Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 28 February 2018

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health

General Scheme of Assisted Human Reproduction Bill 2017: Discussion (Resumed)

9:00 am

Dr. John Waterstone:

There is that issue but also the issue of fair treatment and not exploiting patients. It is up to the regulatory authority, when it evolves, carefully to do its best to protect patients. However, I am afraid commercialisation is here. We know there is no State funding for IVF treatment in this country per se, even though the drugs concerned are funded nationally which is a great advantage for our patients. The Department of Health undertook a useful exercise, it is out there and can be googled, looking at how IVF is funded worldwide and particularly in Europe.

What surprised me looking at many of the other jurisdictions was that there is funding but it is not unlimited. Most countries that I thought previously had unlimited funding have limitations. The State pays for a proportion of the treatment but not all of it. Even in the UK, where I worked for 12 or 13 years, even though there is a good standard of care generally, for fertility it only pays for 40% of the IVFs undertaken. It does not pay for everybody. There are strict limitations about the number of treatments couples can have and the age of the couple. It is restricted to younger people, whose chances of success are better, to try to get better value for the taxpayers' pounds, so it is not unlimited. However, it would help the least fortunate people in our country economically if we can have some State funding for sure. It is, however, over-enthusiastic to think that all IVF treatment in Ireland is going to be paid for by the taxpayer. That is never going to happen realistically, particularly with budgetary restraints.

Deputy Durkan asked about Parts 2 and 3 of the Children and Family Relationships Act. I urge the committee to scrutinise them. The fact that it had occurred at all was due to an oversight in the Department of Justice and Equality. That is inescapable. Dr. Wingfield referred to the report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction, but that was 15 years ago. When the commission looked at the advisability of the State informing donor conceived children of the manner of their conception, the advice was that it would be a step too far and that, in fact, it would be against the constitutional rights of citizens. However, the Department of Justice and Equality did precisely that and went too far. As far as many of my colleagues in the IFS and I are concerned, this must be challenged. It is intolerable and has gone too far. The advice given at the time by the institute, particularly by Dr. Wingfield and others, was that it was going too far, but our warnings were not heeded and the legislation was enacted. I strongly make the point that it must be replaced by something that is constitutional.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.