IVF timebomb

“Infertility time bomb: IVF children have higher risk of infertility, obesity and diabetes”, Daily Mail, 23/2. There is some evidence that infertility problems can be passed on genetically for IVF-conceived children, as well as health problems caused by the procedure itself.

“There are genetic causes of infertility that you can pass on,” said Dr. Van Steirteghem. “It means that the next generation may be infertile as well and this is something all clinics should mention to the patients – that if there is a genetic origin that this genetic origin of infertility may be transmitted to the next generation.”

Fertility treatment is so common that one child in every primary school year group is thought to have been conceived in a fertility clinic. But the growth of IVF may have come at a cost to a small, but significant, minority of children. Studies have shown that test-tube babies are slightly more likely to suffer from birth defects. Because so many are twins and triplets, they are also at greater risk of low birth weight, obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure later in life. Doctors fear many IVF babies will also inherit the genetic mutations that caused their mother or father’s infertility.

So those are more problems that the public health system will pay for – which would have been unneccessary if IVF were never invented. That’s a major issue in the debate – this extra burden is preventable by banning IVF.

As usual the comments are heated (IVF brings out similar polarized opinions as abortion does). IVF in the UK and Australia is partly funded by the public health systems in both countries, which makes the issue more controversial. The point is usually raised that as various illnesses are paid for by public health care, why shouldn’t IVF be? The argument against this is that treating other illnesses don’t involve bringing another human into the world (who otherwise would not be there). IVF is unneccessary – it can’t be justified in an already-overpopulated world. At the very least, it certainly should not be taxpayer-funded.

A few comments (agreeing with my opinion):

There is a BIG difference betweem treating illness and having IVF. Yes, of course I have taken antibiotics, for ILLNESS. However, no-one has died from INFERTILITY!!! Your argument that just because people take treatment for illnesses means that IVF is necessary is ridiculous!

– linda Duncan-Adam, West Des Moines

This is what happens when humans tamper with nature – nature will always win. There are good reasons why a percentage of all mammals – including humans – are infertile. Having a child is a privilege, not a right as so any infertile couples seem to believe! Let’s hope sanity finally prevails on this issue. I resent my taxes going on NHS funded treatment for the infertile, it is an obscenity and an outrage when there are children starving in the world.

– Goldie, Sussex, 23/2/2010 4:23

Surely common sense (yet again) should prevail in this issue. Just why does nature let some couples conceive naturally and some not? Maybe because those who can conceive naturally and easily have the best genes to pass on. And maybe nature is telling those who can’t conceive naturally that there could be problems with any offspring if nature allowed them to do so. But of course, to some people, a baby is the ultimate “must have”, and so they will go to any lengths to have one.

– linda Duncan-Adam, West Des Moines

An entry on another blog annoyed me to the point of commenting – then I got castigated by some self-righteous females. Women like these seriously irritate me – they are of a leftist political view in which they think public health care should pay for everything. I am Leftist in many respects (and certainly support public health care), but my opinion diverges on this issue for previously-stated reasons. Such people are too focused on individual rights, and not on responsibilities to the society they live in.

I hate that term – “socially infertile”, as if someone who wants to become a parent so badly that they’re prepared to undergo the trauma of IVF has to justify why. It’s like the old debate on whether being gay is “genetic” or “chosen” – why on Earth does it matter? The point is that it’s not wrong, and that no-one should be discriminated against because of it. Same with those who, for whatever reason, cannot become parents without the aid of a particular medical treatment – they’re not going to apply for it unless they need it, are they? The reason is “I want to become a parent and can’t do so without this medical treatment”. It’s not a cosmetic procedure people are choosing to undergo because it sounds like fun, now, is it?

“Socially infertile” refers to lesbian couples and would-be single mothers who could otherwise concieve children naturally by mating with a man. There is no way IVF should be publically-funded for this – if they want children that badly, either adopt one – or mate in the normal fashion.

Population political party

“How many is too many? Australia’s people problem”, SMH, 19/2. A Sydney businessman named William Bourke is, like Dick Smith (see 26/1/2010 entry), concerned with overpopulation, to the point where he says he is launching a population-focused political party, named the Stable Population Party of Australia (some details at this entry in the PublicPopForum; they have an as-yet-unused site registered).

“Grey expectations not nearly as alarming as climate change”, The Age, 3/2. Criticism of the alarmist hype made by some politicians about Australia’s ageing population.

But even the remaining 40 per cent of the increase can’t be attributed to ageing. It includes allowance for the expected growth in the population from 22 million to 36 million. Obviously, 14 million extra people means (greatly) increased spending on healthcare, but this has nothing to do with older people’s increased need for healthcare purely because they’ve got older.

36 million is not inevitable! Such a population increase can be prevented if politicians have the will too (which none currently in power do).

