4 ms·
Well, this was for the funding of a second round of sperm washing procedure, when they already had a healthy son through such a funded procedure. In the end the
by hycaria 8y ago
Well, this was for the funding of a second round of sperm washing procedure, when they already had a healthy son through such a funded procedure. In the end they paid from pocket for the second one. Doesn't seem unfair to me.
As for being infected in the first place and getting compensated, I strongly suspect that a trial happened considering how many haemophiliacs were affected...
- emilfihlman 8y agoA single child is a loss to a country, 2.x is minimum every couple should have.
- bildung 8y agoI wasn't under the impression there is a shortage of people on earth.
- logfromblammo 8y agoNo. That is why 90% of all humans should have 2 children, and 10% should have 3. Or at least until large-scale space colonization becomes viable, then everyone can just go wild until the Dyson sphere fills all the way in. A government health service should therefore not be cutting off fertility services any earlier than the live birth of anyone's second child, and should likely begin requiring additional fees for all child-related services starting with the fourth, or impose an additional tax on anyone with four or more biological children. China's "one child" policy would probably have fared better as a "one son" policy. That equates to an average limit of two children per person, which is still below replacement fertility.
- blfr 8y agoAre you under the impression that people are interchangeable and your child is just like any other human on Earth?
- bildung 8y agoNo, to be clear I fully support the idea of fertility services provided by the public. I just don't think a nation's population is a good argument for this.