Talk

Advanced search

NHS Surrey removing IVF funding

(168 Posts)
sarah293 Fri 12-Nov-10 19:15:00

Message withdrawn

USoRight Fri 12-Nov-10 21:14:30

A bit like eugenics.

If you are too poor to pay privately you dont deserve kids.

If you are older and take several attempts (bankrupting yourselves in the process)you cant have kids because you are too old and selfishly waited for right man/financial stability.

If youve got blocked tubes because of PID (even though you only had one sexual partner) it serves you right that you dont have any kids because you are poor and a slapper!

thisisyesterday Fri 12-Nov-10 21:17:34

it's hardly eugenics hmm

the NHS can hardly fund lifesaving treatments in many cases.

if cuts HAVE to be made then it's things like this that should go first.

we should all be grateful for what the NHS does provide rather than whingeing about what it can't.
one day it'll all go down the pan and no-one will have anything

Maria2007loveshersleep Fri 12-Nov-10 22:02:31

Ok thisisyesterday so basically you're saying even though there's a particular medical problem (infertility) that has a particular medical solution (IVF) which is proven to work in a large (and continuously increasing number of cases) the NHS should not fund it.

Why ever not?!

The NHS doesn't just fund treatments for life threatening conditions, as we all know. Infertility is just that. A non-life-threatening medical condition that nevertheless needs medical treatment to be resolved.

I suspect most people have problems with IVF being funded for ideological rather than medical / financial reasons.

huddspur Fri 12-Nov-10 22:05:27

Its a difficult one as times are tight and IVF is expensive and there are a lot of kids up for adoption.
But would you want to deny someone the opportunity to have a child when there are medical treatments that could allow them to, I don't think I would so I would keep IVF on the NHS.

DuelingFanjo Fri 12-Nov-10 22:05:41

it's such a shame, though I always thought this would happen.

Lilka Fri 12-Nov-10 23:28:47

It should be available on the NHS I think - it is a medical condition (not being able to concieve) and this treatment does work. I do understand the otehr side of the argument though.

I do see your point huddspur about adoption but being an a-mom x3 myself, it is in no way similar to having a baby, and some people have the urge to have a bio child and an urge to be pregnant, so they should have free treatment I think.

musicmadness Sat 13-Nov-10 05:08:43

It should be available on the NHS if the money is available for it. The money isn't there and life saving treatments have to be prioritised. I'd put any condition which causes physical discomfort/ distress and most mental health problems (eating disorders, depression etc) as a higher priority as well.
Infertility must be devastating for people but it really shouldn't be a priority when some life saving drugs can't get funding due to them being too expensive. I agree with thisisyesterday, things like IVF should be the first to go when cuts have to be made.

MadameCastafiore Sat 13-Nov-10 06:16:52

So what we keep spending on conditions that are not life threatening and then there comes a point where more benfits have to be cut and more services are trimmed back???

Having a child is by no means a right.

Tootlesmummy Sat 13-Nov-10 07:55:20

The Trust are also cutting back on treatment for male baldness, blushing and tattoo removal!

I didn't know you could get NHS treatment for these things but I think this is a difficult area.

Having children isn't an automatic right and I think if there has to be a cut in services it should be the discretionary services and not life saving ones. Not ideal but I can see the rationale.

However, I think there are lots of other procedures which are deemed necessary which should be cut as well but thats a whole different debate.

thisisyesterday Sat 13-Nov-10 08:08:03

IVF is proven to work. yes. but only in a smallish percentage of cases. isn't it something like a 20% success rate?

sorry but if there is not enough money in the pot and services have to be prioritised then things like IVF have to go

violethill Sat 13-Nov-10 08:21:55

If there were endless resources, fine. But there aren't. There is a finite pot of money, and difficult decisions have to be made. It makes me rather cross actually when otherwise intelligent people just react negatively totally automatically at ANY cuts. What do they propose instead?

Think of it as trying to run a house and family. You have a budget and you have to live within it or you're screwed. You may be able to go shopping, or swimming or to pizza hut at the weekend but not all three. So you have to choose. Its just bigger sums of money that we're talking about, but the principle is the same.

Fwiw I can understand why IVF is something that is lower priority, as its not a life threatening condition, very distressing I agree, but it doesn't kill you. Also, the success rates are not brilliant, particularly for certain age groups, also there are many children in care who would benefit from adoption as an alternative to people desperate to be a parent.

