Dont we owe it to those desperate for IVF treatment not to fall for the persistent spoilt/demanding female infertility narrative? Along with myriad NHS procedures, fertility treatment has been deemed non-essential during the pandemic. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority announced that it was suspended until further notice affecting not just new patients but those in the middle of treatment.

In response, IVF patients talked about their distress at the decision. The years trying to conceive and of waiting for treatment. Painful injections. Hormonal rollercoasters. Failed attempts. The physical, psychological and emotional toll. Anxiety that funding could be withdrawn. For some, the hopelessness about time running out, particularly for women over 40. As harrowing as the accounts were, they were also instructive: contrary to certain stereotypes peddled over the years, there was nothing entitled or presumptuous about these women.

Everyone understands the terrible impact that coronavirus is having on the NHS, including for cancer patients. However, this shouldnt cancel our sympathy for those devastated by the suspension of IVF, some of whom may be feeling that theyre at the fertility last-chance saloon. Is it possible for the rest of us to understand what theyre going through? Perhaps not. Those whove never experienced such problems may find the world of the non-fertile too dark and confusing to comprehend.

It doesnt help that, for decades, unshakeable narratives implanted themselves in the collective psyche: the central casting career bitch who put professional ambition first; the flaky party girl too busy having fun to heed the ticking of her biological clock; women who, for years, for whatever reason, squandered their fertility, but who now, like an IVF-themed Veruca Salt, stamp spoilt feet and demand that science sorts everything out: Ive had the big jobs, the flashy lifestyle, the fun and I want babies NOW!

Ive long doubted that such women exist. Anyone Ive come across with fertility problems seems to be everything from exhausted, embarrassed and wistful to sad, resigned and broke, sometimes all these things. And thats just the women. Indeed, as much as the cliches about infertile woman are cruel and sexist, theyre also inaccurate and simplistic. There are many causes of infertility its not always about the woman leaving it too late; its not even always about the woman. Yet still, women are usually the ones who bear the brunt of societal censure, who, on some primal level, are deemed to be righteously punished (by mother nature, no less!) for presumed insubordination.

What medieval phooey! Whatever happens next, in these uncertain times, however long it takes for fertility treatments to get back up and running, lets finally dispense with the creaking narrative that women wanting babies automatically equates with spoilt women demanding them. Lets try having a little sympathy for those for whom fertility treatment is anything but non-essential.

Have modern Britons really become so hypersensitive that they recoil from interruptions when watching or listening to political interviews? Richard Frediani, editor of BBC Breakfast, says internal research showed that people have tired of the aggressive Gotcha! type interview popularised by the likes of Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys. Now Emily Maitlis is top of the interruption league (on average every 28 seconds), with Mishal Husain in second place (every 46 seconds). Still, isnt this often the nature of the game?

I understand how softer interviews sometimes reveal more about character, but lets not turn this into a valid reason for, say, Boris Johnsons post-election boycott of Radio 4s Today programme. Or, indeed, Johnsons infamous dodging of Andrew Neil in the run-up to the election.

However, its not just Johnson. As a breed, political interviewees are skilled and determined time wasters, who often have a highly rehearsed spiel designed to deflect and repel serious investigation of shortcomings. Its the job nay, the duty of the interviewer to crack through that, not to be aggressive, but to stop them waffling through their own buzzword-strewn agenda.

If this is irritating and jarring for listeners or viewers, it should be acknowledged that its at least 50% the stonewalling interviewees fault. It may come as news to some, but politicians arent always desperately trying to deliver facts and truth - theyre often desperately trying not to. Add time constraints and theres your explanation for more aggressive interviews.

Even in the celebrity arena, the journalist often has to cajole interviewees away from charming but deadly dull chat about wonderful co-stars or dazzling film locations into more interesting territory. For political interrogators on television and radio, the stakes are higher and time even shorter. As far as Im concerned, they can interrupt all they like.

How concerned should Britain be about voter fraud worried enough to bring in new measures that prevent groups of people from actually voting? Community activist Neil Coughlan continues to appeal against the high courts rejection of his claim that pilot schemes requiring voters to produce photo ID at polling stations are undemocratic and unlawful. Coughlans local authority, Braintree in Essex, was one of the areas where the photo ID scheme was trialled in last Mays local elections. However, some people dont possess photo ID or may not be able to find it in time to vote. Moreover, apart from Northern Ireland, voter fraud is extremely rare in the UK: in one survey, 99% of polling station officials had no suspicions of anyone impersonating another person to steal their vote.

As Coughlan says, the Windrush scandal showed that many legitimate British citizens dont possess official documentation, while 3.5 million people dont have photo ID. To my mind, its sensible to be wary of anything that obstructs specific groups from voting for instance (just off the top of my head), poorer people who might not vote Conservative. Then again, what possible justification could there be for obstructing any group? There would appear to be more than one form of electoral fraud.

Barbara Ellen is an Observer columnist

Go here to read the rest:
The suspension of fertility treatment is a tragedy for many couples - The Guardian