A Moral Maze ....... should prisoners have access to IVF?

No. No discussion (I do not mean this thread). No justification or special pleading, just 'No'

If the government feels that there is money available for this (and, presumably, for supporting the spouse while she brings up the child on her own) I would much prefer to see it being used to help some of the women prisoners, many of whom shouldn't be in prison at all, and their children who face being separated from their mothers, perhaps for years. Support and education for these women and their children could help to reduce crime - handing out IVF will just produce more people expecting to have everything given to them.

Sadly, with the current state of the NHS, access to IVF treatment is a luxury even for people who have not forfeited their rights to luxuries by spoiling things in some way for the rest of society. If anyone is really asking for IVF treatment in prison, I can only think they have a bloody cheek.

Great post dorset. Refusing IVF for prisoners isn't about having no compassion for them or their families, nor about inflicting revenge on them. The prisoners serving shorter and medium term sentences can wait until they are released to procreate, and when they are in Cat D open prisons, or become eligible for release on temporary licence for a few days, they get to spend time with their partners. Those serving long and life sentences have to face the fact that this is one of the consequences of their conviction and sentence.

I'm sorry to sound like an old fart but aren't people in prision for a crime - sometimes murder? To me that means you have been removed from society for a time for punishment depending on that crime, and you have been removed for the safety of other people.
You should be entitled to: food, shelter, medical care, access to education to improve your mind, books for the same reason, work to enable you to buy a few treats, though some of your pay should go to your victims, visits by your friends and/or family.
You are not entitled to the comforts the rest of us aspire to, that includes Sky TV, marital rights and IVF.I'm sorry if the last two affect your family but you did something wrong. Many people have to pay for IVF treatment but one would assume that yours would be free. To some it would appear to have free IVF you have to commit a crime. Who is going to pay for all this? Two guesses.
I firmly believe that you can judge the civilised side of a country by how they treat their prisoners, IVF is not included in that.

I think the Darwin Awards principle should apply to prisoners. They qualify because the have rendered themselves officially sterile by being put away. This is the wiki definition of Darwin Awards:

^The Darwin Awards are a tongue-in-cheek honor, originating in Usenet newsgroup discussions circa 1985. They recognize individuals who have contributed to human evolution by self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool via death or sterilization due to their own (unnecessarily foolish) actions. The project became more formalized with the creation of a website in 1993, and followed up by a series of books starting in 2000, authored by Wendy Northcutt. The criterion for the awards states, "In the spirit of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives. Darwin Award winners eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chances of long-term survival."[2]

Accidental self-sterilization also qualifies. ^

Hence they should NOT be encouraged to reproduce.

Human rights, piffle, we are a pathetic country allowing too many "rights" for the wrong people. It never seems to be people like us who have rights, but the wrong doers. Please don't get me started...

One word answer, NO

I am with everyone on this.

Why should they be entitled to any treatment such as I.V.F. Who pays for the cost of bringing up the child? Decent hard working people have to save hard to afford it. It is not a human right to have a child.

Worst of all, what about the 'human rights' of the unborn child? Who has the right to say he/she must be born to satisfy inept parents who have committed a crime.

For goodness sake, liberal thinking at it's worst.

mishap Can I also join your "aging fascist" group on this one? (I do mean the "aging fascist bit" as a joke. Right?

Definitely not!

Oh My God NO!!! hello!! they are Murderer's--what kind of a life would that be for a child to have a Murder for a Father, I know that diplomacy should be the key when posting but will break that rule just this once...IVF indeed goes off in complete disgust!!

Ana I think you'll find that the cat was evidence of the relationship with his girlfriend and not the reason for his being allowed to stay - on fact the Home Office had ignored its own guidelines in initially refusing him
leave to stay

I'm all for prisoners maintaining contact with their existing families but it's stretching human rights to ludicrous limits to claim 'right to a family life' should mean a right to have children whilst in prison.

Hmm.... I wonder if any women prisoners are seeking this right, or is it just men, testing the system.

It's a silly idea.
If the man has only a short sentence they can wait. If the woman is likely to be 'past it' by the time the bloke gets out then why should the public have to support what would be in effect a single mother.

Well there does seem to be a contradiction here. At least one.
Prison sentence by definition takes away a number of human rights. Freedom, family life, association, travel, privacy, equality of opportunity etc. etc. And quite, we do not have marital visits in prisons do we, so therefore any "right'" to father a child is by definition suspended unless that rule changes.
What is there about this that is so hard for judges to work out?
The only cogent argument is that a wife has a right to conceive. Hum. I don't think anyone has a "right" to have children. Some are lucky enough to have them and some are not. It is not a human right on any list that I am aware of.
I have always had some doubts about whether the NHS should pay for any infertility treatment. How can I put this...?
In a parallel universe, very similar to this one, there is an NHS that does not pay for any fertility treatment. There are several perfectly good reasons that everyone in this parallel universe finds reasonable:
1. Infertility is not an illness.
2. Child rearing is very expensive and if parents cannot afford IVF they certainly can't afford to have children.
3. The NHS is short of money and there are more deserving ways to spend it - on people who are actually ill.

Apologies to the tabloids - I see that the article came from the Telegraph.

Can't be an ageing fascist, because I have never been one in the first place. This sounds like a misinterpretation of the IVF case, stirred up by tabloids as a stick to beat the EU with. But having said that, this would be a privilege too far in my opinion.

Prison is to punish, protect and rehabilitate.

Part of the purpose of a punishment is to act as a warning to other potential offenders. If potential law breakers do not see being in prison as much of a problem then it will not act as a deterrent. I do feel sorry for those who find themselves the partners of prisoners and maybe denied the access to parenthood as a result... but sadly that is all part of the punishment.

If you can't do the time do not commit the crime! It is not being a fascist to support laws of the land ..as long as they are reasonable. To lock up criminals, in hygienic conditions, keeping them fed & warm and having access to essential medical service is an acceptable way to deal with law breakers. Any other 'comforts' should be minimal & that includes any elective medical treatment.
Work /training should form a part of the rehab purpose of prison

I don't think it was absolutely untrue, bluebell - it just wasn't the only reason.

I was very much in favour of the right to vote for SOME prisoners but find this astonishing. However, I do wonder how really true it all is given the governments antipathy to the concept of human rights - do you remember that May lied about the person who supposedly couldn't be deported because of their cat? That turned about to be absolutely untrue.

Having now read the article, it is EU legislation that is causing the potential problem, and the test case referred to involved artificial insemination not IVF.
Still an ageing fascist on this one though

Totally with the rest of you. This is so wrong.

Absolutely do not agree with it. Beyond belief!

Personally, I think responsible people should be helped to have children, and there are not many such people serving prison sentences. I understand the argument that spouses have not committed the crimes, so why should they be denied the chance to have a child whilst they still can, and feel for them being put in this position, but we taxpayers are not the ones who put the spouse in that position, the offender did that. It's another consequence they should have to deal with.

I do wonder how many would actually be eligible for IVF. Certain criteria have to be met, and anyone who smokes or takes drugs would not be eligible. That excludes the majority of the prison population.