The world has gone mad.....

13 May 2007

Quote by Serendipity
Two reasons, both personal rather than a generalisation though.
1. IVF seems potentially very destructive to marriages - it's expensive, often disappointing, reduces an act of love (sex) to something that has to be timed just right and the treatment attempts can go on for years, not work and end up with couples splitting over their inability to conceive which is so sad, when it's probably not the reason they chose to marry each other. And yes, I know that's not true for everyone who goes through IVF/Fertility treatment but I've seen enough evidence of it to know it's common.

From vast experience of reading infertilty realted forums just like this one IVF and all realted treatments break down of marital status is rare in fact more fertile couples split during the first 15 months after a child is born. Thats the most common time for marital break up so you could say being fertile makes you more likely to split. overall infertility treatment and the struggle it creates it seems to bond people not break them. Of all the people we have met on the infertility forums succesful or not none have split. Anyone timing sex isnt truely infertile they may well be having IUI treatment and its probably related to low sperm count. Wont see me timing it :lol2:

Quote by Serendipity
2. If egg freezing, sperm donors, IVT etc had been this prevalent in the lates 60s/early 70s I wonder if someone like me, who was adopted, might have spent a lot more time in an orphange/childrens home. Obviously I can't answer that, but my personal choice would be trying to adopt over IVF because of my own background..

With the large rise in rates of abortion there are far less babies to adopt for sure. Maybe a bit cold to say but its babies that most couples look for. I would quite happily take up an older child but still probably under 5 I think it gives me more influence over them. However Mrs Tweeky wants babies and her babies, its what we are here to do ultimately so I guess I cant fault her on that.

Quote by Serendipity
So, like I said, it's my personal feeling - what anyone else chooses is up to them, we all have our own reasons for what we would or wouldn't do!

Personal felling great :thumbup: The way it was worded before read like you were implying that you were against its use in all cases.
Cheers

14 May 2007

Quote by Serendipity
1. IVF seems potentially very destructive to marriages - it's expensive, often disappointing, reduces an act of love (sex) to something that has to be timed just right and the treatment attempts can go on for years, not work and end up with couples splitting over their inability to conceive which is so sad, when it's probably not the reason they chose to marry each other. And yes, I know that's not true for everyone who goes through IVF/Fertility treatment but I've seen enough evidence of it to know it's common.

I can see your point to an extent confused

Being told when to have sex and how often for a number of years did affect our sex lives greatly. It ruined spontaneity, made me almost come to think of having sex as a chore.
Then you have the doctors and hospital visits which at one point for me was at 12 midnight, until I learnt to inject myself. It took me a good 2 years after our twins where born to get back into a 'natural' sex life.
So yes, it can be shitty but the only effect it had on our marriage was to bring us closer together.

Quote by Serendipity
2. If egg freezing, sperm donors, IVT etc had been this prevalent in the lates 60s/early 70s I wonder if someone like me, who was adopted, might have spent a lot more time in an orphange/childrens home. Obviously I can't answer that, but my personal choice would be trying to adopt over IVF because of my own background.
So, like I said, it's my personal feeling - what anyone else chooses is up to them, we all have our own reasons for what we would or wouldn't do!

I understand that but for me I wanted to have the experience of carrying a child, like Mrs Tweeky, she wants babies and her babies :?
It is nice to hear a different point of view because Ians parents were not very supportive throughout our fertility treatment but never explained why. Maybe they also had a similar view point :?
My parents were supportive, in fact they own one of the kids because they paid half towards the second and successful attempt of IVF :lol2:

14 May 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
Having thought about it again, I think the decision may well have been based on the difference between the addicts having a baby on H, or having it on meth.
Presumably tending to a meth baby with rehabilitating parents might eventually be more productive than a family of H addicts, who would almost certainly come to sad end.
Its obvious she was determined to have a child under the worst circumstances, so the authorities may well have reasoned as above.

Oh well, thats ok then..... If she was determined as you say then so be it.. let nature take its course and if it couldn't make sure she was clean and stayed clean for a decent amount of time before!
I just cannot understand at all how anyone can think it ok to even think about let alone allow this to have happened. No one but themselves made them what they are..
Perhaps fertility treatment and methadone did keep her off the H. It may have given her the incentive to stay off the H, although not completely free of drugs. But as I said, it may well be a better solution than having a whole family that eventually drifts back into H because they have had all hope removed from their lives.
That is a BIG perhaps. And as for what it implies ???? So the authorities decided a baby may distract them from going back onto street drugs???

Quote by duncanlondon
If the children are healthy and well formed they could go on to have a reasonable life.

