Canberra Lesbian couple lose out on IVF Compo Case

Yes, a hypothetical but nevertheless a fact of life if everyone made the same decision as you. 🙂

But anyway, back on topic, has there been any word as to whether the couple in question have decided to appeal as yet? I realise they have 28 days to think about it but thought that if they really truly thought they were so very much done wrong by then there might have been something in the media by now. Personally I think they’d be mad to, but that’s just my opinion.

PigsFly said :

But it’s the truth isn’t it? Can’t rely deny that can you? As I said, if EVERYONE did what you had decided to do (or rather not to do), then the human race would indeed die out. FACT OF LIFE! 🙂

But then I guess maybe you’re devoting your life to furthering the science of cloning instead so we can bypass the whole “having babies” process. LOL.

Yes it’s true that if EVERYONE stopped breeding there would be no more humans, but it’s certainly not the way things are and we all know it. You are talking hypotheticals, so actually it’s not a FACT OF LIFE at this point in time. Let me know when the population drops below a few million, then I’ll start to worry with you.

And second “point” (I don’t really know what to call it) is just…gah.

That’s such a typical breeder “bingo” argument.

But it’s the truth isn’t it? Can’t rely deny that can you? As I said, if EVERYONE did what you had decided to do (or rather not to do), then the human race would indeed die out. FACT OF LIFE! 🙂

But then I guess maybe you’re devoting your life to furthering the science of cloning instead so we can bypass the whole “having babies” process. LOL.

my handle bears no resemblance whatsoever to my real name if that’s what you mean.

toriness said :

i’m amazed at your amazement. because shock horror maelinar, same sex couples are humans too – if you want to be that simple about it. we have all the same feelings and desires as straight couples do except for one thing, that we are gay not straight!

is your name two names joined, or just an extension of your name?

your views and belief system is remarkably familiar to me.

Overheard said :

???!!! Any other parents here say any such thing? Not I!

Another thread, obviously you missed it.

PigsFly said :

Of course if everyone did what you’re doing (not having kids) then that would be the end of the human race. I’d like to think that I’m doing my bit to help keep it in existance, albeit a very small contribution. Perhaps I’m assuming too much in thinking that you really don’t care what happens after you’ve gone. 🙂

That’s such a typical breeder “bingo” argument. The human race is in no danger of dying out any time soon and you know it. And just because I am not leaving behind a little replica of myself, that does not mean that I don’t contribute anything. Would you criticise the childless doctor who saves your child’s life, because he/she has chosen to dedicate their lives to a fulfilling and worthwhile career rather than simply breeding then dying?

i’m amazed at your amazement. because shock horror maelinar, same sex couples are humans too – if you want to be that simple about it. we have all the same feelings and desires as straight couples do except for one thing, that we are gay not straight!

Yep – and if we don’t have wings we shouldn’t fly…..

BT – I agree, my position all along.

Humanity, for all its negative points, needs a male and a female to procreate. Such a simplistic view of the world is actually more indepth than you first realise – often the most complex things are indeed quite simple when understood to the fullest extent (E=MC2 rings a bell).

I’m not arguing that 2F or 2M partnerships cannot be great parents – I’m sure they can be. Somewhere along the line they’ve circumvented natural selection to do so however, which makes them liars right from word go. I’m continually amazed at how much like hetero couples, homo couples want to live.

what ignorance. the decision in this case had nothing to do with sexuality.

The decision by the judge was sensible and a victory for common sense. Imagine if the incompetent one had been on on the bench.

There are two things to consider here:

1. carpet munchers should not be parents nor ever have access to IVF
2. this case should never have reached the supreme court

Sorry about your trip to London blokes!

PigsFly said :

save us a fortune

But you can’t take it with you. 🙂

Oh hell, that means we will have to spend it on luxery items, what a discrace for us all to all die and leave such a high inflation rate behind! Or worse a recession!

Overheard said :

Someone_else said :

Affirmative Action Man said :

Ant – the reason you need to pay taxes to support other peoples kids is so that those kids can look after you when you are dribbling & incontinent in a nursing home.

But according to the parents on RiotAct, their own children are too good to to such demeaning work as nursing. They’re all going to be lawyers or something.

???!!! Any other parents here say any such thing? Not I!

my kids can decide for themselves. when they are old enough.

Someone_else said :

Affirmative Action Man said :

Ant – the reason you need to pay taxes to support other peoples kids is so that those kids can look after you when you are dribbling & incontinent in a nursing home.

