ERIKA MURRAY
<Contributor>
During law school, the majority of students do not think about trying to conceive a child. Most thoughts about children, if any, are typically focused on preventing conception, and understandably so. After all, it would be difficult for any law student to afford a newborn with no income and substantial tuition costs to worry about. While it may seem like a long time away, your childbearing years are just around the corner, and, for some, conception may require a large sum of money. Approximately 15% of us will be unable to conceive naturally. Infertility is not just a women’s issue. Remarkably, assisted human reproduction (AHR) has progressed to a point where there is a range of techniques available to assist most infertile individuals with conception. Furthermore, the possibilities of AHR have provided a means for same sex partners to have children of their own.
I would argue that AHR has been the greatest medical development of our time. However, it is unfair that only the middle to upper class can reap the benefits of AHR. In Canada, the average cost of a single “standard” in vitro treatment is $10 000. Often, couples require several treatments before achieving success and some never conceive even after paying for multiple attempts. While the procedure is somewhat regulated (i.e. no octomoms), AHR is not government funded in any province other than Québec. Currently, the government regards conceiving a child as similar to getting breast implants. If you want them, then you must pay for them yourself. In many other countries, including England, Australia, and Israel, the government covers the costs of infertility treatments. As a result, not only is economic status irrelevant to conception, “reproductive markets” are sharply constrained and controlled.
In Canada, while payment for eggs, sperm, and surrogacy is illegal, research suggests that the underground markets in the area are thriving. Individuals are renting out their wombs and exploiting themselves in order to conceive a child of their own through AHR. Ads on Kijiji vividly demonstrate the unfairness and exploitation faced by the infertile lower class. For example, some women advertise that they will become a surrogate in exchange for payment of the amount of an AHR treatment. It is troubling to live in a country with a declining birth rate and a “top” health care system where treatment for infertility, which produces a future contributing member of society, is only available to a certain class of people.
While you may not care at this moment in your life about the high costs of AHR, consider graduating, having large debts and then not being able to conceive. Then consider what you might be willing to do to have a child. For lawyers who typically have a decent income, money will be the answer. For others, however, money can never be their answer. Without exploitation they may never achieve a fundamental purpose in life: reproduction. Even breast implants are funded in certain circumstances, such as following intrusive surgeries for the treatment of cancer. Furthermore, the government pays millions to treat self-induced cancers from cigarettes and alcohol abuse, yet, for those who are infertile, the government has so far taken a hands-off approach. A positive obligation on the government ought to be recognized to fund AHR. AHR costs substantially less than prolonging the death of an elderly person or the treatment of a self-induced disease. Most importantly, it produces a future tax-paying member of society who will contribute to those costs, which are continually increasing with our aging population and declining birth rate.
Erika Murray is a 2L and sits on the Health Law Association Executive.