And that is a BIG if. We already know it wasn't the right 'if' for one of the babies. And as for the other ones? What might they be going through?
Methadone withdrawal – cold turkey style (note only on meths for 7mths)

I had been taking methadone for 7 months 40mg dose. 6 years of heroin use I had done detox cold turkey twice nothing then was as bad as the methadone first day I felt tired and started to cramp. Not the worst thing the heroin was worse at this stage. More cramp and sweats on day2. now the methadone was starting to work out of me. Restless sleep and sweats made me tired and the cramps got worse. I woke screaming at the pain of my muscles cramping and twisting my arms and legs and body my head began to feel like it was being crushed under a car wheel or beaten with a bat. All I could do was lay in soiled sheets to much pain to move my legs to get out of bed the diarhoea just another pain as my stomach cramped. I though of suicide in deep depression and could not shake the thought of stopping the pain by killing myself I had to call for help still screaming as I had to untwist my fingers to dial for help.

Methadone withdrawal – the cutting down the dose approach

I just got off methadone last weekend. I got off at 6mg's. I had pretty hard withdrawal symptoms even going down just 1mg at a time. Since I completely got off, I have been through hell. I got extreme anxiety, followed by a very deep depression. Nothing bad is going on in my life to cause me to be depressed. I could barely go to school or concentrate. THank god I have next week off! This morning I was extremely depressed. I started sweating again today at school, and I have had diarrhea all week. I am very weak and tired. When I was going down I didn't sleep much for a few months.

reacently got off methadone im 21 and started 3 years ago i didnt even know what it was but i loved pain pillsand tride it . 3 years later i had no money and no connection so i knew it was time to quit . my mother dosed me down 5 mg ever weeks. it was the hardest thing iv ever done . one night when i was very sick from withdrawals i was puking very hard and nothing was comming out i puke extreamly hard and all the sudden i got a fealing like somone had shot mein the back of the head . there is nothing that could possibly hurt more then the way this felt the headeach was so severr i thought i woul;d die i called the 911 and they came and got me . for 3 months after thisi would have those head achs ever day they would be set off but having sex and or just going the the bathroom . after countless trips the the hospital and getting mri and cat scans i was told to go to see specialist of head aches that eventualiy i got rid of the head aches

:shock:

14 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
Having thought about it again, I think the decision may well have been based on the difference between the addicts having a baby on H, or having it on meth.
Presumably tending to a meth baby with rehabilitating parents might eventually be more productive than a family of H addicts, who would almost certainly come to sad end.
Its obvious she was determined to have a child under the worst circumstances, so the authorities may well have reasoned as above.

Oh well, thats ok then..... If she was determined as you say then so be it.. let nature take its course and if it couldn't make sure she was clean and stayed clean for a decent amount of time before!
I just cannot understand at all how anyone can think it ok to even think about let alone allow this to have happened. No one but themselves made them what they are..
Perhaps fertility treatment and methadone did keep her off the H. It may have given her the incentive to stay off the H, although not completely free of drugs. But as I said, it may well be a better solution than having a whole family that eventually drifts back into H because they have had all hope removed from their lives.
That is a BIG perhaps. And as for what it implies ???? So the authorities decided a baby may distract them from going back onto street drugs???

Quote by duncanlondon
If the children are healthy and well formed they could go on to have a reasonable life.

And that is a BIG if. We already know it wasn't the right 'if' for one of the babies. And as for the other ones? What might they be going through?
Methadone withdrawal – cold turkey style (note only on meths for 7mths)

I had been taking methadone for 7 months 40mg dose. 6 years of heroin use I had done detox cold turkey twice nothing then was as bad as the methadone first day I felt tired and started to cramp. Not the worst thing the heroin was worse at this stage. More cramp and sweats on day2. now the methadone was starting to work out of me. Restless sleep and sweats made me tired and the cramps got worse. I woke screaming at the pain of my muscles cramping and twisting my arms and legs and body my head began to feel like it was being crushed under a car wheel or beaten with a bat. All I could do was lay in soiled sheets to much pain to move my legs to get out of bed the diarhoea just another pain as my stomach cramped. I though of suicide in deep depression and could not shake the thought of stopping the pain by killing myself I had to call for help still screaming as I had to untwist my fingers to dial for help.

Methadone withdrawal – the cutting down the dose approach

I just got off methadone last weekend. I got off at 6mg's. I had pretty hard withdrawal symptoms even going down just 1mg at a time. Since I completely got off, I have been through hell. I got extreme anxiety, followed by a very deep depression. Nothing bad is going on in my life to cause me to be depressed. I could barely go to school or concentrate. THank god I have next week off! This morning I was extremely depressed. I started sweating again today at school, and I have had diarrhea all week. I am very weak and tired. When I was going down I didn't sleep much for a few months.

