Tony Abbott is surely regretting mentioning the term IVF in the same press
conference as the words cutback, budget and Medicare blow-out. The reaction
has been adverse in the extreme, forcing Abbott to meekly suggest on
morning radio that perhaps, maybe, there should be a "hypothetical" limit
to the number of IVF cycles that the government could subsidise.

Angry parents and newspaper columnists have lambasted Abbott for trying to
cost precious babies. How could the government give $3,000 to those lucky
enough to have babies the natural way, and at the same time deprive less
fortunate women of the opportunity to have a baby at all?

The root of the problem is that IVF funding comes from the health budget.
Think about that. In what way does being infertile make you ill? It does
not cause any physical pain, does not shorten one’s lifespan or cause any
disability. And it does not require any medical treatment per se.

The health budget is for people who are sick - in pain, disabled, infected
or otherwise afflicted.

This is not to suggest for a moment that infertility does not cause major
psychological distress. It clearly does for many Australians. Due to the
increasing age of first-time mothers, it is a problem set to affect many
more of us in future years. And infertility, while not inherently painful,
can be caused by conditions that are - like endometriosis, or treatment for
cancer, or a myriad of other bona fide illnesses.

Last year we spent $78.6 million in helping people to have babies via IVF.
That money comes from the same budget that we use for kidney dialysis,
cancer treatment, heart attacks and strokes.

So did we spend nearly $80 million to ease the psychological pain of some
people who cannot fulfil a dream, but are otherwise healthy?

Of course we did not. We spent the money to ensure that we have a
demographic that might just manage to support our ageing population. We
spent the money as a major national investment in a technology that
provides about 3 per cent of the new babies the government so desperately
wants. But that money should not come from the health budget.

It is surely a rotten blow in life to find that you cannot have babies by
natural means. But can it ever be worse than having cancer, or a major
psychotic illness, or any of the severe health problems that preclude many
Australians from ever considering having a child? The correct answer to
this question, I believe, is that we shouldn't be forced to make such
comparisons in the first place.

This is a debate about population, not health. Infertility is not a health
problem, and public money for IVF should not be siphoned from funds
reserved for people who are sick. IVF is a medical procedure, but not one
that cures an illness. Because it is performed by doctors in hospitals,
funding has traditionally been allocated through Medicare.

We need some clarity in this debate.  Health, population and ageing are
intimately related concerns, but IVF is best thought of as a remedy for the
latter two. It is our population problem - our ageing population problem,
to be precise - that is behind Tony Abbott's baby bonus and similar
incentives. Public funding for IVF - which I believe should continue -
should come from a population budget, or from the same general funds as the
baby bonus.  We still need to debate whether we should spend the money, but
we do not need to persist with the sort of futile and hurtful costing
comparisons between an IVF baby and a terminal cancer patient. Both should
be precious to us all.

Sam Tormey is a doctor and Research Fellow at OzProspect