iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Israel's In Vitro Baby Boom: What Happens When Fertility Is Free?

Israel Ivf

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 07/18/11 10:18 PM ET Updated: 09/17/11 06:12 AM ET

For most childless couples, in vitro fertilization is an effective but prohibitively expensive road to motherhood that dangles tantalizingly out of reach.

Not so in Israel, the New York Times reports. As the "world capital" of in vitro fertilization, the country provides free IVF procedures for up to two "take home babies" for every woman under the age of 45.

It's a policy that has earned Israel the title of number one country for the procedure, with surveys showing that the country has 1,657 IVF procedures per million people per year -- a number that dwarfs second place Iceland's 899. The United States, on the other hand, has one of the lowest IVF rates -- 126 annually -- due at least in part to the fact that the procedure costs significantly more here than in any other country. A standard round of IVF therapy costs around $13,775 in the U.S.; in Japan, it's $4,012, and in Belgium, it's $3,109.

While some bemoan the high cost of IVF in the United States and praise other countries for keeping the cost there down, others argue that the procedure's high cost in the U.S. serves an important purpose. David Fleming, director of the Center for Health Ethics at the University of Missouri, told Newsweek that steep pricing helps avoid the "commoditization” of infants and said, "The more you have access, the more people will do it."

Babble's Sierra Black suggests that Israel's free IVF policy is a gift to would-be mothers. "For women experiencing infertility, a chance at making a family can be everything," she writes. Others aren't convinced the policy is all that great for women. Over at Slate's XX Factor, KJ Dell Antonia wonders if it isn't so much "family-friendly" as it is "government-subsidized peer pressure." Noting that child-care options for Israel's working moms are expensive when they aren't completely nonexistent, Antonia argues that many women are 'nudged' towards becoming primary caregiver and taken out of the work force in the process.

"The U.S.'s cultural belief that women are responsible for our own reproductive systems (with the one obvious, minority-view exception) and families are responsible for their own children in nearly every way leads us into some backwards policies, like the refusals to fund Planned Parenthood or Head Start in some communities. But in spite of all that's sometimes said about societal and family pressure on women of reproductive age, it's impossible to imagine an American sociologist saying we're 'expected to have children.' It's a silver lining we didn't even know we had."

Perhaps that view is unique to American culture, which on balance places less value on the importance of family. As a cultural stance, it contrasts starkly with Israel's historical and political imperative to bear children. Though Israelis and Arabs living in Israel are given the same rights to IVF, Israel has worked relentlessly to promote birthrates in an effort to counterbalance the high fertility rates of families in Palestinian territories. In a nod to modernity, the country now encourages gay and single women, when sanctioned by their rabbis, to receive the procedure; there's also a growing movement to make IVF available to gay men using a surrogate.

Another factor probably contributing to Israel's willingness to fund IVF -- and the U.S.' reluctance to -- is a difference of opinion about whether infertility is a disease. Like many countries, Israel defines barrenness as a medical condition. In the United States, health insurers see childbearing as a "socially constructed need," not a necessity. And since the American health care system struggles to provide even the most basic care for all, the chances that IVF might someday be covered by insurance here seem slim at best.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WOMEN

For most childless couples, in vitro fertilization is an effective but prohibitively expensive road to motherhood that dangles tantalizingly out of reach. Not so in Israel, the New York Times repo...
For most childless couples, in vitro fertilization is an effective but prohibitively expensive road to motherhood that dangles tantalizingly out of reach. Not so in Israel, the New York Times repo...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:53 PM on 07/23/2011
I gave birth to a child conceived via IVF when I was 28. I funded my treatments (for ovulation disorder) with the help of a state-run grant program. We could have chosen to adopt an older child in foster care, for basically no cost and without much wait. We chose not to, as, like many parents, we wanted a baby. If a lack of homes for children is really the issue, then fertile couples should be encouraged to adopt just as much as infertile couples are. Otherwise, it's a double standard.

I'm also disturbed by the classification of infertility as something other than a medical disorder. If your reproductive hormones are faulty, or your fallopian tubes are blocked with scar tissue, and a medical treatment like IVF can help you become pregnant, how is that not the same as treatment for, say, low vision or hearing problems? The technology helps you lead the life you want to lead, although you'd be perfectly capable of continuing to live a full and productive life without being able to see, or hear, or have a baby.

I think if insurances were required to cover IVF, most women would then agree to the transfer of just one embryo at a time -- thereby greatly reducing the incidence multiple pregnancies. A cycle of IVF is a real bargain compared to care in the NICU for premature twins.