reacently got off methadone im 21 and started 3 years ago i didnt even know what it was but i loved pain pillsand tride it . 3 years later i had no money and no connection so i knew it was time to quit . my mother dosed me down 5 mg ever weeks. it was the hardest thing iv ever done . one night when i was very sick from withdrawals i was puking very hard and nothing was comming out i puke extreamly hard and all the sudden i got a fealing like somone had shot mein the back of the head . there is nothing that could possibly hurt more then the way this felt the headeach was so severr i thought i woul;d die i called the 911 and they came and got me . for 3 months after thisi would have those head achs ever day they would be set off but having sex and or just going the the bathroom . after countless trips the the hospital and getting mri and cat scans i was told to go to see specialist of head aches that eventualiy i got rid of the head aches

:shock:
Jeeze... I'm falling for this woman :P worship

14 May 2007

Quote by mdr2000
Jeeze... I'm falling for this woman :P

Me too :inlove:
louise xx

14 May 2007

Quote by louise_and_joe

Jeeze... I'm falling for this woman :P

Me too :inlove:
louise xx
Mind, silly

hwoar: I'm easily led astray lol.. xx

14 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
Having thought about it again, I think the decision may well have been based on the difference between the addicts having a baby on H, or having it on meth.
Presumably tending to a meth baby with rehabilitating parents might eventually be more productive than a family of H addicts, who would almost certainly come to sad end.
Its obvious she was determined to have a child under the worst circumstances, so the authorities may well have reasoned as above.

Oh well, thats ok then..... If she was determined as you say then so be it.. let nature take its course and if it couldn't make sure she was clean and stayed clean for a decent amount of time before!
I just cannot understand at all how anyone can think it ok to even think about let alone allow this to have happened. No one but themselves made them what they are..
Perhaps fertility treatment and methadone did keep her off the H. It may have given her the incentive to stay off the H, although not completely free of drugs. But as I said, it may well be a better solution than having a whole family that eventually drifts back into H because they have had all hope removed from their lives.
That is a BIG perhaps. And as for what it implies ???? So the authorities decided a baby may distract them from going back onto street drugs???

Quote by duncanlondon
If the children are healthy and well formed they could go on to have a reasonable life.

And that is a BIG if. We already know it wasn't the right 'if' for one of the babies. And as for the other ones? What might they be going through?
Methadone withdrawal – cold turkey style (note only on meths for 7mths)

I had been taking methadone for 7 months 40mg dose. 6 years of heroin use I had done detox cold turkey twice nothing then was as bad as the methadone first day I felt tired and started to cramp. Not the worst thing the heroin was worse at this stage. More cramp and sweats on day2. now the methadone was starting to work out of me. Restless sleep and sweats made me tired and the cramps got worse. I woke screaming at the pain of my muscles cramping and twisting my arms and legs and body my head began to feel like it was being crushed under a car wheel or beaten with a bat. All I could do was lay in soiled sheets to much pain to move my legs to get out of bed the diarhoea just another pain as my stomach cramped. I though of suicide in deep depression and could not shake the thought of stopping the pain by killing myself I had to call for help still screaming as I had to untwist my fingers to dial for help.

Methadone withdrawal – the cutting down the dose approach

I just got off methadone last weekend. I got off at 6mg's. I had pretty hard withdrawal symptoms even going down just 1mg at a time. Since I completely got off, I have been through hell. I got extreme anxiety, followed by a very deep depression. Nothing bad is going on in my life to cause me to be depressed. I could barely go to school or concentrate. THank god I have next week off! This morning I was extremely depressed. I started sweating again today at school, and I have had diarrhea all week. I am very weak and tired. When I was going down I didn't sleep much for a few months.

reacently got off methadone im 21 and started 3 years ago i didnt even know what it was but i loved pain pillsand tride it . 3 years later i had no money and no connection so i knew it was time to quit . my mother dosed me down 5 mg ever weeks. it was the hardest thing iv ever done . one night when i was very sick from withdrawals i was puking very hard and nothing was comming out i puke extreamly hard and all the sudden i got a fealing like somone had shot mein the back of the head . there is nothing that could possibly hurt more then the way this felt the headeach was so severr i thought i woul;d die i called the 911 and they came and got me . for 3 months after thisi would have those head achs ever day they would be set off but having sex and or just going the the bathroom . after countless trips the the hospital and getting mri and cat scans i was told to go to see specialist of head aches that eventualiy i got rid of the head aches

:shock:
Harrowing stuff indeed, pretty crap for all them that go through it for either meth or H or both. But what do you do, forced sterilisation?

14 May 2007

Who mentioned forced sterilisation? All I said was NO to IVF and let nature take its course...
I personally think there are far better things to spend the NHS (My/Our) Money on than a pair of dope heads who thinks a baby is a good idea.. Jeeze what will they want next a playstation 3 ff's?

14 May 2007

Quote by mdr2000
Who mentioned forced sterilisation? All I said was NO to IVF and let nature take its course...
I personally think there are far better things to spend the NHS (My/Our) Money on than a pair of dope heads who thinks a baby is a good idea.. Jeeze what will they want next a playstation 3 ff's?

