Same sex fertility treatment, ethical, legal or discrimination matter?

Ruby Vee, BSN · Jun 13, 2012

clearly you're trying to start a vigorous discussion, and i'll bite.

denying fertility treatment based on anything other than the person's ability to pay for the treatment or the futility of the outcome is discrimination. i say this as a 56 year old straight (postmenopausal) woman who knows that it would take a miracle of epic proportions to impregnate me. denying me fertility treatment is just good medicine. but if it were to be denied because my spouse was a 33 year old woman who is otherwise able to procreate -- that would be discrimination. to deny it because my spouse and i were of a certain racial or ethnic or religious group would be discrimination, and to deny it because one or both of us is obese . . . probably the last bastion of discrimination. to deny a same sex couple fertility treatment based on marital status is also discrimination -- until all same sex couples (where both partners are currently not married to someone else) have the legal right to marry if they choose.

to deny same sex couples just because they are same sex couples is discrimination.

i understand that there are certain political and religious groups who fear that same sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage -- and to them i say "just don't enter into a same sex marriage." but to deny those rights to others because they personally find it repugnant is discrimination.

nurse4newlife · Jun 13, 2012

I am trying to start discussion you are correct!! I personally feel the same way you do. Recently I have encountered this twice once with an ob/gyn I work with, and closer to home, dear friends of mine who are already wonderful parents by ANYONE'S standards. As a nurse I am appalled, as a citizen of the great state of TX...not so surprised. I am glad to see that someone else feels the same way I do, thank you very much for your words, it gives me hope for progress :)

MN-Nurse, ASN, RN · Jun 13, 2012

So, is it ok to deny same sex couples fertility treatment based on sexual orientation alone? Is it a personal moral issue? Is it even legal? Or discrimination? Anyone else encounter this? Opinions? Advice? ?

Given the ever increasing world population (doubled since 1960), increasing pollution, and scarcity of resources, fertility treaments are unethical for ANYONE.

jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B · Jun 13, 2012

To deny on the basis of orientation alone is absolutely discriminitory. And repulsive. And if people want children, then they should be able to use whatever legal means they would like to. To do otherwise is akin to population control, and look how well that turned out for China.

But back to the subject--many states have a legal marriage law for same sex couples. If people are married and want to have kids I think that is awesome! If same sex couples are not married and want to have kids--have at it! In my experience, the sex part of same sex couples is a very, very small part, much like those of us who are in hetero relationships and marriages. It is not some hedonistic free for all that the right wing would have one believe. Additionally, is this OB-GYN you work for deny services to single women???? (Hello the "Murphy Brown" controvery back in the 80's)........

JZ_RN · Jun 13, 2012

Denying them services just because they are homosexual is discrimination, plain and simple.

amygarside · Jun 15, 2012

To deny someone such services is discrimination. Everyone has the right the have fertility treatments, regardless of their sexual orientation and racial and religious background.

jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B · Jun 15, 2012

If you are a nurse in the clinic practicing this, you really do not have much of a say in who the MD wants to treat. I would be interested if the patients who are denied have complained. Fertility treatments can be classified as "non-essential" therefore I would think that the Dr holds the discretionary key in this service. If the clinic is associated with a hospital, I would certainly bring it before the ethics board. Seems like since "Octo-Mom" and "Man having baby" clinics are going to extreme lengths not to get sued or their licenses questioned. Sad indeed.

VictoriaGayle · Jun 15, 2012

Yes, it is discrimination.

I don't see how that could possibly be legal.

Even if same sex marraige is illegal in your state, you would be denying a medical procedure on the basis of sexual orientation.

Them not being married, or being unable to marry, should be a non-issue. Would you deny treatment to a single straight woman?

KelRN215, BSN, RN · Jun 24, 2012

Yes, it is discrimination.
I don't see how that could possibly be legal.
Even if same sex marraige is illegal in your state, you would be denying a medical procedure on the basis of sexual orientation.
Them not being married, or being unable to marry, should be a non-issue. Would you deny treatment to a single straight woman?

I swear I posted a response to this the other night but it was during that period of time where a bunch of posts were lost.

It is discrimination but there are loopholes and this is how insurance companies get away with it in my state:

In Massachusetts, insurance companies are required to pay for assisted reproductive technology for couples with "documented infertility." One year of trying with no success is considered to be "documented infertility." How does a lesbian couple try to conceive? They have to pursue fertility treatments for that and they cannot prove infertility prior to trying, so the IUI is not covered. Trying IUI for a year unsuccessfully is a huge investment so after several failed cycles, many will decide it's not worth it and just pay for the IVF out of their own pockets. I have had friends and coworkers who had to go this route.

As far as whether treatment would be denied to a single, straight woman the same premise applies. If this woman doesn't have documented infertility her treatments would not be covered. I have a friend who recently decided to have a baby on her own by using a sperm donor and she paid for the entire process of getting pregnant out of her own pocket.

VictoriaGayle · Jun 25, 2012

I swear I posted a response to this the other night but it was during that period of time where a bunch of posts were lost.
It is discrimination but there are loopholes and this is how insurance companies get away with it in my state:
In Massachusetts, insurance companies are required to pay for assisted reproductive technology for couples with "documented infertility." One year of trying with no success is considered to be "documented infertility." How does a lesbian couple try to conceive? They have to pursue fertility treatments for that and they cannot prove infertility prior to trying, so the IUI is not covered. Trying IUI for a year unsuccessfully is a huge investment so after several failed cycles, many will decide it's not worth it and just pay for the IVF out of their own pockets. I have had friends and coworkers who had to go this route.
As far as whether treatment would be denied to a single, straight woman the same premise applies. If this woman doesn't have documented infertility her treatments would not be covered. I have a friend who recently decided to have a baby on her own by using a sperm donor and she paid for the entire process of getting pregnant out of her own pocket.

Wow, that's really interesting!

I was only refering to a HCP saying "I will not preform this medical proceedure because of your sexual orientation" but this is a great point.

So I guess that means insurance companies don't have to pay for the treatment or sperm donations?

But isn't that discrimination against single women and same sex couples?

They do have a history of discrimination though....

What is their definition of "trying"? Wouldn't the fact that they are physically incapable of producing children mean that it was documented? I wonder if a homosexual couple could see a fetrility doctor and get away with saying "we've been having unprotected sex for a year now, with no pregnancy" to fufil the "documented infertility" requirement? That is how heterosexual couples try. You can't really say they have to "try" with someone other than their partner. Wouldn't that be like telling a straight couple that if one of them was infertile the other has to "try" with someone else?

(Sorry if that didn't make much sense. You just brought up a very interesting point that raised some questions for me.)

DoGoodThenGo · Nov 25, 2012

Know this is an old thread but didn't see any mention of it so here goes.

A year or more ago the WH reversed/repealed a set of religious conscience executive orders issued by GWBII. These EOs allowed healthcare workers to opt out of performing certain treatments/proceedures etc... on religious grounds including many that pertained to gays, lesbians and transgendered persons. IIRC the WH gave as it's reasons that there were enough legal protections in federal statue that provided such workers with protection, and that the current EO served mainly as way for some providers to discriminate against LGBT. For what it is worth reproductive services was one of the issues cited.