Kelvin Thomson speech

MP Kelvin Thomson, one of the few politicans concerned about overpopulation, made an excellent speech at a Sustainable Population Australia meeting on 10/2 (also reproduced at the PublicPopForum). One of the points he makes is that the alarm over an ageing society is misguided.

“New party wants population debate”, SMH, 8/2. Another concerned businessman, William Bourke, proposes a new political party focused on overpopulation.

Although he has never been involved in politics, Mr. Bourke, 39, said his instincts told him Mr. Rudd had slipped up badly last year when he said, “I actually believe in a big Australia – I make no apology for that. I actually think it’s good news that our population is growing.” Mr. Bourke says the huge increases in population forecast by the federal Treasury in its third intergenerational report are a direct result of government policies, including record immigration levels and the baby bonus. Yet the only public debate is on how to deal with the consequences of so many more people, not whether such growth is desirable. He said “the extreme and radical rate of population growth” meant more high-rise apartment blocks, overcrowded transport networks and loss of parklands were inevitable, and it was time for a national debate about whether this was what people wanted. Mr. Bourke said he and a small group of like-minded people expect to reveal the name and plans for the party within three weeks and where they want to run candidates.

Letter, The Age, 6/2:

Norway can do it

Lindsay Tanner says that unless our population grows rapidly, we will suffer “lower productivity and less economic growth”. But from 1997 to 2007, 13 OECD nations had higher per-capita economic growth than Australia, but lower population growth. The suggestion that population growth is necessary for a vibrant economy is unsupported by any empirical evidence, and contrary to the examples of countries like Norway and Germany, which are doing fine with stable populations. If they can do it, why can’t we?

– Charles Berger, Australian Conservation Foundation, Carlton

SMH, 9/2:

Immigration policy must reflect our country’s fragility

Your editorial says there “is a popular opinion that holds Australia must rein in its population growth or suffer severe environmental consequences” (“A big Australia needs even bigger investment”, February 8). I presume this opinion is popular because our population growth to date has already led to severe environmental consequences.

There is a vast amount of scientific evidence to suggest we have stuffed up our environment at every level, and continue to do so. Those who say adding millions more people to the equation will not harm the environment if we do things the right way are the ones who are burying their heads in the sand. While we have the current system of buying, selling and developing land, the environment will always suffer.

You say “we have been adapting to higher populations since day one of the colony”. I respectfully suggest you should have said we have been “adapting poorly”. And when you say “we occupy one of the largest land masses in the world”, you should have said “one of the driest and most infertile land masses in the world”.

You could say we “enjoy” one of the world’s lowest population densities if we liked to live throughout our continent, but we don’t. We largely stick to the coast, so the population density in our cities and towns is similar to many other countries. Those trying to get to work on the Sydney road system would no doubt vouch for this.

“But since when have we given up so easily?” That is what I would say about those wanting a population debate and, heaven forbid, a population policy. Going along with governments who are hooked on high immigration simply because of an unproven economic benefit is the easy path.

Being against massive immigration does not mean you are anti-immigrant. We are all immigrants somewhere along the way, but we should not let that allow us to give up on fighting for a better way for this ancient and fragile country.

– Andrew Cronin, Robertson

Community disillusionment

I am increasingly irritated with the Childfree Hardcore LJ community. I posted an entry about a woman musing whether to have more children (a 4th). There have been similar entries from others concerning overpopulation and/or large families (example: “Octomom”), so I thought it relevant. Apparently not, according to some commenters.

I find it strange that a community that exists for people who do not wish to have children has become a place to post about anything regarding other people having children. This isn’t an anti-overpopulation comm, even though a lot of it’s members are VHEMT members and the like. How does this directly relate to you being childfree? Yes, having four children is selfish, and I’m sure we all agree on that. You’re kind of preaching to the choir, here.

Yes, I thought members might like to read and debate it?

I come to this comm precisely because I don’t have to pretend that I give a shit one way or the other if people have kids. Because I really don’t. As long as the sproggen don’t get up in my face or ruin a movie for me, I don’t care if you have one or a baker’s fuckin’ dozen. Just keep that shit away from me. And frankly, how is this about being CF (hardcore or otherwise)? I mean if you want to talk about whether her waffling makes it harder for others to seek sterilization, that’s relevant to those of us in the comm who have been bingoed and denied reproductive rights. But asking if her decision is greedy? If I’m going to ask parents to refrain from considering my reproductive choices to be “greedy” or “selfish” – I figure I owe them the same consideration when it comes to their choices. So long as she can afford the kid and isn’t going to abuse it horribly how is this our damn business?

Most community entries are gripes about various children’s bad behavior! Also reproductive choices – in this case, having a lot of children – do affect others, in that it means there are fewer resources to share, and taxpayers will end up supporting those children in some way, such as (in Australia) through the baby bonus or government-funded health care (Medicare).