Fair enough. I think as many would refuse IVF as allow it. Either way you get a family that will probably need lifelong support. Which will probably mean Playstation 3 and beyond.
Perhaps there's someone out there with the science on babies born under H for a comparison check?

14 May 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
Who mentioned forced sterilisation? All I said was NO to IVF and let nature take its course...
I personally think there are far better things to spend the NHS (My/Our) Money on than a pair of dope heads who thinks a baby is a good idea.. Jeeze what will they want next a playstation 3 ff's?

Fair enough. I think as many would refuse IVF as allow it. Either way you get a family that will probably need lifelong support.
Perhaps there's someone out there with the science on babies born under H for a comparison check?
Not sure what you mean.. Are you actually saying you think its ok to have babies brought into a drug users family? Or it should be considered a better option (Scientific Comparison) to have them whilst using drugs? Sorry I am lost for words..
No way is it better to have them under any drug related problem.. As for life long support I think studies will clearly without doubt show anyone born from a drug free relationship or even IVF will be healthier and need far less support as you say life long.
They even tell you about fookin smoking during pregnancy.. never mind Meth Heroin or even a prescription medication...
Sorry but the argument/discussion is a non starter.

14 May 2007

Quote by mdr2000
Who mentioned forced sterilisation? All I said was NO to IVF and let nature take its course...
I personally think there are far better things to spend the NHS (My/Our) Money on than a pair of dope heads who thinks a baby is a good idea.. Jeeze what will they want next a playstation 3 ff's?

If someone needed IVF treatment...sterilisation is clearly something they wouldn't need!

14 May 2007

Quote by Mr-Powers
Who mentioned forced sterilisation? All I said was NO to IVF and let nature take its course...
I personally think there are far better things to spend the NHS (My/Our) Money on than a pair of dope heads who thinks a baby is a good idea.. Jeeze what will they want next a playstation 3 ff's?

If someone needed IVF treatment...sterilisation is clearly something they wouldn't need!
Not even sure where that came into it?:confused2:

14 May 2007

Quote by mdr2000
Who mentioned forced sterilisation? All I said was NO to IVF and let nature take its course...
I personally think there are far better things to spend the NHS (My/Our) Money on than a pair of dope heads who thinks a baby is a good idea.. Jeeze what will they want next a playstation 3 ff's?

If someone needed IVF treatment...sterilisation is clearly something they wouldn't need!
Not even sure where that came into it?:confused2:
thats what i was thinking.

14 May 2007

Quote by mdr2000
Who mentioned forced sterilisation? All I said was NO to IVF and let nature take its course...
I personally think there are far better things to spend the NHS (My/Our) Money on than a pair of dope heads who thinks a baby is a good idea.. Jeeze what will they want next a playstation 3 ff's?

Fair enough. I think as many would refuse IVF as allow it. Either way you get a family that will probably need lifelong support.
Perhaps there's someone out there with the science on babies born under H for a comparison check?
Not sure what you mean.. Are you actually saying you think its ok to have babies brought into a drug users family? Or it should be considered a better option (Scientific Comparison) to have them whilst using drugs? Sorry I am lost for words..
No way is it better to have them under any drug related problem.. As for life long support I think studies will clearly without doubt show anyone born from a drug free relationship or even IVF will be healthier and need far less support as you say life long.
They even tell you about fookin smoking during pregnancy.. never mind Meth Heroin or even a prescription medication...
Sorry but the argument/discussion is a non starter.
I don't think its good for kids to be born as addicts, or to have to cope with addict parents or family members. I am asking for anyone who knows the facts to help in making a comparison between the effects of H and meth on babies and resultant effects as a family. If the H family comes off worse than the meth, then I think the authorities made the right decision.
I think the various authorities had to decide between allowing the mother to conceive as either a return H addict or a meth addict. They probably weighed up the pros and cons and made the decision to do IVF in the belief that it is the better solution. As I said before the woman was determined to have a child, eventually she could have conceived either way.
In our society I think they have made a reasonably good decision to attempt this. If I was a barefoot doctor in a far away location, I'd probably agree with the 'let nature take its course' approach, because we wouldn't have the facilities to support a family of addicts.
Its a fiendish choice either way, if you want to be humane about it. In some circumstances I'm sure the majority would vote to have them blown away. problem solved etc.
The loss of the third baby could be attributable to many reasons. I don't have the post mortem or the benefit of the science, but it would be an assumption to link it directly to the combined effects of IVF and meth, because two babies survived.

