Being infertile would have broken my heart

This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to theechidna.com.au

Some days I read promises from politicians and think blergh. Completely transparently transactional. Just a way to buy votes. Stadium here. Tax cut there. You know exactly why it's being offered.

But sometimes I think that promise is exactly what the doctor ordered. And being offered the opportunity to have babies exactly that.

The ACT Liberals are promising to pay up to two grand towards the cost of IVF if they win government in October. ACT Labor is working on a policy right now. Mind you, it's been working on that policy for a while now. And let's not forget that the federal government already funds IVF through Medicare benefits and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

But more money towards IVF is the loveliest political promise I've ever heard (although the Liberal decision not to fund same-sex couples is weirdly judgemental and, ah, unpleasant). It's unlikely it will ever change a single vote but it could change lives. Infertility is a terrible scourge and trying to fix it can cost a motza. One cycle can cost well over 10 grand and the out-of-pocket expense could be as much as $6000 on average for a first cycle of treatment.

Terrifying on any budget let alone in our current cost-of-living crisis. Plus, cycles don't always work. But if you want IVF, Australia is one of the safest countries to have it, according to Georgina Chambers, UNSW professor and director of the National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit. She says we have a proud history not only of medical and scientific IVF breakthroughs in this country but also of safe clinical practice.

Last year, the Australian Journal of General Practice reported that infertility affects one in six couples worldwide and it's increasing. Why? We are older when we get started on babymaking, sperm isn't as good as it used to be and we are all getting fatter. Those are all reasons why we are struggling to get pregnant as easily as we used to.

If I'd been infertile, I think my heart would have broken. About 5 per cent of kids now born in Australia are a result of assisted reproductive treatment - and I'm guessing that their parents are more stressed than everyone else. So it's not just the cost of the procedure but the terrible emotional upheaval we go through when trying to have a baby. The treatments can send you mad, as well as the worry of wondering whether any of the treatments will work. I get a bit emotional anyhow so not sure I could have coped with the stress.

Not only did I want child number one, having her made me want more. Many more. My beloved nearly had a fit when I said I wanted six kids so I think I was lucky to get three, lucky despite my exponential exhaustion. Having these kids was worth every sleepless night (which, warning, warning, continues way past the time they are babies into teen years and beyond).

Now, every time a politician promises to help those with these specific medical issues - the ones related to getting pregnant - you'll hear an outcry. The money is better spent elsewhere. It's a waste. We should direct the money to hospitals and schools. I'm totally on board with funding hospitals and schools. I'm also totally on board with preventing heartbreak where possible. And these days, you can use a handy little calculator to check out whether IVF might succeed for you. Recent figures show more than one-third of first time cycles resulted in a squidgy baby at the other end.

Having kids was the best decision of my life. Sure, children ruin your old life but their new lives make your life anew. They are electric, eccentric, hard work and utterly exhausting but the best thing you will ever do.

So if the only way you can get pregnant is to use IVF or other treatments, I vote 1 for doing that. No matter what it costs.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Is having kids all it's cracked up to be? What's the best and worst thing about being a parent? Should state and territory governments pitch in? (NSW does already but others too?) Email us: echidna@theechidna.com.au

SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

- As we struggle with the cost of living and spiralling mortgage repayments, one academic, the University of Canberra's Chris Wallace, has a solution: HomeKeeper, modelled on the pandemic-era JobKeeper program.

- Tasmanian independent senator Jacqui Lambie has told Elon Musk, the executive chairman of X (formerly Twitter), to "put his big boy pants on and do the right thing" by removing 65 tweets containing footage of the Sydney church stabbing.

THEY SAID IT: "Making the decision to have a child - it's momentous. It is to decide forever to have your heart go walking around outside your body." Ellen Cantarow

YOU SAID IT: Struggling with the way supermarkets behave? Turns out I'm not alone (and thanks to Trevor who suggested I ditch pine nuts for almonds or walnuts. They're cheaper).

Special thanks to correspondent Rod Stowe, a former NSW Fair Trading Commissioner, who reminds us all to be aware that large supermarkets are signatories to the Scanning Code of Practice. "Under the code, consumers are entitled to receive a grocery item free of charge if it scans at the checkout for a higher price than the displayed shelf price."

Reader Jim E knew that too. Wish I'd known that before my pine nut debacle. Also I'm going to shop where Marilyn shops. Her local Woollies has them much cheaper than mine.

Dusty worked that to advantage. At Dusty's local major supermarket chain the policy is that if you purchase an item and the cost is different than what was on the shelf, you get that item for free.

"I know that it works that way because for four months I was getting my favorite crisps for free. The shelf read $2 but I was charged $2.30. The next shopping trip I would show the customer service and then be refunded. I would wonder why the shelf tag was never changed, however to my horror, after four months it was.

Elaine R has experienced shrinkflation at her local IGA. "Favourite marmalade same cost but smaller jar."

And Elaine L objects to the red label tags that imply a special "but when you lift up the tag you see it is the same as the regular price underneath!"

Dorrigo is an enthusiastic gardener: "The supermarkets can't rip you off for the food you can grow yourself."

Stephanie says "Echidna really hit a nerve this time. One of my weaknesses (sadly I have a few) is KitKats, i usually buy a pack of 18 'fun size' every week and have to admit that I probably eat twice as many as my partner. Some time ago, I noticed the label on the shelf announced that the price was 'locked' at $6. I was pleased, although remembered that they were $5 not long ago but when I got them home I noticed that the packaging had changed. After a little investigation (and some dismay) I realised that they had shrunk. I weighed one of the remaining items from the previous week which remarkably hadn't been eaten, and compared it with the new 'price locked' version, the old one was 19 grams and the new version 14 grams. I was outraged and thought about complaining via the 'talk to us' address on the back of the pack but decided that I'd probably be told that 14 grams is more healthy than 19 grams. Or is it, less unhealthy?"

Sue asks: "Why should we expect supermarkets to be completely above board, honest and transparent when that is not the model demonstrated by the politicians and other leaders?"

Garry J has an excellent idea: "Maybe we need an extra subject at school. How to survive food shopping."