When I read the article below I wanted to put a link to it on my Facebook page, but then had second thoughts.

When I first came across this issue in 2010, Jack was 10 months old and I had just experienced my first of four miscarriages. I was, to say the least, upset by the discrimination and considered 'going public'. My IVF specialist was also 'upset' by the discrimination of the law which was applied retrospectively. She was willing to support me if I wanted to speak to the media and lobby the government, but this would have further delayed my access to IVF treatment and of course there would be have stress and pressure of being in the media. Probably not what we needed.

So we 'jumped through the hoops' so we could access what was completely ours in the first place. And as most of you know, three more miscarriages later, another full round of IVF, 6 embryos, 4 implantations, 2 D&C's and 20 weeks of daily injections in the tummy, Lachlan came along! So yes, absolutely YES, I would jump more than hoops for my boys, but I don't have to like it!

I decided to put the link here on my blog for cathartic purposes. I decided against putting it on Facebook because I'm not sure where the debate might lead and what I'd want to get out of it. I am suspicious, like the writer, that the reason for this law is to appease conservative critics. But as a law it doesn't work to meet their concerns and only adds to the pain of everyone accessing treatment for infertility.

Back in 2010 I did write to my local member of parliament and while he said he voted against this law and thought the process was excessive he did say "I believe that it is reasonable to check on the credentials of those undergoing ART, particularly given the wide range of people who are now eligible to undertake ART." Personally, I think anyone who goes through IVF needs a medal, the treatment alone is not for the faint hearted.

For those who are concerned about the suitability of infertile couples, there are already checks in place through out the process. A patient needs to first have a referral from their GP and thus explain why they need to see an IVF specialist. Then after more consultation and tests with the IVF specialist you meet with a counsellor before you can even start treatment. There are several legal forms through out the process and many individuals who could raise concerns of suitability of the patient. This law is just rude.

Here's what I might have put on Facebook:

I experienced similar thoughts and feelings to this writer when asked to provide an in depth police check so we could access our own embryos. The IVF journey is an emotional one and the desire to have children sees you willing to jump through almost any hoop, but the discrimination and the implication that infertility means I am more likely (than any other fertile parent)to be a criminal is hurtful. It's another way to kick me when I'm down, in a time when I am already feeling like a failed wannabe mother and a highly emotional science experiment. Sure there are bigger issues in the world and sure I had nothing to worry about other than a few traffic infringements, but it's so unnecessary, it adds complication to a full on process and can delay what is a meticulously timed procedure. It's not necessary and I have similar suspicions to the writer as to why it was required in the first place.

You can find the article here or you can read it below.

Police checks on IVF patients add to the pain

My wife Kasey and I decided to make a baby the other day. Obviously our first step was to ask the state government for permission.

After visiting Kasey's gynaecologist we were instructed to apply for a national police check. We dutifully filled out Police Form 820B Consent to Check and Release National Police Record. This was followed by another set of forms applying for a child protection order check.

No, this isn't the sketch for a sci-fi film in which the most private and intimate aspects of our lives are controlled by a repressive police state. It's just how the baby-making process goes for couples in Victoria who have to take the IVF path.

Under the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 that came into effect on January 1, 2010, all couples who undergo IVF treatment in Victoria have to consent to a National Police Record Check and Child Protection Check before starting treatment with an IVF clinic.

The laws apply retrospectively, too. We first underwent IVF treatment in October 2008, two months before the law change, and successfully conceived a child. We were lucky enough to have a couple of embryos left over which we intend to use this time round. But, in order to use these embryos which we have already made and paid for - both financially and emotionally - we still need to undergo the police checks.

We got off lightly compared to couples in which one of the partners was born overseas. The Victorian government is nothing if not thorough, insisting that such couples supply a police check - at their own cost - from their native country as well.

As you might imagine, police checks for foreign nationals who aren't suspects in a criminal investigation aren't high on the priority lists of many country's law enforcement agencies, which means that IVF couples are likely to go to the bottom of the pile.

In such cases, the requirement to undergo a police check just adds to the cost and waiting time of couples. But time is one luxury that many couples undergoing IVF can't afford.

As any gynaecologist will tell you, women's fertility drops precipitously after the age of 30 years.

It's therefore worth asking why such police checks are needed in the first place?

According to both the former Labor government and the Napthine government, such checks are the only way to protect children born via IVF.

The implication of the checks - which amounts to criminal profiling of IVF couples - is that IVF clinics are teeming with criminals. We're expected to believe that paedophiles are undergoing the enormous financial and emotional cost of IVF in order to produce children for the express purpose of abusing them.

But if this is the case, then where's the evidence? Surely if it were a problem, then the Australian Institute of Criminology, Australia's national research centre on crime, would feature a study or two about the extent of the problem.

But a search of their database turns up just one article containing the words ''paedophile'' and ''IVF'' - and they're completely unrelated. Similarly, the Australian Law Reform Commission, the federal government agency that reviews our laws, has nothing on the issue.

The source of the Victorian law is a recommendation contained in a 2007 Victorian Law Reform Commission report on reproductive technologies and adoption which, in part, addresses the issue of people convicted of serious sexual and violent offences accessing IVF.

But the report's authors didn't advocate police checks. Rather, they recommended that IVF clinics require people seeking treatment to sign a statutory declaration that they had not committed a serious crime that may deny them treatment.

A Department of Health spokesman claims that statutory declarations were rejected ''because it relies on the honesty of applicants''.

Not only are IVF patients presumed criminal, it seems we also can't be trusted to tell the truth on a statutory declaration.

Another possible reason for government suspicion of the infertile may be that the Victorian government is homophobic.

The same 2008 legislation that requires couples to undergo police checks also permitted lesbians to access IVF services.

Call me cynical, but I'd bet that the Victorian government's demand for police checks is driven by a vicious little view that conflates homosexuality with sexual deviance - and specifically paedophilia.

I'd wager the Victorian laws around access to IVF are based on prejudice. While willing to open IVF to lesbians and single women, they also decided to frustrate access to placate conservative critics.

No one is arguing that sex offenders should be granted access to IVF. But surely giving IVF clinics access to the Australian National Child Offender Register, rather than presuming that everyone accessing IVF is suspect until proven otherwise, is a better solution.

It's time that the Napthine government put an end to this absurd and illogical discrimination of couples who access IVF, not to mention the waste of police and bureaucratic resources. If we've decided that couples - whether they're straight or gay - are permitted to use reproductive technologies, then they shouldn't be subject to ridiculous hurdles designed to appease bigots.

Christopher Scanlon is a Melbourne writer.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/police-checks-on-ivf-patients-add-to-the-pain-20130926-2ugs6.html

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/police-checks-on-ivf-patients-add-to-the-pain-20130926-2ugs6.html