The National Post comes out against funding for IVF. I agree, but I'm not fan of the rambling mess of an Op-Ed. Somehow, we go from the recession to IVF to sperm donation to abortion to feminists to yuppies to media-savvy cheapos. I guess that covers all of the right wing populist's bugaboos, but couldn't they have just talked about personal responsibility?
Also in The National Post, Amir Attaran shares my dislike for the editorial, but we still come to different conclusions.
The Toronto Star seems to be against funding IVF treatment, worrying that the province's finances couldn't handle it. They also suggest that if there are unhealthy aspects of IVF that we hope funding will eliminate, we should probably just make those practices illegal. There's more coherence to that argument than to the panel's suggestion, but I'm not sure if it's great to have the government decide what treatments we can purchase for ourselves.
The Ottawa Citizen supports the idea of expanded coverage for IVF, citing fairness and potential cost savings.
The Montreal Gazette also comes out in favour of funding IVF.
For those who haven't been paying attention, I weigh in here, here, here, here and here.
(God, I need a life.)
This continues Part 1 and Part 2 of my critique of the arguments for aggressive antitrust activism offered in Steven Pearlstein’s *Washington Post* artic...