But according to the parents on RiotAct, their own children are too good to to such demeaning work as nursing. They’re all going to be lawyers or something.

???!!! Any other parents here say any such thing? Not I!

save us a fortune

But you can’t take it with you. 🙂

Ha, ha, ha – suck sh1t, you greedy witches!

PigsFly said :

But you will via the Government taxing my kids to pay for you to get all those Senior Citizen and Pensioner (whether in receipt of a pension or not) benefits that you’ll get when you reach a certain age. Fact of life whether you like it or not. 🙂

Of course if everyone did what you’re doing (not having kids) then that would be the end of the human race. I’d like to think that I’m doing my bit to help keep it in existance, albeit a very small contribution. Perhaps I’m assuming too much in thinking that you really don’t care what happens after you’ve gone. 🙂

Great end the human race, no more need for carbon trading, save us a fortune.

I consider the high taxes I pay throughout my life to include covering the cost of my dribbling demise. (I say ‘include’, I still use roads blah blah). I fall into the minority of minorities where tax is concerned. Nothing ever affects me or benefits me, yet I’m always paying for something.

‘I take it by that you mean Government funded IVF. I absolutely agree.’ I did mean that.

But you will via the Government taxing my kids to pay for you to get all those Senior Citizen and Pensioner (whether in receipt of a pension or not) benefits that you’ll get when you reach a certain age. Fact of life whether you like it or not. 🙂

Of course if everyone did what you’re doing (not having kids) then that would be the end of the human race. I’d like to think that I’m doing my bit to help keep it in existance, albeit a very small contribution. Perhaps I’m assuming too much in thinking that you really don’t care what happens after you’ve gone. 🙂

PigsFly said :

And the taxes from all these future workers in not so demeaning jobs (and even those that are, though not as much $$ I expect) will pay for the care of all of us in our old age, if only the pension for starters.

Since I’m not having children, I’ll have enough extra money saved up that I won’t need any financial help from your kids.

But according to the parents on RiotAct, their own children are too good to to such demeaning work as nursing. They’re all going to be lawyers or something.

And the taxes from all these future workers in not so demeaning jobs (and even those that are, though not as much $$ I expect) will pay for the care of all of us in our old age, if only the pension for starters.

Affirmative Action Man said :

Ant – the reason you need to pay taxes to support other peoples kids is so that those kids can look after you when you are dribbling & incontinent in a nursing home.

But according to the parents on RiotAct, their own children are too good to to such demeaning work as nursing. They’re all going to be lawyers or something.

peterh, no we’re not a same sex couple, just a couple that’s been on and off the rollercoaster for many years. Two kids so far (from the new clinic) with hopefully a third on the way in the not too distant future. How many cycles have we done you ask. Hmmm, since 2002, eight (some stim, some fet). The one we’re starting soon will be number nine. Actually when I look back on all that we’ve been through to have the children we have, I’m surprised I’m as sane as I am. Okay rioters, feel free to question that as time goes on, lol. Anyway, peterh, I’m up for a chat if you are too (jazz/johnboy – can you please pass on respective email addresses when you get a chance? Ta.)

It’s all a bloody mess. And the biggest tragedy: ‘the mother has lost her ability to love’.

Unbeliever said :

VYBerlinaV8’Glad they lost. Personally, I don’t think same sex couples should have access to IVF anyway (although that’s beside the point, I guess).’

IVF is a process to address infertility. Personally I don’t think any couples should have access to it if their infertility is related to their lifestyle and diet and their donut mumching ways – regardless of their sexuality. What high-arsed arrogance to think that the public should subsidised the results of your poor diet!

I take it by that you mean Government funded IVF. I absolutely agree.

At no time did the lesbian couple ever say that either or both of the kids were unwanted. But don’t let that little truth stand in the way of making a point.

VYBerlinaV8’Glad they lost. Personally, I don’t think same sex couples should have access to IVF anyway (although that’s beside the point, I guess).’

IVF is a process to address infertility. Personally I don’t think any couples should have access to it if their infertility is related to their lifestyle and diet and their donut mumching ways – regardless of their sexuality. What high-arsed arrogance to think that the public should subsidised the results of your poor diet!

jakez said :

sepi said :

The Dr did not ignore their wishes – that is the whole point of the judge ruling in his favour and not in theirs.

They had previously signed a piece of paper stating they wanted two embryos put back.