The community is not “hardcore” enough for me anymore (as in Pentti Linkola hardcore). There is inconsistency on what topics can be posted, and posts may be deleted at the whim of the moderators. There is much complaining about how child-centric society is, how women are judged by whether or not they have children, rights to contraception and abortion, a lot of examples of bad parenting, and so on. All of which I agree with. But if topics such as forced sterilization are brought up (an example being drug-addicted women who keep having children while on welfare) it brings down the wrath of the community. Rule №9: “This community, along with being pro-reproductive rights and against fat wank, does not endorse the idea that a group of people are inferior, evil, scary, or generally deserve to have their reproductive rights taken away for the good of society.” I disagree with the “reproductive rights” – as society usually ends up paying for the actions of irresponsible mothers in the form of welfare, society does have a right in this case to take away her means of having children (or more children if she already has any). There is too much emphasis on rights – identity politics – and not enough on responsibilities in our society, an issue that seems to elude a lot of forum members.

I will not bother to post there anymore; a lot of members come across as snarky bitchy females. I encountered those types at school; I do not want to have to tolerate them on the Internet. I have yet to find a community to my liking (there are none on LJ that I know of).

[Edit: I deleted the entry then quit the community. Here is a screenshot of the entry, just over 1 MB.]

“Is it greedy to want a large family?”, The Age, 19/1. The original article which got me irate. To repeat what I said in the LJ entry: This columnist is mulling over whether to have another child (she has 3 already). My opinion: yes, it is greedy! She lives in a 1st-world country where her children are virtually guaranteed to survive to adulthood, and with access to birth control, so large families in this case are a selfish indulgence. Most people’s genes are not so special that they need to produce multiple offspring. There is also the damage multiple births do to a woman’s body. Most of her commenters (linked in the article) show the same selfishness, and encourage her to have another (there are a very few dissenting comments concerned about overpopulation).

Educating women and giving them access to family planning and contraception is generally supposed to result in them having smaller families (1-2 children), or no children. Unfortunately, in Australia this effect seems to be reversing!

Population debate

Published letters collection. Some of the following letters refer to a series of population debates held on The 7.30 Report last week (which can be viewed in the January 2010 archive). I did not watch these as I would only feel frustrated – a lot of talk, but nothing serious done to reverse population growth.

SMH, 3/2:

Today’s migrants are tomorrow’s seniors

Yes, we have a looming crunch as the Australian population pyramid morphs into a population towerblock, and retirees threaten to outnumber the economically productive (“Injection of youth slows down the ageing process”, February 2).

But the short-term solution of importing young workers is borrowing against the future. What will we do when they retire? No country can support an unlimited population. At some stage we have to adapt to the reality of greater longevity and a static population.

We are not just living longer – we are also healthier beyond 60. If the retirement age must be gradually raised to 70, then so be it. But even in the good times it is hard to get a job when you are over 50. Business must adapt, too.

– Derek Bolton, Birchgrove

Wayne Swan says the population may not be allowed to hit 36 million by 2050: the economic benefits of a large population would have to be weighed against environmental and infrastructure impacts.

Swan’s words sound familiar. The 1994 inquiry into Australia’s population “carrying capacity” recommended adopting a formal population policy, which would be informed by these considerations. The Keating government could not summon the courage to respond, and the Howard government’s response was finally revealed in 1999. It argued that no formal policy was needed because its policies would result in a stable population of about 23.5 million by 2051. Our population has already exceeded 22 million, and the results of the past 10 years of population growth are in: infrastructure is failing, our environment is in decline, with water security a major concern and attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions thwarted.

The Rudd government would do well to start work urgently on a population policy.

– Gordon Hocking, Oyster Bay

Wayne Swan again recommends that the ageing members of the population gird up their loins and prepare to work into their twilight years. If only it was that simple.

I would like to see any of our relatively well-heeled “suits” find themselves in their late 50s trying to compete for semi-professional jobs such as office work with gorgeous young things – male or female – 20 or 30 years younger. There are 600,000 of us officially out of work, plus those the statisticians ignore – the underemployed, the unincluded and the totally demoralised who have given up hope of employment, no matter how much they have to offer.

Let’s talk honestly about finding jobs for everyone who needs one. Let’s start thinking about no-fault unemployment and adjust the demands of our social security system accordingly. And let’s not ask older people to humiliate themselves, yet again, trying to secure jobs in our youth-obsessed culture that many employers, young or old, are most unlikely to offer them.

– Virginia Rose, Verona

Come on Kev, don’t pussyfoot around. Legalise euthanasia and be done with it (us).

