« Healthy Story: Mother in denial? Or in a better position to judge? | Main | Who's going to be a Scrooge? »


Excellent post, Elisa, and thanx for the link!

As you mentioned, the issue is "fraught with peril," primarily because it is so volatile.

And I agree that there are procedures/med's that, strictly speaking, have no business being covered. The fact that they are doesn't ameliorate the fact that IVF shouldn't be either.

BTW, I'm having trouble with trackbacks to this post; could be me (likely) but I wondered if you've noticed TB problems, as well.

Thanks Henry. I haven't noticed any trackback issues, but, like tagging, I often forget to even use trackbacks at all!

Interesting points. I wrote my own post on this too. I don't think it will ever be considered medically necessary, but I do think it should be covered. I do not think benefits should be denied on the basis of diagnosis. It's an extremely volatile and emotionally charged issue. Add in the political issues with "left over" embryos and stem cell research and it's even more volatile.

IVF is so costly, time consuming and prone to failure but there are some people who have found alternatives that worked for them.

Of course these might not work for you but there’s an excellent source of information, publications and resources to help women with fertility and infertility at my website:

Your Fertility


The comments to this entry are closed.