blatant propaganda article:

Response to a letter about "IN-VITRO FERTILISATION (IVF) - A SCIENTIFIC SHAM?"

[ For most recent versions of these articles see http://www.MedicineKillsMillions.com ]

May 2000: The below contains a letter which complains about the IVF article and a response to those complaints. It features rambles about health attitudes, prejudice, sexism, smoking, AIDS & IVF.

">" denotes quote from letter/complaint about the IVF article.

"*"denotes j. citizen's response.

> I read the IVF is a sham article on the web.

* gosh I wrote that about 6 years ago. It's pretty rusty, and If I had the time I'd rewrite it... but I'm just too busy!

> I am one of those women with "faulty fallopian tubes" due to the eagerness of doctors in Europe to insert IUD's in 17 year old girls "because you cannot forget an IUD as you do the pill". I discovered this after an emergency laparoscopy after an ectopic pregnancy 20 years down the track. I have one strong objection against the article. You actually dehumanise and rationalise a condition into somethingthat could and should have been prevented. Well, well. How many men do you know who wholeheartedly agree to wearing condoms (which prevents infections causing blocked tubes, right?). Contraception and disease prevention in this day and age is still largely a woman's responsibility. What you have achieved by your article is put some sort of blame on women who have problems conceiving due to infections and diseases. What about the boys? They spread the bugs too, for crying out loud.

* The only blame I've allocated is on the medical research industry - for not focussing on prevention (including male contraception too as you say). I would never blame a patient for getting a condition that they didn't know they were at risk of. It's the fault of the medical industry. Nowhere in that article do i make any claims about gender responsibilites in regards to STDs, contraception etc. That was not in the scope of the article. I gather that because I haven't explicitly said "men should do their fair share" that you're interpreting I believe it's solely women's responsibility. Which I don't believe at all. I believe it should be equal. That kind of info, about contraception, is already very widespread and it's up to people in their relationships to sort it out. There are considerable risks for both men and women from ignorance. The article was just a short piece about: "this hi-tech thing that is hyped up, is not all it's cracked up to be". No more.

> Also, in line of your thinking: shouldn't we kick smokers out of hospitals and health funds as they have preventable illnesses. All in favor say aye.

* If you caught me in a certain mood, I would reply "yes" to that. I have very little sympathy for people who knowingly risk themselves (& others) in such an unnecessary way. I was pretty much forced to be a passive smoker for 18 years as a child. Those people not only inflict their pollution on themselves but on others. I'm not too happy about my taxes supporting them in their disease. As a Hypothetical analogy, it's like giving money to SS nazis who suffer from a lung condition as a result of poisoining prisoners with gas. Serves them right.

* Alas, I'm on a tangent here about smoking, but I do get back to the point of IVF further on... Both of my parents have emphysema from smoking and it serves them right. I have no sympathy for them. It's a bit like giving sympathy to someone who deliberately chops of their arm for fun. The sympathy is not warranted; they don't deserve it. They knew what they were doing.

* I consider parents who force their children to passively breathe their cigarette smoke are guilty of abuse. Many people (mainly smokers) would recoil from that statement with indignation, not wanting to recognise themselves as abusers of other people's rights (to clean air). However, what would their reaction be to parents who spray Zyklon B, DDT and formaldehyde* on their children? They'd probably consider that abuse and horrendous. But it's no different to passive smoking ie. being involuntarily subjected to disease-causing agents by someone who knows what they're doing. And by the way, yes, I do get along with my parents and love them to the degree they deserve it. They knew the risks of smoking and now they pay the price. (* Editor's note July 2000: actually parents do regularly spray their children with formaldehyde [a cancer-causing agent] when they spray room fresheners and use cleaning agants that contain it).

* Anyone who risks their (and others) health and life like that, and saying that "there'll be a miracle cure one day", is an idiot. Not that I'm so cold about it that I would kick smokers out of hospital now. That's because some of them might be so old they didn't have the relevant warning info and also because some of their illnesses might be from other causes they didn't have much choice about eg. lung complaints may be from working in a mine or living near a factory. In other words, in many cases it is hard to discern exactly what caused a person's disease. Therefore, to allocate blame and deny people help is totally fascist and not my position.

