I finished up the part-time job on friday with a sigh of relief, it was a tad too much trying to make it work around Erin.
Saturday I had an all day girly shopping day, amongst the purchases, new jeans, pink stilettos (!) and some stripey vests, call me a bad mother but I managed to avoid all child related gear for the day!
This week I’m testing patience as my new habit, it’s already been tested this morning when Erin refused to put on the really cute sandals I bought her….breath…1..2….3….
………………………………………………………………………
In the rest of the world….
I agree with ingenious rose, a carefree childhood is still possible, as parents is it our responsibility to shoulder the worry? I think so. This is an interesting topic, what does everyonelse think? Are we just being paranoid parents? How far do we need to go to protect them? At what point does our need to protect actually result in stifling their development?
The Scottish National Party have refused to ban IVF treatment to drug addicts. Drug addicts can barely look after themselves let alone a baby or two babies, as is often the case with IVF. So let’s see, we pay their benefits which they spend on drugs, then we pay for costly IVF treatment, then we pay them even more benefits for the kids, which they spend on drugs. Crazy. The main worry is not the money though, what kind of life will those kids have, can you be a good parent and a drug addict?
……………………………………………………………………..
I’ve been nominated for Rockin Blogger by Ponn. This time I’m going to pass a few out to my fellow Brit Parent Bloggers, Ingenious Rose, DJ Kirkby, and Jo Beaufoix.
13 Responses to “Littlemummy News Roundup”
re IVF, I can sort of see your point but once you start making value judgements on who should and should not be assisted in having babies then where do you stop? “Oh sorry, you have a poor work record, that would be a bad example for Baby” “No sorry madam, your diet doesn’t reach our criteria, go away and come back when you are exactly the right size and eat exactly the right diet”
At the risk of being totally flamed the question really should be why does a struggling NHS pay for making babies in the first place regardless of the “merits” of the mother? Whilst critically injured people need to be transported 3 hours in an ambi to an ICU bed on the other side of the country because the local unit had to close 2 beds due to lack of funds, I think the whole thing is just bizarre.
I should have mentioned that the article did also say that IVF was already being given based on whether the couple were suitable, and that some overweight couples had been refused.
It’s such a difficult one, the NHS should be there to help the sick, but then it could be argued that we should not treat smokers, obese, or drug/alcohol abusers as some of their illness is self inflicted.
I agree to a certain extent that nobody has the god given right to children, however I wouldn’t like to be in that position myself with no help with IVF
T-bird … allow me to join you in being flamed, by saying that I agree with you on the IVF thing. There are broader issues with IVF though than simply the value judgement side of things that I won’t, as a rule, air in public without being severely goaded … IVF is such a controversial issue and I don’t like upsetting people who may have gone through it …
Would it be at all appropriate to severely goad you Alasdair, for your broader opinions. I am not wishing to upset anyone, but if we can’t discuss such matters civilly, is there any point to blogging at all - I see it as a way of sharing view points on various parent related topics.
I also invite anyone who has had IVF to share their unique viewpoint.
I think the same qualifying criteria for adoption should be used to screen potential IVF candidates. If you wouldn’t be considerd a safe risk to adopt, for example unstable drug addicts, then you should not be allowed to have NHS funded IVF. Thank you so much for the ‘Rocking Blogger’ award, it is my 40th birthday today and that was a very nice present!
Congratulations and Happy Birthday!
Great point about the qualifying criteria being like adoption, definitely agree with that.
I agree with DJKirby about the same criteria being used as for adoption.
It sounds like a good idea.
I do find it frightening that a drug addict could be seen as a more suitable IVF patient than someone who is overweight.
I suppose it depends on what extreme a persons condition is, but as someone who has yo-yo dieted all her life, I feel horrified that an overweight person could be judged an unfit parent.
Since when has love been dependent on the size of the person giving or recieving it?
Drug addiction however, seems to be destructive of relationships with loved ones in a very extreme way, and the risk to the unborn child must be huge.
Just a thought.
P.s. Little Mummy. Thank you so much for my Rockin Blogger award.
It was a fab surprise on a rough day.
I will treasure it.
Can I pass it on too??
“I should have mentioned that the article did also say that IVF was already being given based on whether the couple were suitable, and that some overweight couples had been refused.”
Ah, that makes a difference I suppose, I know that round here hte first thing you are told unless you are a perfect size is to go away and come back whn you have lost 2 stone. I’ve seen a fair few of those ladies go away furious, lose the weight because they know they *have* to because otherwise they won’t get treated and hey presto they have a baby without any help!
“I agree to a certain extent that nobody has the god given right to children, however I wouldn’t like to be in that position myself with no help with IVF”
I am, to a certain extent, in that position. Aprilia was somewhat of a surprise to me having been told early on that it was never going to happen without medical intervention. Six years on from her birth I’ve not had any more surprises but don’t feel justified in demanding arround £8,000 to be spent as a starting point when there are other more important things that money could be spent on.
“Would it be at all appropriate to severely goad you Alasdair … “, Ok, I see that the discussion isn’t about to descend into the anarchy I’m used to witnessing upon the raising of the subject.
I believe that there is an element of darwinism in conception and childbirth and that if there is a medical reason why someone cannot concieve then it is plausible that that problem may well be passed on to the offspring if the issue is pushed. Thereby weakening the species as a whole.
I can envisage situations where it might be applied in the event that someones ability to conceive has been compromised through some type of accident or illness - although I might go so far as to argue that an illness that has led to fertility issues as a direct consequence of the illness (or even the treatment) may remove qualification for IVF.
Jo - your welcome, I think you can pass it on to up to five other bloggers
Interesting viewpoint Alasdair, thank you.
I have crohn’s and there was a time when I had real concerns over my fertiity, in that moment and in the future. We decided to have Erin sooner rather than later for that very reason.
I’m sorry to hear that littlemummy, but I’m sure you can now appreciate why I prefer to avoid airing my views on the subject too openly - they tend to lead to misconceptions about me more generally.
Till next time, regards
Alasdair
Hi Alasdair, I think my last comment was misconstrued.
When I said your viewpoint was interesting I meant it, and on some level, I agree with you. That is why I decided to have Erin sooner rather than later. Had I not conceived because of my crohn’s there would have been a large part of me that would have felt that it wasn’t meant to be, and that perhaps my body was telling me that it simply couldn’t cope with the strain of pregnancy and childbirth.
On another note, I like to hear everyone’s viewpoints regardless of whether I agree with them not, that’s the value in discussing such issues.