Time to clarify effect of socioeconomic class on subfertility

doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7419.872-c

BMJ 2003;327:872 (11 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7419.872-c

Letter

Time to clarify effect of socioeconomic class on subfertility

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Why is socioeconomic status never considered inthe epidemiology of subfertility, although some of the knowncauses such as obesity and smoking are strongly related to it?¹

The emphasis on the effect of age on fertility perpetuates themyth that subfertility is a disease of affluence, experiencedmostly by women who have high powered jobs or who are havingsuch a good time that they delay motherhood. In effect, theybring the subfertility on themselves, an idea popular sincethe Victorian era.

Most subfertility is found in women—and men—whocannot afford expensive treatments. People who smoke and areobese are more likely to be comparatively poor and hence fallinto this category. People who seek treatment that must be paidfor are unlikely to be representative of the population at large.In developed countries direct evidence on socioeconomic statusand infertility is never collected.

Naomi H Pfeffer, professor of social and historical studies of health

Department of Applied Social Science, London Metropolitan University, London N5 2AD n.pfeffer@londonmet.ac.uk

Competing interests: None declared.

Taylor A. ABC of subfertility: Extent of the problem. BMJ 2003;327: 434-6. (23 August.)[Free Full Text]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Article

Extent of the problem: Alison Taylor
BMJ 2003 327: 434-436. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

(2005). Part 13: Neonatal Resuscitation Guidelines. Circulation 112: IV-188-IV-195 [Full text]
(2005). Part 7: Neonatal Resuscitation. Circulation 112: III-91-III-99 [Full text]