* In regards to smoking, what I would like to see though is a system that says to young people: "if you choose to smoke, you must sign this form that says you will receive no medical help unless you pay all bills for any smoking related illness you may incur. If you have no money then bad luck." That way they know what they're risking and that the rest of us won't tolerate their idiotic choice to smoke. They should also pay an extra tax that help funds the medical treatment for those they have polluted.

* Anyway, having said that, I don't advocate kicking women out of IVF. In that article I only proposed the question: where would the money help the most? It would help the most on prevention. Furthermore, the amount of money used on IVF could save and improve the lives of thousands upon thousands in non-western countries through better sanitation, water supply etc. But then again, most of us in the West don't like to think about how good we've got it at the expense of millions of others. It boggles my mind as to how people could spend so much money and go through such hassle in just the hope of having a child through IVF, when they could save many many of others with the same sum of money... if they were so inclined as to pretend they actually care about others. I guess it has to do with, as you suggest below, the social construction that motherhood is essential to womanhood ie. it's as if some women believe that if they can't have babies then they're not "real" women - that their lives have no purpose - which is preposterous. (But to be honest, I can see that some people do end up having children or want to have them exactly because their lives have no meaning, they have no interests, and having a child makes them feel important; being in control over another living creature).

> Perhaps we should tackle the notion that no woman is complete without children,

* Agreed. Yes, that's something I read when I was studying "the social construction of femininity" at university back in 1993-94. However, the scope of that short IVF article was just to focus on medical industry stuff, not gender issues.

>Ah, the noble >thought of redirecting funds to prevent infertility. Doesn't work with AIDS does it?

* It does and it has worked with AIDs. The incidence of it has slowed down or decreased in many places. But then again, AIDS is a whole other shadey kettle of fish and I'm not convinced that HIV is the cause. Nevertheless, there are many illnesses where redirecting efforts to prevention/education have been dramatically beneficial. Prevention is the most sensible and practical way to deal with illness. Except, that is, if youwant to consider that a certain number of jobs and profit-oriented private institutions are based on treating sick people after they've contracted preventable diseases.

> I normally do not respond to a lot of the nonsense out there on the web,>couldn't help myself this time.

* well thanks for the insult! As outlined below, to me it's all a matter of the reader's perspective and prejudices.

> You also mislead readers by emphasising 'infection' (bad women, bad women), while research shows that a lot of women with blocked tubes have endometriosis. Hey, who can we blame for that. God?

* I haven't said any such thing about "bad women" or proportioned any blame to women at all - only to the people involved with vivisectionist medical research. I haven't allocated any value of "bad" upon the concept of infection. That seems to be something in YOUR mind. I could infer that you think having endometriosis is more honourable than an infection. On a moral value level I think they're the same. I think placing moral values on "infection", which most often have little to do with a person's conscious behaviour, is walking the fine line between mysticism and fascism.

* It's like racism and sexism, but here, people are discriminating against each other because of their illness. Would you place a value on someone with measles or smallpox or a cold or acne? Some people do. Placing moralistic prejudice against someone with acne or smallpox or Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, carries as much rational weight (ie. none) as a prejudice against someone who is short or naturally large in size or who wears glasses. It all belongs in the realms of irrational mysticism (read: fascism). Such mystical value-allocations stem from emotional insecurity and trying to feel "better than thou".

* I only allocate values upon people who *knowingly* engage in high-risk-of-disease behaviour. For example: lung cancer from smoking; cyrrhosis from alcohol; cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc. from meat-eating; STDs from sleeping around. The values I attribute to those people are: stupid and irresponsible.

* And no, I don't place people with AIDs in that basket as I'm dubious as to what the real causes are. The evidence that HIV causes AIDS is flimsy at best. In fact, the evidence that HIV even exists at all is strongly contested by many eminent scientists. Nevertheless, I do consider people who are promiscuous and don't practice safe sex to be idiots. Moreover, those who pollute their bodies with recreational and pharmaceutical drugs are only asking for trouble. Many scientists now consider this chemical pollution to be largely responsible for the breakdown of people's immune systems and AIDS.

* From what I can gather, you've made inferences from my article about gender issues and relations that aren't there to be made. The information from the article was mostly obtained from feminist texts. It was intended to empower women to take charge of their own health and not leave it up to doctors. That's all it says - "your health is too important to leave up to those who will make money from your illness". It was brief and designed to be a small leaflet. So by it's nature it sparks off new questions.

regards,

j. citizen