sin when there are no embryos left over?

It's a bit like asking is it still a sin if you tell a lie, but for really, really, really good reasons. As for the above I'd imagine it would still be a sin because of the other conditions attached by the RCC.

Statistician wrote: »

I read on another forum that the Catholic Church is against IVF because it comes between the couple in the 'marital act'. (I'm not making this up!)

You could've read it right here on this thread.

Statistician

phutyle wrote: »

What if you pray to God that the treatment will only result in one embryo for transfer?

Or even, what if you instructed the clinic to only fertilise one egg?

Plenty of people do this BTW - ask to try to fertilise just one egg.

Anyway, those people over in the Vatican appear to have made up their mind about IVF, and hate it. I've also made up my mind about the Catholic Church.

eviltwin

Well just to update the family member is my sister and her hubby, the other person is an aunt of his. She is gifting them with some money they were going to put towards ivf but the aunt refuses to give it as she is very religious. So two people who would make amazing parents have had their hopes of a family dashed again. I feel like banging someones head against a wall.

doctoremma

eviltwin wrote: »

Well just to update the family member is my sister and her hubby, the other person is an aunt of his. She is gifting them with some money they were going to put towards ivf but the aunt refuses to give it as she is very religious. So two people who would make amazing parents have had their hopes of a family dashed again. I feel like banging someones head against a wall.

Do you have to pay for IVF in Ireland? Always?

Gregor Samsa

doctoremma wrote: »

Do you have to pay for IVF in Ireland? Always?

If you have a full medical card, you can get one round at no cost (in some clinics, anyway).

doctoremma

phutyle wrote: »

If you have a full medical card, you can get one round at no cost (in some clinics, anyway).

Thanks. Same as UK, I guess, although here you still have to pay for your pharmaceuticals during the process (unless you get free prescriptions).

Edit: I may have misunderstood you. Is a full medical card something that means you don't pay for any healthcare stuff (so if you're not working, long term illness, over 60, etc)? Although obviously, being over 60 probably isn't relevant in this circumstance. In the UK (well, England definitely, devolved countries may have different rules), EVERYONE gets one free round.

eviltwin

They don't qualify for free treatment.

Statistician

Irish IVF is really expensive.
Try this crowd: http://www.reprofit.cz/

You could possibly get multiple attempts for the cost of one irish attempt.

Gregor Samsa

doctoremma wrote: »

Edit: I may have misunderstood you. Is a full medical card something that means you don't pay for any healthcare stuff (so if you're not working, long term illness, over 60, etc)? Although obviously, being over 60 probably isn't relevant in this circumstance. In the UK (well, England definitely, devolved countries may have different rules), EVERYONE gets one free round.

A full medical card is only given to certain recipients of social welfare payments. I don't know the full criteria, but basically most people wouldn't qualify.

The IVF meds are covered by the Drugs Payment Scheme for everyone. So you just pay a max of 132 Euro in a month for all prescription meds (IVF related or not), and after that, it's covered by the scheme. There was talk about limiting it to a certain number of cycles, but I don't think anything ever came of that.

You can also claim tax back on IVF treatment using the MED1 form, so you can claw some of the expense back after the fact.