14 May 2007

My personal feelings are that this couple shouldn't have recieved NHS funded inferetility treatment....but,
Looking at it clinically I can understand why they may not be refused.
They are no-longer classed drug addicts if they are taking part in a Methodone Programme (and have been free from illegal drugs for several according to the article).
Methodone can and is safely perscribed during pregnancy by specialist harm reduction teams.
There are many many perscription drugs that can cause problems in pregnancy. Ibruprofen was mentioned earlier, this is part of the Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory drugs. NSAIDS cause heart defects in the foetus and neo-nate (can cause the ductus arteriosis to close prematurely). However pregnant women with inflammatory conditions have little choice but to continue taking them throughout pregnancy (Only a brand considered to have a lower risk is perscribed, but the risk is still there).
Prescribed drugs for other long term medical conditions can cause other problems.
Unless the selection criteria for the IVF stated that the female partner was medication free then being perscribed Methodone would be no different from being prescribed any other medication.
Les x

14 May 2007

Quote by couple_ne2000
My personal feelings are that this couple shouldn't have recieved NHS funded inferetility treatment....but,
Looking at it clinically I can understand why they may not be refused.
They are no-longer classed drug addicts if they are taking part in a Methodone Programme (and have been free from illegal drugs for several according to the article).
Methodone can and is safely perscribed during pregnancy by specialist harm reduction teams.
There are many many perscription drugs that can cause problems in pregnancy. Ibruprofen was mentioned earlier, this is part of the Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory drugs. NSAIDS cause heart defects in the foetus and neo-nate (can cause the ductus arteriosis to close prematurely). However pregnant women with inflammatory conditions have little choice but to continue taking them throughout pregnancy (Only a brand considered to have a lower risk is perscribed, but the risk is still there).
Prescribed drugs for other long term medical conditions can cause other problems.
Unless the selection criteria for the IVF stated that the female partner was medication free then being perscribed Methodone would be no different from being prescribed any other medication.
Les x

tiny hijack
bloody hell good to see you around again
Earthy xx
hijack over

14 May 2007

Quote by earthchild
tiny hijack
bloody hell good to see you around again
Earthy xx
hijack over

I've still been about, just been a bit quiet lately.
Les x

14 May 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
But what do you do, forced sterilisation?

No need - just don't allow the IVF.

Quote by duncanlondon
I am asking for anyone who knows the facts to help in making a comparison between the effects of H and meth on babies and resultant effects as a family. If the H family comes off worse than the meth, then I think the authorities made the right decision.

Why the need to compare methadone user babies against heroin user babies? They were not heroin users, they were methadone users. Not all methadone users/addicts are former heroin addicts. You are implying that methadone addicts have two choices:
1 - to stay on methadone
2 - to use heroin
What about option 3 - get clean?
What you are suggesting is the authorities assessed the current situation against a far worse hypothetical situation to decide on whether to allow the IVF.

Quote by duncanlondon
I think the various authorities had to decide between allowing the mother to conceive as either a return H addict or a meth addict. They probably weighed up the pros and cons and made the decision to do IVF in the belief that it is the better solution. As I said before the woman was determined to have a child, eventually she could have conceived either way.

Again you are working on the 2 choice theory... there is the 3rd option of detox.
And 'if' as you say "eventually she could have conceived either way" ... then why the fudge-pucker did we pay for the IVF?

Quote by duncanlondon
In our society I think they have made a reasonably good decision to attempt this. If I was a barefoot doctor in a far away location, I'd probably agree with the 'let nature take its course' approach, because we wouldn't have the facilities to support a family of addicts.

Actually we as a nation don't, well not without someone else missing out on their health needs. The NHS is under funded if you hadn't heard some of the rumblings. There are far too few rehab places to meet the needs of the addicts. There are too few specialist baby units to cope with current needs (or if you get one it is miles away). There are too few of everything if you live in the wrong postcode.

14 May 2007

The thing about common sense is its not very common today.

14 May 2007

I just had to have my tuppence worth here...
Having read everything, it seems people are getting hung up on the whole Meth v Heroin debate and missing a vital point: According to the NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) guidelines, anyone wishing to have IVF *MUST* be informed that smoking decreases the chances of success and our local PCT states that you *must* be a non-smoker for at least one year before being permitted treatment funded by the PCT.
That's both parents, not just the prospective mother. And that's just the smoking side. There's plenty more conditions that you must fill.
It comes down to what the PCT will or will not fund. The guidelines that they work to give a general overview, stating that alcohol, caffiene, niccotiene and prescribed, over the counter or recreational drugs can affect the outcome and decrease success rates. The PCT then decides what hoops it will place in the path of prospective parents for them to jump through in order to keep within their budgets.
Obviously this lucky duo live in an area where their PCT can afford to fund their IVF treatment, where others in other areas have to be a certain age, certain weight, be a non-smoker for a year and a dozen other things to go along with it before it will even be considered.
OK, so smoking isn't completely harmless, but it's not a prescribed medication that is a *direct substitute* for an incredibly addictive, illegal substance. As far as I am aware, the only difference in effect between meth and heroin for the user is the way you obtain it. Plus it's cheaper. Plus people on benefits get free prescriptions, although I'm not sure if that's true for substances like meth. Someone will enlighten me on that score I hope. It's still bloody dangerous and bloody stupid as far as my feelings go.
If someone is that desperate to have children, why are they not prepared to make the saccrifices needed to give them the best chance of bringing a healthy, addiction-free child into the world? I am determined to quit smoking so I can perhaps have that chance. I am determined to make the saccrifices needed to jump through those hoops, as are others, so why are people like us sitting here like absolute lemons, doing all this stuff and then having to read about some couple who would never be allowed the chance to adopt a child because of their addiction, get the treatment that we so desperately want but can't have?
Someone used the phrase "loony liberals" and it's a sad fact. We live in a society where people who want kids, who are happy to make the lifestyle changes, who work, earn, pay taxes, have a stable relationship and who have tried and failed to have natural births have to sit back and watch this sort of thing happen. Why? Because some "poor ex addict has a right to have children the same as everyone else does". Yeah right. On meth, they're not ex-anything. They just live in the right place.
Sorry... I didn't read the article. I'm too cross. Wherever they live, are there any houses for sale? I'm thinking of moving...

