infertilityApproximately 10% of couples in the United States are unable to conceive after one year of unprotected intercourse. There are a number of medical options now available to treat...

infertility

Approximately 10% of couples in the United States are unable to conceive after one year of unprotected intercourse. There are a number of medical options now available to treat infertility.

 Describe 3 of these options. What are the pros and cons of these treatments?

  • Do you think insurance companies should cover the costs of these procedures? Explain your answer.

10 Answers | Add Yours

rrteacher's profile pic

rrteacher | College Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

Post #9 raises an interesting question. If adoption is framed as a potential solution to infertility, alongside other, medical solutions, should insurance not cover some of the costs of adoption? If policies covered infertility treatments (some states require it, some don't) then I would think it would be fair to ask that they cover adoption or even surrogacy as well.

vangoghfan's profile pic

vangoghfan | College Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

In-vitro fertilization troubles some people on moral grounds because fertilized eggs are created that are never implanted. Fertility drugs sometimes lead to pregnancies involving triplets or quadruplets or even quintuplets. If the reason for infertility involves the male, sperm donation seems a good option. Adoption, in some ways, seems the best option of all, since it solves two "problems" at once, although of course it can create other problems. It would be interesting to know the costs of these different options. My understanding is that insurance would not at all cover the costs of adoption, even though in some sense it makes the most sense in terms of social benefits.

 

vangoghfan's profile pic

vangoghfan | College Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

In-vitro fertilization troubles some people on moral grounds because fertilized eggs are created that are never implanted. Fertility drugs sometimes lead to pregnancies involving triplets or quadruplets or even quintuplets. If the reason for infertility involves the male, sperm donation seems a good option. Adoption, in some ways, seems the best option of all, since it solves two "problems" at once, although of course it can create other problems. It would be interesting to know the costs of these different options. My understanding is that insurance would not at all cover the costs of adoption, even though in some sense it makes the most sense in terms of social benefits.

litteacher8's profile pic

litteacher8 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

In-vitro fertilization is expensive and emotionally and physically difficult.  Often surogacy is a better way to go.  It may not be seen as the best option, because the mother does not actually carry and deliver the baby, but in the case of miscarriage, for example, it can be safer.

stolperia's profile pic

stolperia | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

One way of handling the situation described by post #5 is an open adoption, in which the surrogate mother maintains contact with the child and adoptive parents after the placement has been legally confirmed. It involves a special kind of strength on the part of the adoptive parents but is a means of allowing them to become parents, while also addressing emotional and medical ties between the birth parent and child.

accessteacher's profile pic

accessteacher | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

Interestingly, I think one of the more controversial methods is that of surrogacy, when another woman bears the child of the couple who are unable to conceive. This has massive moral complications, and although it is already practised, one thing to be aware of is the bond that is formed between the surrogate mother and the child. This is something that is not so easily severed once she has given birth to that child and has to give it away.

justaguide's profile pic

justaguide | College Teacher | (Level 2) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

Some options that couples unable to conceive naturally have include in-vitro fertilization where the man and woman can create healthy sperm and eggs but an embryo cannot be created naturally; using sperm from sperm banks where the man is not able to produce healthy sperm that can fertilize the woman's eggs; the use of surrogate mothers where the woman cannot develop an embryo into a child on her own.

Like #2 pointed out, the coverage for these treatments should be specially made by those seeking health insurance like is the case for several other diseases that are normally not covered but can be included with the payment of a slightly higher premium.

booboosmoosh's profile pic

booboosmoosh | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

While pohnpei397 makes a good point about who foots the bill of costly, elective procedures to conceive, I must put in a word for those who want so despearately to have children. The number of couples who cannot conceive (as I have read) has increased and one must wonder (as some experts allege) that environmental factors are causing many of these difficulties.

I would not want to have to pay, let's say, the cost of someone to have a facelift. I know that this is much different than what is at stake in having children. This is something I can very much identify with. So my point is that perhaps doctors should find a way to make fertility treatments more cost-effective for families who have difficulty with pregnancy. Adoption is a wonderful option, but that is not a path everyone feels comfortable taking.

As to options available, as with any kind of procedure, there are risks, and each person must research and study the risks before committing to any such step.

pohnpei397's profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

I think that insurance companies ought to be able to have different policies for those who think they might want to be covered for infertility treatments and those who don't.  It does not seem right to make people pay for these very expensive procedures that are, in a sense, elective.  That is not to make light of the pain of those who can't conceive, just to say that I'm not sure that others should have to subsidize them.

gutierrezsally's profile pic

gutierrezsally | Student, Undergraduate | (Level 2) Honors

Posted on

thank u every onegreat posts know i will be able to write in my discussion board.. thank you all...

We’ve answered 318,989 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question