More and more infertile couples are turning to medical intervention to treat infertility. The most popular is in-vitro fertilization, although some medical procedures such as the surgical clearing of blocked fallopian tubes are also done. With the rising cost of medical insurance and increasing world population does it make sense for infertility treatments to be covered by medical insurance companies?
Why should it?
Why should the rest of the population pay for infertility treatments that cost more than $10,000 a session, when there are so many other life-threatening diseases that need to be cured and addressed? Why should other people subsidize the cost of other couples wanting to have a child, when there’s adoption available?
In cases when the treatment can be life saving, by all means, patients should be granted access to good medical care. However, if the couple is otherwise healthy and the desire to have children is simply something borne out of emotion rather than a life or death situation, why should the rest of us be made to pay for their desire to add to the world population?
Perhaps if it is socially necessary to produce more children, then that is another argument. For example, if we were like Japan or New Zealand, wherein the population is quickly dwindling and we are in need of more people, then perhaps resources can be put towards this. However, for an already overburdened health care system, it’s more important at this point to provide care to those who are already alive, rather than to bring forth more human lives to the world through artificial means.
My argument for not letting insurance carriers cover infertility costs is the same as not allowing cosmetic plastic surgery part of coverage. It’s not necessary and it’s an optional choice made by people. Besides, once a baby is conceived, that child then becomes part of the health care system and the rest of the population then subsidizes the cost of vaccination shots and well baby checkups.
It may seem heartless to some people desperate to have a child to hear this. But really, it is a free choice to go through medical intervention to reach conception, so others shouldn’t be made to pay for it. If the couple can’t afford the cost of fertility treatments, then how can they afford the cost of taking care of the child and sending him to school? If right off the bat, there’s a financial constraint, then shouldn’t they think twice about getting a baby this way?
It’s not as if there aren’t other options available. If a couple really wants a child, then there’s adoption. There are so many children in the world in need to loving parents. For a couple that really wants to have a child, it shouldn’t matter if the baby comes from their own womb and shares their genetic DNA or if the baby came from elsewhere.
The insurance and health care system is already being over stretched and overtaxed, with more and more items being covered that didn’t used to be allowed. To allow infertility treatments to be included may only raise the overall cost of medical insurance and compromise the quality of health care for the rest of us.
What do you think? Should health insurance plans cover infertility treatments? Sound off in the comments below.
Margaret Keely works towards a healthier America through health care advocacy and sharing her knowledge in nursing classes.