The piece of paper is the legally binding part of the deal. The woman then changed her mind on the operating table while undergoing a general anaesthetic – this is the wrong time to be confirming operation procedures with your dr.

I hope they come to their senses and don’t appeal.

This is the precient point. No matter how much of a dog act the bringing the case forward may be (and I would probably agree with that opinion), if the Doctor was negligent then he has done wrong.

Sepi’s point above, and the ruling which people should actually read, shows that the Doctor DID NOT go against the wishes of the couple. THAT is why this is a good decision.

one other point to make here is that the patient changed her mind on the operating table whilst undergoing general anaesthetic. how the hell does anyone make sense of you when you have general applied?

I remember counting, then speaking gibberish, then waking in the recovery room. If I said anything, buggered if I know what it was, and the nurses and the doctor couldn’t tell me either.

not good enough. if the patient had discussed this with her partner, they should have told one of the nursing staff prior to being admitted for the procedure.

sepi said :

The Dr did not ignore their wishes – that is the whole point of the judge ruling in his favour and not in theirs.

They had previously signed a piece of paper stating they wanted two embryos put back.

The piece of paper is the legally binding part of the deal. The woman then changed her mind on the operating table while undergoing a general anaesthetic – this is the wrong time to be confirming operation procedures with your dr.

I hope they come to their senses and don’t appeal.

This is the precient point. No matter how much of a dog act the bringing the case forward may be (and I would probably agree with that opinion), if the Doctor was negligent then he has done wrong.

Sepi’s point above, and the ruling which people should actually read, shows that the Doctor DID NOT go against the wishes of the couple. THAT is why this is a good decision.

I’m going to put my head on the chopping block here:

I have no issues with homosexuality, and no issues whatsoever…in fact I encourage gay marriage. But I have never agreed with gay couples having children. My argument is that you’ve got your kit, and it doesn’t make kids – it’s a choice you’ve made and one you should accept. My wife, as many of you will, strongly objects to my views (on the very occasional time the topic comes up). I agree that many gay couples would be way better parents than some hetro couples – but I draw a line.

This story add’s further to my belief – but in saying this, I don’t doubt for a second that a hetro couple would deserve the same disgrace, and it’s only really a matter of time.

Bad form regardless. How horrible for the kids when they are old enough to understand that one of them was not wanted, and so publically. What a couple of f**kwit’s these “parents” are. And what a bloody waste of time for a miracle worker of a doctor. I can imagine it’s times like these that he wonders why he bothers.

I think the issue of their sexuality is worth mentioning given that the right to IVF was only granted recently (unless I’m mistaken). They could have priests or single people or god forbid *unmarrieds* or anyone else not traditionally allowed to access IVF/adopt. The fact that they were finally deemed by society as rightfully allowed to access the procedure – you would expect them to be happy. But what’s the first thing they do? Whinge. For Fs sake people. Whoever they are, they were just asking for people to say, well fine, then you obviously don’t fully understand the precarious nature of life and we were wrong in allowing you that right.

If you enter into the baby making scene – you have to be up for a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g. What if one was healthy and one had a disability. Would they have sued because they were certain the healthy one was the one they wanted implanted?

No, it has nothing to do with their sexuality – or the fact that they’re not really ‘getting along’ so well right now – and they give other lesbians a bad name. But it’s human nature to judge this couple based on how recently they were awarded that right.

It’s like lowering the age for young people to marry, only for them to turn around and divorce 6 weeks later. Society would be “see, they were too young” even though other young kids make it work. I think it’s the same. Kind of.

PigsFly said :

We’re currently going through another IVF clinic and while going through the paperwork just last night we noticed that there is a spot for us to fill in should we change our minds about how many embryos we want to transfer (not “implant”) on the actual day. This type of paperwork was never available at the previous clinic we went to (the same one that this couple went to) so it you changed your mind you had to rely on your verbal request being passed on to the staff involved. Obviously in this case someone didn’t get the message.

But having said this, I am finding that I actually have to agree with the court’s decision (despite the fact that I don’t really like this doctor – yes, he used to treat me).

Demanding compensation because they ended up with two children instead of one sends a very wrong message to the public about the type of people that are using IVF, particularly same sex couples. Sure, a multiples pregnancy is probably much harder on the body than a singleton pregnancy, and no doubt your life after they are born revolves around these babies even more so than had there just been the one baby. But these sacrifices can never compare to the lifetime of rewards in store.

