- Blog
- Bios
- Boards
- Classifieds
- DIY
- Gallery
- Vendor Reviews
- Shop Weddingbee
Weddingbee boards
I am just curious how you ladies feel about this. Here in Canada, Health Canada issued a statement today that they are considering banning woman with a BMI of 30 or higher from having fertility treatments due to the higher risk of complications which in turn places a drain on our health care system.
Is this going to far? who has the right to tell someone they do or don't have the right to be parents? What else can they say Canadians can and can't do? The BMI of a female who is 5'3 and 170lbs is 30. To me that's ridiculous that someone who is a size 14 is too large to have a child with some help.
As someone who is facing fertility treatments in the next year and who has a BMI over 30 I'm insulted and disheartened. Yet another obstacle, wonderful!
so what do you think, should us fat folk be allowed to be parents too?
That makes me so mad! I guess government run healthcare isn't all it is cracked up to be huh?
To put a BMI tag on it is ridiculous - because BMI is one of the sketchiest ways to measure 'weight'. It's disappointing to hear this! :(
That is disappointing and borderline! Unfortunately, I don't know what kind of rights Canadians have and whether or not its 'constitutional" so to speak.
Interesting debate on health care to be made......
i think the BMI rating is very misleading because there are some very fit people out there that if using a BMI would be considered unfit
Wow, that's quite disheartening. I wonder if insurance companies in the U.S. will implement that idea.
@secondchances: In fact this policy change signals smaller total government health care. Canada doesn't want to pay for emergency services related to these procedures. Why they just don't say, "if your injuries are reasonably related to your IVF and you are obese, we won't cover them" is something I don't understand. If a person wants to take on the risks and can afford the consequences, porquoi pas?
That's some of the issues I have with government run healthcare, just wish the US supporters would see this side of it. It has it's pros and it has it's cons and here is one of them. It's disgusting, it truly is.
@jaguar: I agree, it is beyond absurd.
As eloping mentioned about people that are fit, I'm extremely athletic and have a large amount of muscle mass meaning while I a size 12 (I'm not a tiny person overall) and healthy I also have a higher BMI simply because of weight.
One little number does not paint an overall accurate picture of health.
@eloping:Exactly!
I recently gained weight and am now "overweight" according to bmi and I really don't look it. I've looked up women that are the same height and weight and I'm really tiny compared to them. I think everyone should have the chance to have children. Totally ridiculous.
The only way I would agree with this is if the person was so large that it would cause health risks for the baby. Do they have information backing this up? Regardless of size, smaller women can have complications also. But i do agree that if your over weight you should try to get at a healthy weight before trying to have a baby.
First off you're off base. No one is dictating you cannot be parents. The Dr's are refusing to give you treatments to get pregnant because it can cause complications and harm to oneself.
You are free to explore other avenues of becoming a parent.
I do not agree with it being in terms of BMI. According to my BMI, I am obese yet have been cleared by doctors repeatedly. I am short and thick but don't eat a bunch of junk food and get enough exercise to keep me healthy.
I don't think they should be able to ban them from fertility treatments, however I think before receiving the fertility treatments, women who are actually obese and are in danger of damaging their health should be counseled about healthy living. Obese women are high risk pregnancies off the bat and things should be done to prevent uneccessary fertility treatments and/or repeat miscarriages.
To me it is not being unfair to obsese women, it is more or less being fair to their unborn children that will ultimately suffer with the complications. I feel this way about other unsafe pregnancies as well such as drinkers, smokers, drug addicts, and people who live in environments unsafe for children.
@vmec:I understand it's b/c of health risks. But if someone told me I couldn't have children naturally b/c of my weight I would be beyond devastated.
I dont disagree with it in theory, but BMI is a horrible indicator of fitness and health.
Body Mass Index does does not take into account the amount of body fat and muscle on an individual. It does not differentiate between muscle and fat.
Therefore a very fit person could not qualify for this? not OK? Granted a BMI of 3o would mean an EXTREME amt of muscle for a female. I am very muscular with a low body fat %, and I still dont come close to a 30 BMI. A 30 BMI is really quite high at my height.
I do agree in theory because complications and such are then covered by insurance which are, in reality, paid by other people. This has nothing to do with people who are naturally conceiving and lesser weighted people do have an easier time conceiving and less risks to their pregnancy.
Based on this I need to be nearly 180 at 5'5" to be a BMI of 30. Without question, that is overweight and unhealty long term and for pregnancy statistics.
I'm not against it. I just looked up some studies to be sure. A woman in a higher BMI bracket can have some serious pregnancy complications. And it doesn't just affect the mom, it can affect the baby too. I think it should be written as > than x BMI figure then no or you need a doctor's note.
I'm most certain if you, or any other lady who was over 30 BMI went in and was subsequently refused to have fertility, that these DR's and consultation-ists would not just boot you out the door. There will most likely either be some counselling, other options presented, or suggestions on how to improve yourself in such a way that you can be in the right physical condition to carry child.
Nobody's saying that obese women can't have babies, the government just isn't going to finance fertility treatments for high-risk pregnancies. Which is totally fair. Nobody wants to go here, but overweight women are at risk for a lot of complications during pregnancy. More than for women of average weight.
It seems a bit fascist, but that's one of the drawbacks of socialized healthcare. In the US, if you want and can pay for it, no questions asked.
Government run health care has it's pro's and con's and this is one of them. What gets me off is fertility treatments other than the initial consult are not covered by OHIP, we pay thousands of dollars just like any one else. The average cost of IVF in Canada is $15000 per attempt. Your telling me that even if I by some miracle am financially able to give a shot, I don't have the right. Infuriating!