I

violethill Sat 13-Nov-10 08:23:30

I also think that treatment for certain
Self inflicted conditions should be a lower priority than other treatments.

Mummynumber2 Sat 13-Nov-10 08:28:04

I expect those who are saying ivf shouldn't be available on the nhs have never had any issues with infertility.

It seems grossly unfair that those who can afford it are able to have biological children where as those who can't are supposed to just cope with it. Ivf doesn't always work but most nhs hospitals will only take on people who have a high chance of working.the more unfair thing about ivf funding is the postcode lottery. I've been thinking about this for a while and actually think a better and fairer system would be for ivf to be available on a means tested basis, completely against the ethos of the nhs I know.

AlpinePony Sat 13-Nov-10 08:31:27

For those claiming it's "eugenics" - may I ask which treatments you would choose to withdraw?

I think it's crap btw - I think IVF should be available - however, if faced with this I would take out a bank loan in a flash. I see on these boards for example - and talking to real people too (! wink) - that people are quite happy to sink 800 quid in to a handbag for example, 200 quid on a party dress - yet balk at the thought of paying for NHS treatment.

I don't know what's going on in the NHS - but I do know that from my very good school, 3 of my school chums are NHS managers and 1 is a doctor. Interesting ratio there. They also need to take a bloody good long look at their procurement process.

Mummynumber2 Sat 13-Nov-10 08:35:08

Not everyone can afford £400 on a bag or £200 on a dress, or get a bank loan, especially when you explain it's for ivf!

grumpyvamps Sat 13-Nov-10 08:36:15

well, it's very difficult to understand just how affecting infertility is if you are easily able to have a child. So I can understand how people feel it is non essential. But, the depression and poor quality of life are material, and I feel maybe a cycle should be considered if the chances are high of success (case by case basis).

EmmaBemma Sat 13-Nov-10 08:36:30

I have no problem with IVF being available on the NHS as a matter of principle. but if money is tight, I wouldn't prioritise it above, say, hip/knee replacements or similar treatments for medical conditions that are important but not life-or-death. (I'm trying to compare like with like, ish)

violethill Sat 13-Nov-10 08:39:45

The issue of whether people have suffered from something personally shouldn't come into it. This is about objectively looking at the limited pot of money and making decisions which will benefit the GREATEST NUMBER WITH THE GREATEST NEED.

AlpinePony Sat 13-Nov-10 08:40:04

mummy Well, being an unethical bastard I'd hit up my parents or lie to the bank. blush I did have trouble conceiving and I was literally days from plucking up the courage to ask my parents for money. I know it's not an option for everyone - hence we're back at the "life simply isn't fair" point.

Mummynumber2 Sat 13-Nov-10 08:44:58

That's what already happens grumpyvamps They'll only take on people who have a high chance of success.

I do actually agree that if money's tight ivf has to become less of a priority. But just think it's unfair that you get different rules on it according to where you live. Why is the nhs so anti means testing anyway?

lal123 Sat 13-Nov-10 08:49:24

Why is NHS anti means testing?? Are you serious??

Mummynumber2 Sat 13-Nov-10 08:52:12

Sorry lal I'm obviously very badly informed about this. I'm not suggesting that more important, life threatening things should be means tested. Just wondering if it would work with less important things, like ivf.

maxpower Sat 13-Nov-10 08:53:54

It's such a difficult and sensitive issue. As I've said before, there are major issues within the NHS and until a public debate is held about what it should or shouldn't provide, it will continue to struggle.

I can only imagine how distressing it must be for couples who want to conceive naurally and for whatever reason can't. However, if you have to balance something like providing free IVF against providing a treatment/cure for life threatening conditions, the decision in some respects seem obvious.

Decisions like this should be made at a national rather than local level though, otherwise you'll end up with people moving to 'free IVF' areas etc with all the associated problems that will cause.

violethill Sat 13-Nov-10 08:57:02

There already is means testing in some parts of the NHS and I don't think it works very well. I know a lot of people (myself included) who have been unable to afford dental treatment at various times, because we can't afford to pay the bill

And what about prescriptions? How much are they now? About £7/8 a go? I genuinely don't know because I buy over the counter now rather than go near my GP

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now