A single woman living in the United Kingdom at taxpayers’ expense has delivered a baby who was conceived through IVF paid for by taxpayers. I wish the baby well. I wish its mother either paid employment or a substantial surprise legacy from a long-forgotten distant relative so that she may relieve me of the compulsion to pay for her fertility treatment, her maintenance and that of her child – or children, if she intends to have more.
Is this is legitimate use of the taxpayers’ money?
Musing on the many questions prompted by this incident in the light or perhaps the shadow of the UK Human Rights Act, I wonder whether any publicly-funded medical authority in the United Kingdom would lightly refuse a similar request from a woman with no visible means of supporting herself.
Or would they be ‘non-judgmental’ and accede on the grounds of ‘inclusiveness’ and ‘diversity’ or pehaps simply fearing that a refusal would send her scurrying off to m’learned friends who, before you could say ‘scalpel and forceps’, would allege egregious victimisation of their client to their lordships on the bench?
Would their lordships then have declared that state-funded IVF (and of course the consequent and non-trivial ongoing cost-burden to the appellant’s fellow-citizens, or at least those paying tax) must be provided, being intrinsic to the ‘right to family life’ guaranteed, like so many abuses of the enraged, disenfranchised, abused and utterly irrelevant upright citizen, by the European Convention on Human Rights to which the UK is bound by the Human Right Act.
If Harriet Harman QC and/or Helena Kennedy QC should be reading this, perhaps they would be kind enough to give us their opinion — on a pro bono basis, of course. While we await their learned opinions, maybe others can advise?