Besides, I’m sure that this couple actually deep down love each having a child to hug rather than taking turns. 🙂 And that is what really matters.

pigsfly, are you a part of a same sex couple? just curious, doesn’t matter much though

and how many ivf cycles have you been through?

if ever you need to talk to someone who has gone through multiple cycles and now has three kids, please ask jazz or johnboy for my email address.

captainwhorebags said :

ant: there is a widespread view, and I think I agree with it, that providing financial assistance to have children is basically a way for society to invest in future taxpayers. Your lotus won’t pay for civil amenities in your retirement, someone else’s taxes will. Of course there is room for improvement, particularly in ensuring fairness in who gets access to which benefits, but the reality is that a slowly expanding population is economically desirable.

not necessarily true, if ant drives like a maniac, and collects many fines, they will be funding future taxpayers….

ant said :

When I get taxpayers money for my lifestyle choices, well, I’ll send ’em back. People choose to have kids because they WANT them. Which is great. But why the taxes of those without kids or who’ve had kids years ago have to be funnelled to those exercising their freedom to have kids eludes me. Really, it does.

I’d love a Lotus Elise, but not enough to make the lifestyle sacrifices to have one. Now, if the taxpayer would like to help me out…. no, I didn’t think so.

Ant – the reason you need to pay taxes to support other peoples kids is so that those kids can look after you when you are dribbling & incontinent in a nursing home.

captainwhorebags said :

Overheard: yeah, I did think about that and my conclusion was that headlining the story with “Lesbian Couple” would better jog the collective memory of Rioters. After the headline and the first line, I didn’t mention their sexuality at all.

Fair enough.

Overheard: yeah, I did think about that and my conclusion was that headlining the story with “Lesbian Couple” would better jog the collective memory of Rioters. After the headline and the first line, I didn’t mention their sexuality at all.

ant: there is a widespread view, and I think I agree with it, that providing financial assistance to have children is basically a way for society to invest in future taxpayers. Your lotus won’t pay for civil amenities in your retirement, someone else’s taxes will. Of course there is room for improvement, particularly in ensuring fairness in who gets access to which benefits, but the reality is that a slowly expanding population is economically desirable.

With having to pay those very high legal bills they may have to sell the one they didn’t want to have.

Feebles said :

Their sexuality has nothing to do with it. I’m sure a hetero couple would have been just as heavily mocked and pilloried if they pulled this stunt.

Absolutely agree. In the context of the story, their sexuality is as relevant as their racial background, voting preference or shoe size. The headline should have read: Canberra couple lose out on IVF Compo Case.

All that aside, as to the outcome, insert Nelson from Springfield laugh here: ‘Hah-hah!’

Shameful stuff, and pity the poor kids when they’re old enough to understand what happened. I can hear the sibling fights already: ‘It was you they didn’t want’, ‘No, it was YOU they didn’ want!’, ‘Mum, Mum! She’s saying I’m the second embryo again!! Make her stop!’

We’re currently going through another IVF clinic and while going through the paperwork just last night we noticed that there is a spot for us to fill in should we change our minds about how many embryos we want to transfer (not “implant”) on the actual day. This type of paperwork was never available at the previous clinic we went to (the same one that this couple went to) so it you changed your mind you had to rely on your verbal request being passed on to the staff involved. Obviously in this case someone didn’t get the message.

But having said this, I am finding that I actually have to agree with the court’s decision (despite the fact that I don’t really like this doctor – yes, he used to treat me).

Demanding compensation because they ended up with two children instead of one sends a very wrong message to the public about the type of people that are using IVF, particularly same sex couples. Sure, a multiples pregnancy is probably much harder on the body than a singleton pregnancy, and no doubt your life after they are born revolves around these babies even more so than had there just been the one baby. But these sacrifices can never compare to the lifetime of rewards in store.

Besides, I’m sure that this couple actually deep down love each having a child to hug rather than taking turns. 🙂 And that is what really matters.

And the lawers win again.

Interesting to see what happens when the relationship goes pear shapped and whether the partner will support the mother. Interesting times. Oh well back to the lawers.

Glad they lost. Personally, I don’t think same sex couples should have access to IVF anyway (although that’s beside the point, I guess).

Worst. Parents. Ever.

sepi said :

An article in the paper last weekend said that Australia subsidises children far less than most other coutries, and is the only country where subsidies for families are vilified as middle class welfare.

Now, I wonder what paper that was? Wouldn’t be one of Rupert’s fish wrappers by any chance?

Yay happy to see this result. Sucked in to the plaintiffs. I actually think I met them once – their daughters were about 6w old at the time and are a few months younger than my singleton IVF daughter.

