The follow-up consultation

So last week, my wife and I visited the obs/gynae consultant for our follow-up appointment. It took an e-mail and a couple of phone calls to arrange this consultation - I think his secretary was either incredibly busy or away on vacation. (This is how keen we were to get a follow-up appointment: I even visited my GP a couple of weeks earlier to see if she could sort something out, but coincidentally I got a call from the consultant's secretary that same morning, so it was all good.)

Anyway, he went through the results as he'd discussed in the letter to me. And then he suggested that we had two options, both involving assisted conception. Either a) extract sperm from the larger of my testes (assuming that anything is happening down there) or b) donor sperm.

Now given my ethnic background, and the fact that the number of sperm donors in the UK is decreasing (thanks to the Government passing a law that children born from donor sperm can seek out their biological father at the age of 18 - no more 'anonymous' donations), the consultant suggested that, even with a 1 in 5 chance of extracting any sperm that I may be producing, that it would be worth going down the extraction route.

I have a colleague at work whose sister recently gave birth to a girl conceived via IVF. My colleague told me that her sister had had two cycles of IVF, at a cost of £5,000 a time. So £10,000 in all. (I'm sure I've read somewhere that two or three IVF cycles is common.)

For a lot of people, £10,000 is pretty substantial money. Now, it was recommend by John Reid, whilst he was the Health Secretary, that couples seeking IVF on the NHS should have at least one cycle provided free. But, if you read the papers or watch the news on TV, you'll know that the NHS is going through a bit of a financial crisis right now. So I guess that this is all pie in the sky - it doesn't help either that there is a postcode lottery as to whether you'll get any such treatment (it's all down to the way the NHS is managed regionally - let's just say it's fairly complex, and probably doesn't make a lot of sense to most of us.)

I remember reading an article, or hearing on the radio, a suggestion that the Government should fully fund IVF, because if the child lives to working age, and works until retirement (currently 65 years old), the amount that that person would repay in taxes would more than repay the 'investment' in IVF. I've had arguments with people that this is entirely sensible, given the relatively small number of couples seeking IVF. (In the bigger scheme of things, how much is the Government spending on military activity and international aid? Sorry, I'm getting political now...)

But I digress. Our consultant has written to a specialist at the local fertility clinic, so we should be hearing from him soon. Hopefully, he'll be able to discuss with us further the probability of extracting sperm, and all the other relevant details. We await the appointment letter.