Jill Singer's narrow-minded view on IVF prompted me to post a comment on her Herald Sun blog over the Easter weekend.
You can check out her post here which comes on the back of an escalating debate about the merits of spending large sums of taxpayers' money on subsidising IVF treatment for couples.
I've got a vested interest in this debate both on a personal and professional level.
On the personal, my almost two-year-old son was conceived thanks to the miracles of Australia's world leading IVF program. On the professional, I am keenly interested in the public affairs implications of this debate.
With the Federal budget in meltdown, the pre-budget media leaks emanating from Canberra suggest the IVF program could be means-tested or the number of treatment "cycles" subsidised by the Government capped. The outcome would ultimately result in less children born in Australia every year.
The IVF lobby has successfully fought of such proposals before but this time it could be different. The central argument put forward by anti-subsidy proponents such as Singer is an economic one. Put simply, the scheme is too generous, risky and ill-affordable in tough economic times.
I'm a supporter of the subsidy for obvious reasons. But the program is facing its most serious threat in its history. The public affairs campaign therefore needs to be moved up a notch and quickly.
Backed with real life case studies and meaningful research, a starting point for a pro-IVF campaign might include some of the following points:
For every IVF child born in Australia every year, the economic contribution they will make to Australia in future years would be quite substantial. I wonder how many of our future politicians, judges, community leaders and even journalists will have originated through an IVF program?
The community and health costs associated with effectively denying many couples the chance to have children would be enormous. Marriage breakdown, depression and their associated side-effects immediately come to mind. Bringing these long term consequences of fiddling with a hugely successful program to life is crucial.
There are many thousands of IVF-friendly voters in marginal seats. Building a coalition of pro-active supporters through traditional means (media, letter writing etc) as well as new social media tools (facebook, Twitter, Blogging etc) will help place pressure on poll=reactive pollies.
These are just some thought starters worthy of further consideration.
Comments