To ask if people today don’t agree with ivf?!

I don’t think Americans are that well known for taking care of their health.

The NHS will never have enough funds. If people had insurance through their employer or privately maybe they'd take better care of their health in the first place.
I work with quite a few Americans, they're mostly less than impressed with the NHS. They like it being free obviously, but they’re used to feeling a bit off colour, and booking an X-ray/test/whatever the next day. Mostly, they seem to be happy enough with the American system, certainly with the speed and options it offers.

Even if it's family?

Not true. We did three rounds, self funded, and there was only one resulting embryo. Thankfully that one embryo implanted and I’m currently, at long last, pregnant. There were no embryos frozen, discarded or used for experimentation in our case.

I have mixed feelings about whether IVF should be available on the NHS.

However, abortion is a relatively cheap and quick procedure with a virtually 100% success rate.

By contrast, IVF is expensive, complex and is considerably more likely to fail than to succeed with each attempt.

So for that reason alone, abortion is clearly a better candidate for NHS funding.

Noooo IUI is a nightmare.
Mostly the same drugs, A zillion internal ultrasounds, trigger shot, then 2 week wait.
4 rounds of it, only one sniff of a pregnancy, that failed within 24hr of the positive test.

IVF was much less stressful, i knew exactly where we were at, maybe I'd also hit the, I don't give a shit any more, if it works great if it doesn't I'm at the end of the road.

IUI seemed very hit or miss, I also had an issue with ovaries being over stimulated at one point. Very stressful

I’m pretty sure there are very stringent criteria (including age) for IVF availability on the NHS. They certainly aren’t giving it out to menopausal women.

The whole ‘the NHS is creaking at the seams and can’t afford to treat cancer let alone fund IVF’ argument is the one that doesn’t really hold water for me. There are books to be written on why the NHS is so rubbish, but put it this way - retracting the IVF offering won’t suddenly turn the NHS into a good healthcare system with the outcomes you’d expect for a high-income developed country.

I think there will be less and less support of surrogacy.

IVF was controversial because it was very religious times back then and people felt they were playing God.

It used to be that women were meant to be mothers and I feel like surrogacy was more acceptable a few years ago because the mothers needs came first.

Whereas now I think people see the unborn baby as more important as the mother and their feelings/attachment etc is taken into account.

I think women are no longer seen as just born to have babies and so less people would actually want to go through with surrogacy too.

I don’t see IVF as a bad thing as long as it’s done for the right reasons (and not to choose the sex of the baby).

I don’t see surrogacy as a bad thing either, again if it’s done for the right reasons.

I know of someone who was carried by their grandparent as the mum couldn’t have babies and she’s a very well rounded woman with no attachment issues etc.

In both cases I would argue whether it’s right to pursue something that’s not meant to be.
I see having a baby as a privilege and not a right.

But in contrast, you could say that about a lot of things.
Do we remove any sort of fertility help etc.

It’s an interesting topic and until I see proof that surrogacy or IVF damages children then I will accept it, as long as it’s done in the correct way.

I’d be interested to know if the people who think IVF shouldn’t be available on the NHS feel the same about pregnancy terminations. After all, most pregnancy terminations are done for “social” reasons, rather than medical ones. It’s usually because the woman’s circumstances are not conducive to having a baby, rather than the pregnancy being harmful to her health. Pregnancy isn’t a disease. So would you argue that it didn’t warrant “treatment” on the NHS? And you can’t use the woman’s mental health as a justification , if you aren’t prepared to allow that same justification for depression associated with infertility.

Really interesting thread that touches lots of emotive areas.

One perspective I’ve not seen shared- when I did my ivf (and at least three other couples I know of personally did the same) we specifically asked to limit the number of eggs that were fertilised in order to avoid a situation where we felt compelled to destroy otherwise viable embryos. Obviously there are still aspects some people have ethical issues with, but with regards to those who feel uncomfortable destroying embryos there are ways to try and address this. Obviously runs the risk of limiting success rates which you have to be willing to accept (our clinic was not so supportive but did eventually agree!).

Yes it must.

Are you also against contraception on the NHS? Abortions? Diabetes treatment for people who have eaten themselves into the disease? The list is endless for things that could be classed as lifestyle choices.

She had the treatment in Ukraine, as I recall. Grossly selfish.

Because I think it’s unethical to use another woman’s body with the aim of ordering a baby.

As an adoptee - this.

yes I don’t judge people who use egg donation, I just worry it could be exploited.
sometimes a person might donate an egg that results n a child but their rounds fail. So despite their efforts they have no child to raise and someone else has their biological child. It must be extra hard

But managing to come to terms with it doesn’t mean other people would be a shitty parent for being so in despair wanting a child? They will likely come to terms with it eventually too, but feeling like that at the time doesn’t make the “less”.. that opinion just adds to stigma tbh

I assume those of you who oppose IVF because 'it is unnatural' have used some sort of natural internet to make your posts because smart phones, tablets (unless they are stoned sort) and computers aren't natural.

Why?

Valid.

What about the person who chooses to be an organ donor because their child or other loved needs it to live; couldn't get an organ and died? That donor certainly carries trauma and would be consider vulnerable - yet admirable and selfless.

You aren’t!!

As I’ve said, I’ve been through it. There is nothing on this earth that can guarantee you a baby, and many people aren’t lucky enough for IVF to work but manage to come to terms with it.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. My perspective is that I’ve worked as a doctor in the NHS for 33 years and I’ve seen many people with entirely self inflicted ailments, costing the NHS a fortune, with no ethical debates ever occurring. As well as needing IVF myself, I’ve seen patients becoming suicidal as a result of infertility. I recently saw a woman who had killed her baby because she interfered with her drug taking. No one would ever question her entitlement to NHS resources. I had a patient who was a paedophile, abused numerous young boys, and I saw him for his various medical problems before and after his conviction and prison time. He had lots of expensive drugs, surgery etc. My point is that it’s a very grey area, trying to decide which cases are worthy and which aren’t. Infertility is defined as a medical problem, it’s not a lifestyle choice, and as such I believe it should be treated as a medical problem on the NHS.

IVF and surrogacy are different species.

I totally support IVF. I’m appalled by surrogacy.

We are, but the law changed quite recently, and is patchily applied. It's more you demonstrate that AI hasn't worked so far, too.