14 May 2007

Quote by CarmelaDeA
I just had to have my tuppence worth here...
Having read everything, it seems people are getting hung up on the whole Meth v Heroin debate and missing a vital point: According to the NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) guidelines, anyone wishing to have IVF *MUST* be informed that smoking decreases the chances of success and our local PCT states that you *must* be a non-smoker for at least one year before being permitted treatment funded by the PCT.
That's both parents, not just the prospective mother. And that's just the smoking side. There's plenty more conditions that you must fill.
It comes down to what the PCT will or will not fund. The guidelines that they work to give a general overview, stating that alcohol, caffiene, niccotiene and prescribed, over the counter or recreational drugs can affect the outcome and decrease success rates. The PCT then decides what hoops it will place in the path of prospective parents for them to jump through in order to keep within their budgets.
Obviously this lucky duo live in an area where their PCT can afford to fund their IVF treatment, where others in other areas have to be a certain age, certain weight, be a non-smoker for a year and a dozen other things to go along with it before it will even be considered.
OK, so smoking isn't completely harmless, but it's not a prescribed medication that is a *direct substitute* for an incredibly addictive, illegal substance. As far as I am aware, the only difference in effect between meth and heroin for the user is the way you obtain it. Plus it's cheaper. Plus people on benefits get free prescriptions, although I'm not sure if that's true for substances like meth. Someone will enlighten me on that score I hope. It's still bloody dangerous and bloody stupid as far as my feelings go.
If someone is that desperate to have children, why are they not prepared to make the saccrifices needed to give them the best chance of bringing a healthy, addiction-free child into the world? I am determined to quit smoking so I can perhaps have that chance. I am determined to make the saccrifices needed to jump through those hoops, as are others, so why are people like us sitting here like absolute lemons, doing all this stuff and then having to read about some couple who would never be allowed the chance to adopt a child because of their addiction, get the treatment that we so desperately want but can't have?
Someone used the phrase "loony liberals" and it's a sad fact. We live in a society where people who want kids, who are happy to make the lifestyle changes, who work, earn, pay taxes, have a stable relationship and who have tried and failed to have natural births have to sit back and watch this sort of thing happen. Why? Because some "poor ex addict has a right to have children the same as everyone else does". Yeah right. On meth, they're not ex-anything. They just live in the right place.
Sorry... I didn't read the article. I'm too cross. Wherever they live, are there any houses for sale? I'm thinking of moving...

Wow! What a post! worship

:worship: :worship: :worship:
As someone who (for persoanl reasons) feels extremely passionate about drug usage and making allowances for addicts, I'm finding it very difficult to think things through from both sides, or to even think fairly. evil

I've written several posts, but none of em have come out right, or at least how I wanted to come across, so have given up trying to type a response.
But couldn't let the above post go without a :worship: Cos it not only says what I couldn't, but it's said with such passion too :worship:

14 May 2007

Well said!

14 May 2007

as someone who used to frequently visit hospital in edinburgh and seen the effects firsthand of babies born to heroin addicts and the effects it has on their tiny bodies then im absolutely disgusted that the nhs or whichever group decided to fund these people to enable them to achieve the most precious thing in life in my opinion, thats giving a life. i had to fight to get the fertility drug to have my first child, i had to fit certain criteria! i neither smoked or drank, and most certainly didnt take drugs but still had to fight to be able to concieve. there are so many stable , both financially and mentally, couples out there that cant have ivf due to stupid protocol so how can anyone defend the nhs or whoever and allow these addicts, wether recovering or not, to create a life , a life of such hell for these babies withdrawing from a substance in their system they had no choice to take is far beyond my intelligence to comprehend. so anyone who believes they have the right to ivf, go to edinburgh and see these little human beings and the suffering they go through, then u may not think addicts, recovering or not, should have rights at all!!!!

