To be annoyed at IVF comments

@peperethecat

Well that's up to them if they have decided to prioritise a house over children - you can save for a house at any time - you've only got a "good" few years of peak fertility to have the best shot at having children - if it was a choice between children or mortgage I know what I'd choose.

The NHS shouldn't bail people out who have decided they wanted a house before kids.

Agree. It's not ethical that only the rich that can afford ivf get to have children. The nhs was set up to provide health care equality. Your reproductive system not working is not different to any other organ not working. It should be available to all on nhs. The impact on mental health of infertility is high.

@EL8888

I can understand where the argument might come from (as an infertile woman myself), but it isn't the same. Because maternity services are there to support a pregnancy that has already happened and the birth of a child that is already about to be born. With IVF, there isn't actually an existing pregnancy or new baby. Women who get pregnant through IVF, even if privately funded, can have maternity treatment on the NHS.

formerbabe but surely it’s the next logical step?! If people can’t afford IVF =shouldn’t have children. Can’t afford maternity scans, maternity bed, anaesthetic, midwife = shouldn’t have children

No because once a woman becomes pregnant naturally, that situation exists and needs dealing with. It seems so incredibly bitter to say that poorer women who don't struggle to conceive deserve to die in childbirth because some women are infertile.

Fwiw, I don't have massively strong opinions on NHS funding for IVF, I'm on the fence.

Repulsive idea unless you like the thought of poor women labouring at home with no medical help and babies and mothers dying or becoming hideously injured beyond repair or left with lifelong disabilities.

Yet the poor women desperate to have children and can't, and feel suicidal and sometimes carry out their suicidal thoughts because they're denied medical help is ok with you.

The problem is that infertility is not a disease, it can be caused by disease, can be congenital but mostly it's due to the natural aging process.

I was 29 when I first started ttc. I really don't think I left it too late.

@Hwory Exactly. I don’t have type 2 diabetes, drug issues etc so may well struggle to comment, if the non-funding of our doesn’t affect me

IVF shouldnt be used to step in when we've knowingly let the best years of our fertility go by whilst travelling / enjoying being single / focussing on career etc. That being said there should be more specific classes in school about how fertility declines with age so that younger people are more aware of the risk they take if they leave it till their mid to late 30s to start trying.

Most people I know in their mid to late 30s who haven't started trying yet are in that position because they've been priced out of the housing market. Of course it was easier to start popping out kids at 23 if you were from a generation where one breadwinner on a modest salary could afford to buy a house when they were young and support a wife and kids on a single wage.

@formerbabe but surely it’s the next logical step?! If people can’t afford IVF =shouldn’t have children. Can’t afford maternity scans, maternity bed, anaesthetic, midwife = shouldn’t have children?
Having children is a choice after all (allegedly)

I think it’s very easy to say something shouldn’t be funded when that issue doesn’t effect you.

You are wrong. The right to a family life IS deemed a fundamental human right. The banal platitude that having a child isn't a 'right' is IME often trotted out by those who are easily able to conceive biologically. In which case, a) why is having a baby any more a 'right' for them, and b) they'd be the first to be up in arms if anyone tried to remove their right from them.

I am not sure that the right to a family life translates into the right to have a baby. It's about freedom to try for a baby, but not necessarily to have one. and about preventing enforced sterilisation. The state can't stop you having a baby but it doesn't have a duty to facilitate that via IVF. that said I am entirely in favour of IVF being available on the NHS. I was trying 25 years ago at which time hardly any was available on the NHS at all.

Personally I sympathise with people with mental health issues and depression but really they should look into funding it privately.

Wow. And you say this as suicide is the biggest killer of young men, above all other causes of death.

Aren't there often a lot of health concerns with ivf pregnancies and babies compared with the general population?

No. HTH.

What I have no time for are last minute Sallys who panic all of a sudden at say 42 and demand said services from our NHS

You can't have ivf on the NHS at age 42 🙄

@cherrybunx0

That is the criteria and it is very strict.

As someone with no fertility struggles I completely agree with you OP and do think the nhs should fund it.
Obviously it's not a bottomless pit of money and you're limited on how much treatment or try's you can get but I think it's great that it's available.
I can afford my children but I couldn't afford to pay thousand just to conceive them and if it was private funded only it widens the gap between the haves and have nots.
Some people see children as a lifestyle choice you can live with or without or wanting a baby as a selfish desire. It isn't that simple at all.
I really hope you don't have to wait too long for your treatment to start again and wish you the greatest success x

I have self funded 5 rounds of IVF - through a combination of loans and remortgaging our house. IVF isn't actually that expensive you just have to choose carefully eg going for mild or short protocol IVF rather than long protocol and there are usually lots of funding options. Eg my clinic is doing any cycle of IVF for £2.5k at the moment - less than most people's annual holiday. A loan spreading that over 5 years is the monthly cost of eating out once or twice a month.
Or many places offer a refund if it doesn't work....

I actually agree that IVF shouldn't be available on the NHS unless its due to certain circumstances - eg childhood cancer or losing both tubes due to say ectopic pregnancies. It shouldn't be available to single women or to same sex partners and the age limit should be no older than 36 (some areas go to age 40 as the upper limit)

IVF shouldnt be used to step in when we've knowingly let the best years of our fertility go by whilst travelling / enjoying being single / focussing on career etc. That being said there should be more specific classes in school about how fertility declines with age so that younger people are more aware of the risk they take if they leave it till their mid to late 30s to start trying.

And if IVF shouldn't be funded on the NHS then neither should any form of maternity care

This is such a nasty argument and really comes across as very bitter.

I wish the NHS had all the money in the world but it doesn't. It's sad to see because literally every which way you look there is someone equally as needing as the last that would like treatment for something so very important to them. The NHS cannot do it all because it has moved past it's original use with lots of different requirements because of changes to the way we view things and our expectations. No one who has had children with ease will understand those who want IVF but they may have a different viewpoint. They may be denied a cancer drug for their child, ask them whether they would choose money for IVF or money for a dying child I wonder which they would choose. It's a quagmire and an emotive difficult subject.

Aaah the natural argument! The phrase natural doesn’t actually mean anything. Do you think people shouldn’t have c-sections, cars, various medicines are they aren’t “natural”?

People are having urgent and potentially life saving treatments cancelled too, covid seems to be all encompassing.
That ivf should be available on the nhs has always been a contentious issue hasn't it? Yabu that you think that opinion isn't a valid one.
I don't believe in ivf, or that it should be available on the his, I've always thought that if it didn't occur naturally it wasn't intended to for a reason. A little like I've always maintained my miscarriage was because of something wrong with the foetus. Bodies are pretty clever and to go against them doesn't always result in a good outcome. Aren't there often a lot of health concerns with ivf pregnancies and babies compared with the general population?

And if IVF shouldn't be funded on the NHS then neither should any form of maternity care and parental leave should be got rid of along with child benefit because a having a child is a 'want' not a need apparently...

@TillyFloss10 exactly this. How dare people with fertility issues want to have their children?! Exactly, it’s not the responsibility of infertile couples to take care of the children of fertile people who cannot look after them.

I'm sorry to hear this OP, you DO deserve to have a family and I admire your stoicism.

I think it would be much better if we did charge for maternity services even if not the full cost

Repulsive idea unless you like the thought of poor women labouring at home with no medical help and babies and mothers dying or becoming hideously injured beyond repair or left with lifelong disabilities.