Comments on: Seoige

By: Fiona

Fiona — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:28:29 +0000

Lorna – I also attended the clinic once last year. I knew the ethos (but not about refusing to treat unmarried couples) in advance but they didn’t dwell on it at all and I don’t remember being asked if I was married. Maybe I mentioned “my husband” and that was enough for them. Best of luck with your treatment.

By: Lorna

Lorna — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:28:20 +0000

I am attending the Galway clinic at the mo (following a couple of miscarriages – found out my progesterone was low etc). While the literature that explains the whole Nat Pro treatment is quite evangelical and was taken with quite a liberal pinch of salt from my point of view, I have to say I am shocked to see that they refuse to treat unmarried couples. If people are seeking fertility treatment, surely they want a child so much that they have already made that commitment to each other.

By: Fiona

Fiona — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:54:43 +0000

The problem is that fertility clinics here are not bound by any legislation, they operate under Medical Council guidelines only. The 1985 guidelines suggested that clinics only treat married couples but that has long become outdated and all clinics bar the Napro one treat unmarried couples. There was a report published in 2005 which recommended that all people regardless of marital status or sexual orientation should have access to fertility treatment but so far no legislation has been drafted. Until then, I guess the clinics will operate as they wish. Thankfully I think we are moving in the direction of greater access…………but there’s always one!!!

You’re right about parental rights of course – that is a problem of different legislation and it’s a stretch of the imagination bringing it up to support this case.

By: Xbox4NappyRash

Xbox4NappyRash — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:50:06 +0000

Unfortunately I can’t view the show clip from outside Ireland, but I’ve tried to follow the story as much as possible from various pieces published and Dr Boyle’s official press statement.

Being as objective as I possibly can, the argument for this decision is flimsy at best.

Turning down committed non-married couples on the basis of not being married will surely lead to many of them getting civil registrations just so they can get the treatment they desperately want. I know I certainly would.
Does that administrative act make them more deserving of treatment?

Their policy most certainly does not serve the best interest of fathers who have limited parental rights due to not being married. Their best interests would be served by addressing any inequality in current legislation, and not trying to take advantage of the desire of decent men, and women, in order to further impose a moral rule on people who are by definition already vulnerable.

What honestly scares me is where the lines will finally be drawn when it comes to decisions on suitability for medical treatment. How about we only only treat the sick children of married couples altogether?

That’ll teach us deviants.