– Trevor Knight, Gilles Plains (SA)

The Age, 29/1:

Balanced approach

George Brandis has had a cheap shot at Julia Gillard over her decision not to have children (The Age, 28/1). With the world population rocketing towards 9 billion, leaving environmental devastation and significant human suffering in its wake, people who don’t reproduce are doing the world a great favour.

Aberrations in female fecundity like the vocal Angela Shanahan, who has had nine children, must be counterbalanced by women who have one or no children or we would be in a terrible predicament in a very short time.

The decision not to give birth does not indicate one dimensionality of a woman’s character as claimed. No human can have all possible life experiences. With empathy and imagination we can still put ourselves in the positions of others who have had a different life path.

– Jill Quirk, East Malvern

30/1:

Stop this madness until we have a plan

I have seldom seen a politician more comfortable with himself than Kevin Rudd explaining that neither the government, nor the other side of Australian politics has a population policy. And thus will take no responsibility for the consequences of Australia at 35 million.

However, if you look at the programs in place – social and financial pressure for more babies, unlimited immigration, and even legal sanctions against voluntary euthanasia – you would hardly know it. It appears a little disingenuous to me.

It may just be possible for Australia to cope with this number of people at this rate of increase but not without carefully co-ordinated management of our infrastructure. And that is simply not possible without a well-articulated and agreed policy framework. This has to be understood by all levels of government, the Opposition and by the electorate in general. There is a fat chance of this happening.

The fact is that the Government does have the means to influence our population. At present it is using this to encourage unlimited growth and is doing so in a policy vacuum. Simply hoping it will all work out in the end is not good enough. Could we please stop this madness until we have a plan.

– Kyle Matheson, Mont Albert

Not set in stone

It was apparent, watching Kevin Rudd being interviewed on television, that his enthusiasm for “a big Australia” was tempered by his realisation that the electorate is beginning to understand that the calibration of annual immigration is a matter of his Government’s policy and is not cast in stone.

The electorate is eager to know whether a “big Australia” is in the national interest. This question will continue to bedevil the Government and Opposition until an informed case, for and against it, has been transparently heard in the political and public arena.

– Arthur Bassett, Blackburn South

Aim to be self-reliant

One simple fact always gets lost in the climate change debate. That it is far better for humanity to act as if it is a reality. Reducing reliance on basic services, now provided by governments and multinationals, such as water and power, and changing to non-polluting, home-based systems, and reducing the use of fossil fuels must have an overall beneficial effect. It will also greatly increase the power of the individual to avoid being reliant on monopolistic, rapacious organisations.

Of course those who pay the deniers’ bills, and governments bent on perpetuating obsolete systems to benefit special interest groups and wealthy investors, do not like that idea. It is not climate change they aim to deny, but to constrain the power of the individual to act independently against it, and to restrict any ability to deny large organisations massive profits.

With a Government in thrall to the coal and oil industries, with its fuel-hungry desalination plants, and massive polluting power stations, we will continue to see decisions taken that ensure that all citizens pay their hard-earned cash to the rapacious for their basic services with ever less opportunity to opt out of the scam.

– Martin Dix, Healesville

It is worrying that Kevin Rudd thinks nothing can be done to control immigration numbers. Perhaps a population policy would be a start.

– Beverley Broadbent, East Brighton

2/2:

Less wasteful living

Kevin Rudd says we need a big Australia to fund services for our ageing population. Commentators have also argued we need to work longer to enjoy the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed.

What Australians really need to do is consume less, waste less, drive less often and in smaller cars, and generally reduce our material wants. We will be happier and not supporting an economy that chokes our cities and wrecks the environment. We will have “quality of life” rather than just the “high standard of living” so beloved of politicians and economists.

In a land of finite and dwindling resources, repudiating the policy of economic growth as the solution to our problems is the only rational and morally defensible course of action.

– Rob Buttrose, Moonee Ponds

3/2:

Fill ’em up won’t work

Wayne Swan has joined the chorus of Kevin Rudd and Lindsay Tanner for a big Australia, based on an ageing population. These mindless pollies make out that this is the solution when, in fact, it only makes a bigger time-bomb.

What happens when all the additional migrants age? We then have an even bigger ageing population. Based on Rudd’s and Swan’s principles, we will need even more people in the following 40 years, after 2050. So will we march on to 70 million people?

Not to mention that the skyrocketing cost of essentials such as food, housing, energy and water will drive an even greater socio-economic divide in a decimated environment. Standards of living will continue to fall, especially for lower-income families, as our resources are stretched to the limit.

We need a realistic sustainable solution to an ageing population, as opposed to filling up the country beyond breaking point. Pollies seem to view population growth and consumption as endless, no matter what the consequences, so long as the big end of town is rewarded. It is high time for a referendum on this so that at least all current Australians will have a say in this country’s population destiny.

– Tony Smith, Burwood