Ally-J said :

children are a blessing, no one ever sued god!

jb – Tagline??

When I get taxpayers money for my lifestyle choices, well, I’ll send ’em back. People choose to have kids because they WANT them. Which is great. But why the taxes of those without kids or who’ve had kids years ago have to be funnelled to those exercising their freedom to have kids eludes me. Really, it does.

I’d love a Lotus Elise, but not enough to make the lifestyle sacrifices to have one. Now, if the taxpayer would like to help me out…. no, I didn’t think so.

An article in the paper last weekend said that Australia subsidises children far less than most other coutries, and is the only country where subsidies for families are vilified as middle class welfare.

If children are such a blessing, I’m blowed if I can fathom why those who have them want to be subsidised, compensated, bonused and tax-breaked. Sends quite the opposite message, doesn’t it?

Ally-J said :

children are a blessing, no one ever sued god!

Only for lack of an address for service.

Duke said :

It’s going to be an interesting conversation in a few years time when these kids discover they were so unwanted their parents actually went to court in search of money.

Well apparantly one was wanted, but the other was disposable.

So imagine that competition between the two.

….”I’m the REAL child, you’re a medical mistake”

….”No, I’m the one they wanted……..”

It’s a lay down mizzare! I agree – what horrid parents!

Good on them for getting IVF but hey me and my wife had twins – why should they also get to choose not to have multiples?!?!?!

I really hope they can get over this. Yes it is a hell of a shock to have multiple births but I’d never trade in my twins (well, sell them on eBay maybe….). 🙂

children are a blessing, no one ever sued god!

Vic Bitterman said :

Sucked in to them. May their children grow up to realise what selfish, horrible people their parents are.

For once I agree.

Seems the same attitude that has seen obstetricians/baby delivering doctors being the most sued, with the result that there’s now a lot less of them, and very few want to work alone in rural areas. Many are opting for group practises where they’re a bit more legally protected and the insurance premium load is shared. People in rural areas are in uproar about no obstetricians, but the cause and effect is very evident.

Duke said :

It’s going to be an interesting conversation in a few years time when these kids discover they were so unwanted their parents actually went to court in search of money.

reckon these kids wil be totally messed up enough?

Thank god for common sense in the judiciary, it is stupid legal cases like this that give more ammunition to the right wing to argue against IVF for gay couples altogether.

The Dr did not ignore their wishes – that is the whole point of the judge ruling in his favour and not in theirs.

They had previously signed a piece of paper stating they wanted two embryos put back.

The piece of paper is the legally binding part of the deal. The woman then changed her mind on the operating table while undergoing a general anaesthetic – this is the wrong time to be confirming operation procedures with your dr.

I hope they come to their senses and don’t appeal.

This couple could have put one of their children up for adoption but they chose not to. I hope the parents can put this in the past and move on enjoying their children and providing all the love and care possible. Oh, and if they read this… parenting is tough, get help if you need it.

It’s going to be an interesting conversation in a few years time when these kids discover they were so unwanted their parents actually went to court in search of money.

Sucked in to them. May their children grow up to realise what selfish, horrible people their parents are.

Their sexuality has nothing to do with it. I’m sure a hetero couple would have been just as heavily mocked and pilloried if they pulled this stunt. Those poor little twins. When they find out about this, and you know they will one day, they’re going to wonder which one is the one they didn’t want.

This is a commonsense decision by the court. However, the other issue is that the GP was negligent and explicitly ignored the instructions of his patient. And seeking redress shouldn’t be right based on sexuality. But I agree that seeking costs through our existing legal system was unwise and opened these women to the kind of ridicule seen in the previous comments.

BigDave said :

Good to see that common sense has finally prevailed regarding this farce. Those freaks should never have been allowed the treatment in the first place.

agreed, bigdave. what I want to know is whether this will end the potential incidents for other couples, or whether it will be the opening of the floodgates for people who just have kids for cosmetic reasons?

morons, the lot of them. kids are forever, not just an accessory

Good to see that common sense has finally prevailed regarding this farce. Those freaks should never have been allowed the treatment in the first place.

woohoo! as a patient of dr armellin’s, with 3 wonderful kids, all through IVF, I am glad this is over now. you are asked to have either 1 or 2 embryo’s put back, it is your choice. having 2 raises the success rate a bit, but to gain two babies from 2 eggs is a risk.

Good.

wow…common sense.