I wonder if they are also planning on barring underweight women from treatment?
To me this seems like the first step towards a trip down a slippery slope.
@PutABirdOnIt: I understand your point but fertility treatments in Canada are not covered by OHIP. On average they cost $15000 an attempt out of pocket. the only thing covered is the initial consult.
So in theory they are saying that even if you can pay 3 times over they won't do it for you. If your only way to conceive is through fertility intervention than they are telling obese woman they can't have babies.
Health Canada's concern is not the cost of preforming fertility treatments on obese woman it's the potential complications that could arise from the successful pregnancy.
All this will lead to is women travelling out of country for fertility treatments. It is already happening, as in some other countries it is cheaper to travel there, pay for accomodations, and get IVF, then it is just for IVF in Canada. I will look for the article I read on it. I know I have had a few patients (I am an NICU nurse) who were conceived via IVF overseas.
Since we're talking socialized health care, I can get on board with this concept as long as this applies to ANYONE with questionable pregnancy potential, including underweight people, smokers, drinkers, drug users, you get the picture. Not just overweight people. If this is the case, I believe women should be counseled on what lifestyle changes they need to make to ensure a healthy and successful pregnancy.
@sarahtisme:Except that it's more than just the $ amount of the IVF treatment. It's increased doctor visits, increase in the liklihood of needing a c-section, potential bed rest, etc all of which would then be covered under insurance.
@vmec: This. I really don't think this is a bad idea, though there are definitely better ways of measuring health than by BMI. It's a good idea to get to a healthier weight and make better lifestyle choices in general before deciding to try to get pregnant, anyway. People should look at it from that angle instead of immediately getting defensive.
@PutABirdOnIt: I don't think anyone would disagree with the higher risks of pregnancy for overweight individuals (and underweight for that matter). I think the point of argument that I was at least trying to make is that BMI is not an accurate way to base such a pivotal decision on as it does not at all paint a true complete portrait of health.
In other words the government needs to find a complete way of determining whether someone is healthy or not besides a number that is indeed often misleading and does not take into account muscle mass (which typically = healthy(er).
Has anyone ever done the water BMI measurement? Since that is weightless (being in water) doesn't it actually give an accurate BMI and does take muscle mass into account?
ETA: It's called hydrostatic Weighing – Weighing under water (completely submerged, with all air blown out of lungs) – Very accurate when done professionally.
This will return a body fat percentage. That's what should be used rather than BMI.
@KatyElle: Or take that a step further and include people with disabilities....
@Talishazwi:Agreed, but highly doubt the government would fund such a test...albeit simple. I have never had he opportunity to have one although I've been told that some gyms have them available for members.
I guess my question is, wouldn't any woman want to have as healthy as a pregnancy as possible, and if that entails losing some weight prior to conceiving, wouldn't she do that? Nevermind if it's a requirement for fertility treatment. I know weight loss is challenging but if the end result is having a healthy pregnancy and baby, I think that should be the goal.
I agree BMI is a questionable tool. But I'm pretty sure a doctor can tell the difference between a woman who is extremely athletic and a woman who is not.
@Treejewel19: I think that is just splitting hairs. Who really cares how they measure? If you're obese, you're obese. My point is, if you want a baby, have a baby. But don't expect the government to shell out for something that is so high-risk and costly.
@Treejewel19:It's only like $30-50. If needed, I don't see why the hopeful mom couldn't come up with that to have herself tested.
To argue that by banning over 30 BMI is going to lead to refusal of service to all those with potentential pregnancy problems is just silly.
Banning 1 thing does not automatically mean you're going to land yourself at the bottom of a slippery slope with everyone who isn't of perfect health not being allowed fertility treatment.
that makes me feel sad and angry because if they try to use this as an excuse to take away someones rights now and people accept it, they will only keep going. Boo to you canada and people think your so awesome pfft
I don't understand why there has to be a black and white to the weight issue. I am no doctor, but to me I don't need to look at a scale to tell if someone is at risk or not.
This is not about rights. Fertility treatments are not a right, they are a priviledge and luxury, even in socialized health care. If your weight is what hinders your ability to have a child, then maybe you should take a good hard look at yourself and your life.
They aren't telling them they cannot have children, they are telling them they won't receive funded fertility treatments if their weight inhibits their ability to get pregnant naturally.
@ms_nickie: If a person is disabled and for their health and safety (as well as the baby's) it would not be recommended for them to carry a baby to term, same rules apply. They should have access to pregnancy counseling to discuss what their options are, or possibly even something like access to adoption or surrogacy advocacy if their condition cannot be improved.
You must log in to post.
| Visit our sister sites | eHarmony Online Dating |
eHarmony Advice Dating Advice |
Project Wedding Wedding Songs |
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar |
Create the honeymoon of your dreams.
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
 vorpalette |
27 |
| caseyleigh10 | 24 |
| Brielle | 24 |
| ellisrobertson | 24 |
| les105 | 22 |
| lionskitty | 22 |
| fishbone | 22 |
| SouthernGirl | 21 |
| mypinkshoes | 21 |
| kat2014 | 19 |
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| JewishBride | 1 |
| Lindsay05 | 1 |
| SouthernGirl | 1 |
| BoiledPNut | 1 |
| Beebug | 1 |
| pinkgreenandyellow | 1 |
| Zelkara | 1 |
| teabiscuit | 1 |
