To be annoyed at IVF comments

@SimonJT adoption is amazing and rewarding for the person adopting and the child being adopted. However, without upsetting you, biologically you couldn't have a child with your partner without some intervention. Therefore, you have made peace with that fact at more than likely an early age. I'm also guessing you are a man? From the name and mention of a surrogate. Again, I'm sure you are an amazing father, but the call of being a mother cannot be described as the same as that of a father. Similar, yes. The same, no - there is a difference. A man will never feel a baby growing in their womb or kicking, it is biologically and physically different and that causes an emotional difference. I think you know this deep down, which is probably why you wouldn't comment on this topic to someone undergoing ivf.

@TigerQueenie I made the gastric band comment and I stand by it 100%! A person can lose weight through 3 means 1) what they eat 2) how much they eat 3) exercise. An infertile woman CANNOT DO ANYTHING THEMSELVES TO BECOME FERTILE!!! So no, in my opinion gastric surgery should be paid for by the individual.

Or maybe 2 nationally that way it would bc even things out.

YANBU but I think everyone should be entitled to one round nationally like some trusts are doing already.

I thought the criteria was (or certainly used to be) that you needed to convince them that you were suffering significant psychological distress as a result.

An aspiring glamour modelwho had her breasts enlarged on the NHShas thanked Britain’s taxpayers, claiming: “I couldn’t have done it without you.”

Josie Cunningham went from a size 32A to a 36DD following the operation in January.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/josie-cunningham-thanks-taxpayer-4800-nhs-boob-job-poses-topless-_n_2969352/

I thought the NHS would pay for breast reduction where the size of the breasts is causing muscular/skeletal problems

Again it would appear a post code lottery. I know two people who have had breast reduction, both had to go private (in two different PCTs)

I thought the NHS would pay for breast reduction where the size of the breasts is causing muscular/skeletal problems.

I'm sorry your IVF has been delayed.

I agree with a PP, the only reason people object to NHS funded IVF is because they fucking hate women and by association can't bear any "freebies" they get. Even if the "freebies" mean years of pain, invasive procedures and heartache

I think it's great our NHS provide IVF services and I know 5 amazing children who are here because of it.

@IceCreamWaffles does the NHS pay for boob jobs? I thought it was just for reconstructions and severe deformities. I suffer from tuberous breasts and have very little breast tissue, probably unlikely to breastfeed etc and was told I’d have to pay for any surgery myself.

@kikispark

40 is the NICE guidelines but it is a guide only - each area then sets their own rules hence why some local authorise dont offer IVF at all and for others the age limit is 36. There is a reason why they have this though it's because success rates plummet especially over 40

Considering the pays for boobs jobs, I don't think IVF is unreasonable. But I don't think having kids is a right or even a biological imperative.

People always say we need more kids to look after the elderly, but where does this stop? We will then need even more to look after them as life expectancy continues to increase.

I don’t agree necessarily that life saving operations should always be prioritised over life ‘enhancing’ treatments such as IVF.

Perhaps for illnesses in younger people, yes. But spending thousands on life saving treatment for someone who is 80+ over IVF seems morally wrong to me.

We seem to think that length of life is everything, when in reality all humans will have an expiry date and to me it seems more sensible to focus more on quality of life rather than prolonging everyone’s life as long as possible regardless of the circumstances.

And IVF is such a small amount of money compared to what the NHS spend annually (billions), that taking it away wouldn’t actually make other expensive treatments more affordable at all.

Whilst I have every bit of sympathy OP, the NHS shouldn’t be paying for it when they can’t afford life saving operations and treatment for existing people. It should be paid for by the person.

I’m sorry it’s been delayed though and do hope you don’t have to wait to long.

And often NICE can be slow to approve drugs and procedures relative to private health insurers in other countries as it is looking for a weight of evidence that takes a while to emerge. So it’s more about due process being followed than depriving people of a new drug because the money is all being used up by ivf

@GingerRodgers18 sorry I should specify I meant I thought it was 38 before they start limiting the rounds but on looking again I think it’s 40. The overall cut off is 42.

@GingerRodgers18 I think it varies by area, in Scotland it’s 38.

... there not just myths about IVF, there’s a misconception of health treatments more generally. Many drugs, procedures etc for other conditions have marginal benefits and failure rates that no one seems to question yet introduce the idea that not every cycle of ivf results in a live birth and it’s all shock horror, best not pay for that procedure eh?

Once you get beyond life-saving treatments, most medical procedures are about improving quality of life and I simply don't think it's possible to make blanket pronouncements that one life-improving procedure is more valid than another.

But I'm afraid that the NHS has to make these judgements, that is the role of NICE.

Sorry but when NICE majes the call not to fund certain breast cancer treatment that could actually save lives, I really struggle with the finding of IVF, and I say this as someone who had fertility treatment myself.

I also have a horrendous chronic condition that has basically ruined my life - I can't work, I spend about 30-40% of each month bed bound, and I don't think my marriage will survive it. Basically everything I have worked for and love has been taken by this illness.

There has been a new medication which has proven much more effective for my condition and has basically given people their lives back. Currently NICE won't allow the NHS to fund it (it's not ridiculously expensive either). So sorry, I just can't get on board with the NHS funding ivf but not life saving or other life changing treatments.

Having been in the position of the NHS not funding something vital to me I would rather the NHS funded this than the fertility treatment it funded for me and if I had breast cancer right now I'd be wanting them to fund herceptin.

The NHS is not limited to diseases, it helps with cosmetic issues

Vanity cosmetic issues shouldn't be a part of the NHS, if you don't like your ears, nose, boobs, tough, learn to live with it. If you're a hoarder, ie too lazy to sort out your life, that's not an illness by most people's definition, but give it a label and it's another drain on the NHS.

@SimonJT is your adopted little one your nephew? Many apologies if I've got you confused with another poster.

You can still have tact, I don’t agree with the NHS providing fertility treatment, but I wouldn’t say that to someone who was having fertility treatment on the NHS

But you're happy to say it on a forum where people, who are already devestated at having their IVF cancelled, can see it, adding to their upset.

Just as long as it's anonymous, it's okay. Gotcha.

@Fawnandwren I was single when I had him, I’m gay, so having a biological child would involve a surrogate, donor eggs, IVF and tens of thousands of pounds. ‘Expenses’ for a surrogate don’t just include medication, maternity wear etc, it includes lost wages, lost pension contributions, insurance etc. I don’t have a spare £50k laying around and if I did I wouldn’t do it because DNA does not make a family.

If in the future my partner and I decide it’s time for another then it will be another adoption.

*there

@kikisparks 36 on your first app generally 35 in some areas