14 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
But what do you do, forced sterilisation?

No need - just don't allow the IVF.

Quote by duncanlondon
I am asking for anyone who knows the facts to help in making a comparison between the effects of H and meth on babies and resultant effects as a family. If the H family comes off worse than the meth, then I think the authorities made the right decision.

Why the need to compare methadone user babies against heroin user babies? They were not heroin users, they were methadone users. Not all methadone users/addicts are former heroin addicts. You are implying that methadone addicts have two choices:
1 - to stay on methadone
2 - to use heroin
What about option 3 - get clean?
What you are suggesting is the authorities assessed the current situation against a far worse hypothetical situation to decide on whether to allow the IVF.

Quote by duncanlondon
I think the various authorities had to decide between allowing the mother to conceive as either a return H addict or a meth addict. They probably weighed up the pros and cons and made the decision to do IVF in the belief that it is the better solution. As I said before the woman was determined to have a child, eventually she could have conceived either way.

Again you are working on the 2 choice theory... there is the 3rd option of detox.
And 'if' as you say "eventually she could have conceived either way" ... then why the fudge-pucker did we pay for the IVF?

Quote by duncanlondon
In our society I think they have made a reasonably good decision to attempt this. If I was a barefoot doctor in a far away location, I'd probably agree with the 'let nature take its course' approach, because we wouldn't have the facilities to support a family of addicts.

Actually we as a nation don't, well not without someone else missing out on their health needs. The NHS is under funded if you hadn't heard some of the rumblings. There are far too few rehab places to meet the needs of the addicts. There are too few specialist baby units to cope with current needs (or if you get one it is miles away). There are too few of everything if you live in the wrong postcode.
Thats it...... :inlove: call me a twat call me an arse licker but Jeeze this woman makes my brain horny!! :lickface:

14 May 2007

Quote by mdr2000
But what do you do, forced sterilisation?

No need - just don't allow the IVF.

Quote by duncanlondon
I am asking for anyone who knows the facts to help in making a comparison between the effects of H and meth on babies and resultant effects as a family. If the H family comes off worse than the meth, then I think the authorities made the right decision.

Why the need to compare methadone user babies against heroin user babies? They were not heroin users, they were methadone users. Not all methadone users/addicts are former heroin addicts. You are implying that methadone addicts have two choices:
1 - to stay on methadone
2 - to use heroin
What about option 3 - get clean?
What you are suggesting is the authorities assessed the current situation against a far worse hypothetical situation to decide on whether to allow the IVF.

Quote by duncanlondon
I think the various authorities had to decide between allowing the mother to conceive as either a return H addict or a meth addict. They probably weighed up the pros and cons and made the decision to do IVF in the belief that it is the better solution. As I said before the woman was determined to have a child, eventually she could have conceived either way.

Again you are working on the 2 choice theory... there is the 3rd option of detox.
And 'if' as you say "eventually she could have conceived either way" ... then why the fudge-pucker did we pay for the IVF?

Quote by duncanlondon
In our society I think they have made a reasonably good decision to attempt this. If I was a barefoot doctor in a far away location, I'd probably agree with the 'let nature take its course' approach, because we wouldn't have the facilities to support a family of addicts.

Actually we as a nation don't, well not without someone else missing out on their health needs. The NHS is under funded if you hadn't heard some of the rumblings. There are far too few rehab places to meet the needs of the addicts. There are too few specialist baby units to cope with current needs (or if you get one it is miles away). There are too few of everything if you live in the wrong postcode.
Thats it...... :inlove: call me a twat call me an arse licker but Jeeze this woman makes my brain horny!! :lickface:
Its good stuff Polo. I think in this case the authorities had the resources to make this decision, and were sufficiently convinced that it could work.
If the report is accurate, there are two babies that could improve and develop into 'normal' adults, and the parents appear to be getting their act together, and trying to be 'normal'.
Its a pity they couldn't just emerge from their addictions clean as butterflies, but I don't think you ever do once you have gone that far down the line. It would be very convenient if they did.
They will struggle individually and as a family, but that may make all the difference for them. What family doesn't struggle?
Their life may well mean constant care and attention. But its in cooperation with the way the system works and what it can offer. If they continue to be meth addicts, then at least there is some control over their condition.
Outside of that it could mean getting back into H, crime, exposing the kids to a variety of unsavoury characters coming and going through their development.
Or does that lifestyle have an unique nurturing quality that we don't know about?
But in all this, the addicts have had a choice and made a decision to go with this programme because they also had arrived at some reasoning and reconciliation.

