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

@adviceneeded1990

Totally with you! Ex Ivfer here! Got lucky on round 4 and lucky again on round 5 with my little frostie. I have thanked god every day since….19 and 21 years ago.

Edited to say all privately funded.

Sending you so much positivity and strength ❤️

What @Singleandproud said about population control. I don't agree with it either, it's just sometimes not meant to be. As for "destroying embryos", it's just a fertilised egg, it's not like the anti abortionists who reckon people are killing "babies" etc it's a collection of cells, let's keep it in perspective.
I don't understand why people have it if they already have children, seems greedy to me.

Surrogacy should be banned worldwide as it is the commodification of children.

And no, the “you don’t know what it’s like….” Argument doesn’t hold water. Just because something can be done, doesn’t mean that it should. Sometimes people can’t have children, and as sad as that is that is life. Doesn’t give them the right to exploit another person, least of all the child they’re buying, in order to fulfil that desire.

In terms of IVF, no, I don’t think that it should be available on the NHS. The NHS is A, about saving lives, not creating new ones. Added t which, the success rate of IVF is so low that at least three rounds are required to have even a remote possibility of success. Several medical treatments are not funded by the NHS or even suggested due to the low success rate, this is no different.

Also there should be an upper limit. Women go through the menopause for a reason. Once you are no longer able to conceive children naturally there is no way that this should be enabled by medical intervention. FWIW I think that men who father children into their 50’s and beyond are equally selfish, but for some reason that is biologically possible, and short of giving every 45 year old the snip is impossible to police.

I’ve been in the heartbreaking position of being unable to conceive naturally, but wouldn’t think of passing the cost of that on to the NHS. Why should I shut my mouth and keep it shut ? My point of view is at least as valid as anyone else’s’.

If you think IVF is wrong there’s a simple answer: don’t have it!

The amount of judgement, misinformation and ignorance on this thread is unreal. Just because you heard from a friend/saw a youtube video/read an article on the internet about something it does not make your opinions accurate or well informed.

As a Dr I'm still not totally in agreement with nhs funded ivf,
when there's so many underfunded life threatening conditions

I've done a fair few anaesthetics for csections for surrogates (my mate was on for her gay friends and is still a huge part of the kids life) normally baby goes straight to the adoptive parents

Personally I'm in the process of fostering and will later adopt once in a stable job. I've always wanted kids in my life and there's enough unwanted kids out there that deserve a loving home

I am talking about surrogacy and IVF that involves donor eggs. Egg donation carries serious risks plus there is next to no research on the long-term effects of the drugs, particularly for women who have no fertility issues. I think the egg donation process exploits women in much the same way that surrogacy does.

I have no issue with IVF if the woman's eggs are used or if donor sperm is used.

I watched the film too

Ive been through IVF. Never ever considered it to be unethical and never gave much thought to the outrage in the 1970s

I suppose change and development of this kind is scary to most

There are lots of reasons why the nhs doesn't have the resources to provide life saving drugs despite a record amount of money spent on it and rationing ivf is probably not it..

I know a nhs data analyst who gets paid 45k (which isn't a great wage in London but is pretty good for the hours he does)and comes in at 10 am and leaves at 3 pm (supposed to be 9 to 5) and he also takes his lunch. He has 2 side hustles cos the day job is so bloody easy. He can't wfh either so he just doesn't bother.

He gets away with it because no one cares and no one has the means to manage him, his manager just covers up for him. There are lots of nhs staff like this and they cost the country millions. Anyway if a health service is managed like this, ivf is the least of its problems, you could cut it down to a & e, cancer and heart attacks and they would still run out of money. They have an insatiable appetite for money, nhs spending is well above inflation and grows every year regardless Of what government is in power.

Yep - I know people who chose to drive to fast, or play rugby or drink themselves senseless but I didn't choose to have fertility issues. It was most certainly not a lifestyle choice. Unlike smoking and skiing.

You think the idea that humans are not possessions to sell/buy/own is a hippy notion?

Well, me for a start.

And honestly, it’s just not that big a deal. There are many, many things we don’t get to control in life and this is one of them.

I didn’t do it. Influenced by two family members who were diagnosed with cancer and couldn’t access life prolonging meds on the NHS. Couldn’t afford to go private, but having had a lifetime of treatment for ongoing disability on the NHS I couldn’t justify passing on the cost of my desire to have children to a system that had already given me so much.

So if you believe infertility is nature’s way of controlling the population, you must also believe that cancer is nature’s way of controlling the population. So no chemo of surgery, no insulin for diabetics…everyone should just die???

Can I ask, did you pay yourself to go private? Or just not do IVF in the end?

Are you talking about surrogacy or IVF or both?
I am pro IVF if it’s the woman’s choice for herself and her family.

In the same way that I will strenuously object to the death penalty despite never having been affected by a crime that could be punished in that way, I will continue to object to surrogacy and IVF that involves donor eggs.

According to the HFEA website, the donor does not have the right to decline. That’s the whole point of the removal of anonymity. The first cohort affected by this change in the law turned 18 in October last year. Donor conceived children turning 18 before October 2023 can’t find out their donor information unless the donor consents. Those turning 18 after October 2023 can get their donor’s name, date of birth, country of birth, and last known address.

I know this is controversial, but I don't believe that IVF is treatment that society should be spending funds on (private or public funds). I can't voice this out loud in person, as both family and friends have gone through successful and unsuccessful attempts to conceive by this route. I don't think it's necessary for society.

this was me. I could not get my head around that viable embryos might be willing destroyed. I couldn’t get my head around donation either I could not imagine donating my embryos and potentially having children I might not know.

Personally, I don’t think IVF is something that should be prioritised in an overstretched NHS. People who can’t get pregnant aren’t ill (unless there is another condition) they just can’t get pregnant. That’s okay. Children are not a right. You can live a happy, useful life, possibly even as a parent, without ever getting pregnant.

The issue around destroying embryos is, afaik, massively reduced now that process has improved. Far fewer are stored and many couples will have them all implanted over time.

But none of this is relevant to the issues around surrogacy.

Yes. Those of us who have grown up relying on the NHS because of chronic illness or disability, in my opinion have a far more realistic idea of what it should and should not be asked to fund. I have spent a lifetime in and out of hospital and have seen people who could have benefited enormously from treatments that were denied on the NHS because of cost. It’s not about cash spent on smokers or those with unhealthy lifestyles - it’s about denying treatment to those in desperate need because the cost of those who want children no matter what, has to be factored in. It’s the epitome of entitlement and not what the NHS was designed for.

Yes, absolutely this. I also looked into the possibility of fostering / adopting when we were struggling to conceive - it's vanishingly rare to just get passed a healthy, happy newborn to shape and nurture as if you'd had them yourself. It's a totally different ballgame. Another horrible thing I heard about, which apparently isn't that uncommon - Couples foster a baby, with the view to adopt. They care for and bond with the baby. Then the birth family - who often have a lot of issues for example with drug addictions - decide a few months in that they want the baby back. Literally don't know how anyone comes back from that 😥

I've never been the victim or connected with the victim of a serous crime like murder/rape etc. I still know the death penalty is wrong for perpetrators of those crimes.

Suffering from infertility does not negate the immorality of exploiting vulnerable women and putting their health/lives at risk.

Well IVF could be donor egg donor sperm, so you really would have to distinguish that from people using their own to capture the scale of agreement.