Regardless of the motives for it's implementation, the Israeli policy seems perfectly reasonable and fair to me.
photo
MadMaddie
Saucy strawberry blonde
05:05 PM on 07/21/2011
Perhaps it's just my Catholic upbringing and all that incessant preaching about
"good Catholic mommies having as many good Catholic babies God wants to give her"
by not using any of those "sinful" contraceptives rearing it's ugly head and jading my view,
but could this be a case of the state of Israel wanting as many "good Jewish mommies
as possible having as many good Jewish babies as possible" via the free IVF?
BahtHarim
בת ההרים
08:16 AM on 07/22/2011
Huffpost did not reprint the entire NY Times article, which said that this help is open to all, both Arabs and Jews. Interesting that they left out this important piece of information.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lisa Shields
Poet & Advocate For Special Needs Children
09:25 PM on 07/20/2011
At risk of offending people, I remember when people believed that women shouldn't have babies after a certain age...and doctors believed that miscarriages were "natures way" of dealing with fetuses that would not thrive as babies. IVF has certainly succeeded in producing "miracle" babies...but at what price are those miracles coming? Has anyone ever really kept track of the IVF children, to see how their health has been since birth? Are the parents getting the whole story, before they commit both their health and resources to having babies...or are they just assuming that "born healthy" will just work out?

I don't want people to be child-less, if they truly want kids...but the research and the ethics of IVF have been selectively disbursed, and I wonder if desperate people are far less likely to ask hard questions...about a procedure that has become so mainstream.
photo
Lenape105
Austerity is fiscal terrorism
07:03 PM on 07/19/2011
I would much rather see free adoption. World population is fast approaching 7 Billion and there are many millions of children who need loving homes. We don't need public support of fertility clinics so couples can gratify their egos by producing carbon copies of themselves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KarlaElisa
The atmosphere is Toxic
10:26 AM on 07/20/2011
boy, if i could fan you again...

this IS ridiculous and absolutely, adoption is ridiculously expensive. not to mention that seemingly most agencies insist you be married and a member of a church for at least X number of years.

i'd have adopted several children if not for the cost and religious discrimination.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
insidious
Socialist Progressive Liberal Independent Feminist
02:34 AM on 07/21/2011
You're so right. What is wrong with people when they put religious dogma first and the human condition second? For example, I would love to adopt a child from Pakistan but I'm not Muslim, or from Pakistan. Instead, murdering infants is the way of disposing unwanted children and 9 out of 10 unwanted children are abandoned girls who are killed and dumped in the trash...because the Adoption Agencies don't want guardians who are of a different religious background. It's very sad and disheartening.
10:00 AM on 07/21/2011
So, so true. But the expense is huge.
My wife and I would very much like our little boy to have a sibling to grow up with, and our first thought was indeed adoption. But there is no way we can afford that at present.
08:30 PM on 07/25/2011
Why is adoption so EXPENSIVE?! I would like to adopt too but my husband and I cannot afford it. I had a miscarriage in 2007 at 3 months gestation. Cause-Unknown. Took fertility meds, paid for expensive ultrasounds, had a swollen ovary removed. Three years later I got sick of blood tests, $300 ultrasounds and side effects of medicines. If I were in Israel I could have gotten FREE IVF. Unless you have had a miscarriage you can't understand how much having a biological child would mean to us. We would and still do want to adopt but we AGAIN cannot afford it. Babies are discarded everyday in abortion mills. Children in foster care sometimes grow up in abusive, cold, and uncaring homes because the government wants it to cost so much that the children STAY IN THE SYSTEM which secures their jobs. If even 50 percent of children in focter care were permanently adopted at low costs then these so-called "social-workers" would have to start doing their jobs and sincerely trying to place children in loving homes.
12:35 PM on 07/19/2011
THE QUESTION IS..............WHY SO$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

IN THE USA????
09:50 AM on 07/19/2011
The word "free" is very misleading because somebody has to pay the doctors and all the expenses. That someone in this case would likely be your neighbors. Israel is in a unique position. They are surrounded by groups of people who mostly would rather see them cease to exist. In their case it could be seen in the nation's interest to encourage reproduction. Our situation is different. We have a huge population and no immediate enemies who want to or are even capable of wiping out all of us. That is before you get into other things like it being strange to subsidize pregnancy when we are aborting over a million pregnancies per year. It also is hard to argue that pregnancy is private when the government is subsidizing it.