14 May 2007

Doctors have apparently said the babies arent addicted, yet they both "shake & twitch" in their sleep which is apparently a "common sleeping disorder"
What a crock of shit, sorry, but this disgusts me

i'd be inclined to think the doctors and nurses and social workers dealing with this are knowledgeable? they wouldn't be doctors and nurses and social workers very long if they weren't? ;)
t'is a fact that a heroin addict can conceive without medical intervention? so can a methadone addict. the fact they have progressed from one to the other is an indication of their intent, and they're all under medical supervision? wouldn't you rather the reproductive process was under that same medical supervision maybe, if that is their intention?

Isn't 5 years a bit of a long time to try to kick a habit?

no? given that the average H addiction runs to 7 years and upwards, and requires multiple attempts at cold turkey before they even seek help, 5 years on an infinitely more addicting substitute is a drop in the ocean, wouldn't you say?
morality is easy. practicality is often difficult and conflicted.

Quote by Hisandhers
can methadone do permanent damage to these babies

not that i'm aware of? confused

lifestyle? maybe. much of the damage can be easily and rapidly fixed once the baby's born and under supervision.

Quote by PoloLady
even hard working middle classes can be on methodone.

Though unlikely. Not because of a class thing... just based on the factual effects of shooting up on the brown and then later (when on a programme)the effects of the meths.
sorry Polo. absolutely wrong. GP's / Solicitors / MPs / Film stars, etc, etc, have all been known to be H / Meth / Opiate addicted, and yet function perfectly well, up to a getting-by-from-day-to-day-and-earning-a-living kinda point. as others have said, the heroin addict shoots up of a morning to feel normal, and can generally do normal reasonably well, so long as they can afford their addictions that is.

Quote by PoloLady
Meth addicts who become pregnant are encouraged to remain on methadone throughout their pregnancy (and frequently find they need to up their dose) – the reason for this is to avoid the mother going through the symptoms of withdrawal. Yet strangely the main effect of the transfer of meths from the mother to the unborn will be the newborn baby going through withdrawal once out of the womb.

advised by their doctors? as hinted at earlier, withdrawal, if there is any, is more manageable post-partum than it is in the womb. it's about survivability of the foetus / child.
of those children you mentioned who overdosed. what's the stats? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10 000? 1 in 100 000?
as for the quotes from adults describing their methadone withdrawal? as far as their symptoms went, how large a component was their psychological addiction? methadone detoxes might well take 2 months or more in adults, but psychological addiction at least does not exist in a new born baby. it's debatable just how much they can suffer in the absence of a mind?
to those invoking 'loony liberals'? it is neither loony, not overly-liberal, to try and understand a bit more, and condemn a little less.
splendid? kiss

wannahavefun? absolutely! :thumbup: smile

duncanlondon? worship

:thumbup: :) apparently all too easy to rush to judgement when you ain't in posession of all the facts, ain't it? redface

:uhoh: :undecided: innocent

neil x x x ;)

15 May 2007

i got involved in the last thread about heroin use and ended up wishing i hadnt so i decided to stay out of this one no matter how much it riled me up. now though, i just want to kiss

neil, thanks for saying the things ive been wanting to smile

15 May 2007

Quite often such debates on the site can involve a lot of unhappiness. But I think its caused by coming off the topic and squabbling about meanings and intended meanings, which in some case benefit from explantion; but are sometimes initiated by an unnecessarily extreme interpretation causing more angst than is appropriate.
Some topics benefit from a thorough debate, they may not conclude or they may just faff out as everyone gets bored with it. They are worth sustaining as its surprising what other people can find to add to the debate.

15 May 2007

If the NHS followed the same regulations as Adoption does...this couple would never have been allowed IVF... and why?...because the welfare of the child always comes first...if a recovering addict wants a child would it not be in their interests first to get well and be completely off whatever they have become addicited to...you cannot use the excuse "letting me have a baby will strive for me to get better"...its like a couple having a baby, to try and save their marriage...its not always going to work...in my opinion i believe the doctor who allowed this to happen made a very bad call(like that has never happened in the NHS)...this is not about judging someone without all the facts..the only fact you need to know is they are addicts...and should never have been considered for IVF...again i say it was a bad call for the NHS to allow this.

15 May 2007

Quote by neilinleeds
Doctors have apparently said the babies arent addicted, yet they both "shake & twitch" in their sleep which is apparently a "common sleeping disorder"
What a crock of shit, sorry, but this disgusts me

i'd be inclined to think the doctors and nurses and social workers dealing with this are knowledgeable? they wouldn't be doctors and nurses and social workers very long if they weren't? ;)
Well yes, i see your point.....that said, these doctors and nurses etc are hardly going to come out and say "well, yes, we paid for a couple of meth addicts to have IVF treatment and yes, the babies are born and going through cold turkey right now" are they?
Come on Neil, think about it fella!
They're going to pin the blame on these poor babies "shaking & twitching" on anything they can to take the heat off themselves.
Afterall, who is going to prove them wrong, the babies cant speak up for themselves can they?