Being single might now be classed as a disability for this unexpectedly amazing reason
We know being single can be a beautiful, amazing, and uplifting thing. Likewise, it can be a difficult, hard, and lonely thing, too. The thing is there’s not right or wrong way to live your life, and that’s amazing. Whether you’re in a relationship, living your best life alone, or somewhere in between, the fact that there are many walks of life is what makes it so exciting.
However, now the World Health Organization has announced its plans to change its definition of people without a sexual partner as disabled.
Before getting upset about this controversial decision, the reason why the WHO plans to change it’s classifications is actually pretty incredible.
According to The Telegraph (via Gizmodo), the organization’s intentions are to open up in vitro fertilization treatments (IVF) to heterosexual single men and women, as well as gay men and women. What this would mean is that those people would have the same opportunities and funding as people in relationships when it comes to having a baby with the help of the treatment.
Why does that mean that those without a sexual partner would be considered disabled?
Well, according to the World Health Organization’s current categorizations, anyone who is considered infertile or who has failed to achieve pregnancy after 12 months is classified as disabled.
Basically, what this means is that the WHO is considering changing their definitions to include people without sexual partners as an equal disability.
Speaking about the news, Dr. David Adamson, who is one of the authors of the new standards, said that the definition of infertility was now written in a way that was more inclusive to the rights of all individuals to have a family.
"It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual's got a right to reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It's a big change," he said. "It fundamentally alters who should be included in this group and who should have access to healthcare. It sets an international legal standard. Countries are bound by it."
Of course, such a controversial decision doesn’t come without its detractors.
Speaking to The Telegraph, Josephine Quintavalle from Comment on Reproductive Ethics wasn’t too keen on the whole thing.
"This absurd nonsense is not simply re-defining infertility but completely side-lining the biological process and significance of natural intercourse between a man and a woman," she said. "How long before babies are created and grown on request completely in the lab?"
How will this affect things as they currently stand?
The American Disabilities Act states that a person is defined as having a disability when they have “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.”
As Gizmodo point out, because the ADA doesn’t actually define or name all the impairments the newly proposed WHO guidelines could apply (or even be unnecessary).
So, it’s possible that the new categorizations could open up starting a family for people all around the country, not to mention the world.
We have to say, we think this is a pretty great thing, don’t you? It means that there’s no discrimination when it comes to having a child. No matter where you are in your life or what your situation is, the choice to start a family is yours and we think anything that makes that more equal is a great thing.