So, I am picking up some stuff and dropping off the bike for some maintenance, and listening to the NPR (instead of the alternatives). Couple of stories that caught my ear. Note: both of these deal with women's issues and may get me in trouble.
1) the first one was on SIDS and how to prevent it. I remember reading several years ago that many of the SIDS instances were not SIDS at all, but were maternal homicides. One celebrated case where a doctor wrote up the unprecedented SIDS of one mother turned out to all be bogus. Of course, it is a serious issue and one that demands attention. The part that actually caught my ear was that some of the recomendations were that pacifiers actually help, and that sleeping with the mother doesn't. What do I know, not having kids, but the recomendations made sense. But the part that really tickled me was the response of the "breast feeding advocates." Man was she pissed off, and I wondered why all the breast feeding advocates are so much like religious fundamentalists? I remember (and Bucky will too) a really funny argument with a friend of ours who's mother was a La Leche member. For some reason, she always made me think of a Che Guevara poster with breasts instead of guns. Same lack of humor, though....
2) Connecticut has mandated that health insurance companies cover infertility treatments. Please remember, I consider myself a feminist and want more health insurance rather than less. But this one kind of struck me wrong. Is it the state's role to mandate that a corporation cover the costs of infertility treatments? Am I being insensitive? As someone who knows the reality of childless-ness, I don't think I have to apologize, but I really wonder about this one. As compassionate as I can be to people in this situation, I kept thinking of the adoption-option. But in Connecticut and other states, insurance companies are mandated to provide in-vitro and other similar treatments. Am I way off here? (Please tell me in the comments if so. I am willing to admit my ignorance.)
3) One more essay and this one was on PBS. A great essay from Richard Rodriguez on the complexity of religion. Three desert faiths worshiping the same God--all willing to blow each other up. It was good. I hope you caught it.
9 comments:
I remember that quite well. As I recall, it went something like this, "But Streak, why are you so anti-child? If you wanted the best for your children you would personally breastfeed if that's what it took to have a healthy, well-adjusted baby."
You may also recall the response to my statement that I was allergic to breastmilk. "Then I guess you would have died then!" as if, oh, ok, it's all so clear now. Breast milk for everyone! Barkeep! Another round!
I caught a similar story on SIDS on the Today show this morning. It struck me as another case of science overriding community-based knowledge becasue in most parts of the world, co-sleeping is the norm. Also, wasn't it interesting to hear that pacifiers in an of themselves have an effect even when not in the baby's mouth but only in the crib? 'Tis the philosopher's stone I tell thee.
1) I wish I had a poster of that.
2) Yes, you are.
2) Yes, you are.
Please elaborate.
BTW, one of the people in the story on the fertility issue in Connecticut had spent nearly 100k on fertility treatments for her and her husband. Again, with all due respect and sensitivity, isn't that ridiculous? Think of what that money could have done to help orphans? Or to facilitate adoptions. What is this obsession with a genetic line?
It would seem to me that someone would find a way or contraption for women to breast feed babies in bed without smothering them. None of my kids would take a pacifier which would have been a lot cheaper for both of them if they had used a pacifier instead of sucking their thumbs and costing me a fortune in braces.
Concerning fertility and insurance, can't the politicians do the math. Health insurance is outrageous enough as it is without adding this to mix, or are they trying to price health insurance out of most people's benefits.
At great risk of being labeled "Che Gueverra in a manzierre," (no, Anglican, you can't have a poster of that) I would argue that part of the public policy research on fertility would need to include an investigation of the income levels of those seeking fertility treatments. Given our other public spending commitments, I can't justify publicly funded fertility treatments for those with $100k on hand. I missed the story but was this to be means tested at all?
Ok, Streak. I'm back from traveling and here's my $.02 worth. Keep in mind these comments are following a conversation with the hotty wife who gave birth to our oldest child. Fertility became an issue with us later. Anyway, if we look at infertility as a medical issue i.e. there is a medical issue going on that prevents fertility, then it makes sense for insurance to cover the treatments. In terms of perspective, I thinks it's important to remember that most fertility treatments fall well below the 100k level, but can still be cost prohibitive for many couples. One of the realities of insurance is that both those who can afford to pay out of pocket and those who can't are eligible for coverage. I have a hunch that Bill Gates has health insurance that would cover knee replacement (or whatever procedure you want to throw in) even though he could buy the hospital. The emphasis needs to be on the fact that if you do have money and can pay, then you'll get fertility treatments anyway. Insurance covering infertility will allow people who can't afford the treatments to get them. Insurance or no insurance Bill Gates will get the bypass surgery or the infertility therapy. With insurance Joe and Julie Average American can have the same opportunity to have children. So, for me, I like the idea of erring on the side of a more level playing field, i.e. coverage for all. One other note in the "keep in mind" arena is that adoption is a considerable financial commitment and there isn't any insurance for that route, either. Home studies, agency fees, medical fees, legal fees, possible travel costs, etc... can be prohibitive for more people that you might expect. So, if you are wealthy, you have all options before you. If you aren't, then your options are very limited. There's some interesting discussion and resources at this site- Infertility Insurance Costs & Utilization, Page 1 - Average, Benefits, Care, Cost, Costs. One excerpt- "the technology exists for many of us to achieve a successful happy ending, but few of us have financial access to such."
BTW, this is by no means an affirmation of the US insurance/health care system. That's another discussion entirely.
I wondered why all the breast feeding advocates are so much like religious fundamentalists...
Not all of them, but the really vocal ones seem to be. They have the same belief (as the fundies) that anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do is not only wrong, but also immoral, and must be corrected and/or punished.
AS a woman, who had a genetic condition that may make it difficult to conceive, I have to say that I take no offense if insurance will not cover my infertility treatments if I want them one day.
I will be hurt, disappointed, and sad at not having my own children. However, there are plenty of children available for adoption. Plus, the Lord did not thus saith, "If I won't give it to you...buy it."
Thanks to everyone for the comments. Bootleg Blogger makes some great points and Bucky and I were just discussing the class issues. I kind of wonder if the state wouldn't have a more compelling interest in promoting adoption, personally, but that is just me.
I guess I am just not sure that just because infertility can be treated medically that it is the same thing as a medical condition. I say that with compassion, but all the same just wondering. I am also curious about this insistence that people have their own genetic progeny.
Nicole and Greek Shadow, thanks for the comments as well. Obviously this is a difficult area. As Bucky and I discussed, one concern is that deciding who gets fertility treatments--as Bootlegger points out as well--could open the door to some other, pretty ugly decisions regarding fertility.
Post a Comment