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

Yes I do. Humans are not possessions.

I also watched The Joy of ivf on Netflix. Such an emotional film for me as I am, and will always be forever grateful to those women who put themselves through those earliest trials. I am so lucky that ivf worked for me twice (once from frozen) and gave me the greatest gifts of two much loved children after ten years and much heartache.

Heartbreaking that Jean Purdy gave her life to help women achieve the dream that eluded her due to severe endometriosis and then lost her life to cancer at 40 💔

Because it is a medical issue that is just as deserving as other medical issues that don’t kill you but damages your quality of life?

@Rosscameasdoody where do you draw the line.

Do you drink, smoke, eat unhealthy foods, cycle, drive, ride a motorbike, run down stairs jn your socks?

IVF isn't doing that. It isn't treating the reproductive organs.

@StormingNorman so you can be an overweight alcoholic smoker and that's fine!
But have a condition that's means your soerm
Is low or an infection which means your tubes are blocked and it's a no!

Seriously have a think and educate yourself

Couldn't edit. She had quadruplets not triplets.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/annegret-raunigk-65yearold-german-woman-gives-birth-to-quadruplets-after-ivf-10271972.html
https://x.com/bzberlin/status/681904632994643968

Infertile people are actual people that need dealing with.

Infertility is soul destroying and usually also caused by an illness which needs treating anyway. If any other bodily function didn't work you would expect treatment so why should people who's reproductive systems not work not be treated?

There is no increase in the numbers of children with SEN. There is an increase in the understanding of SEN and that people are actually getting diagnosed and helped.

This is also a wonderful example of our brilliant progress in medicine and health.

Autism has always existed, it just wasn’t as visible and poor children weren’t supported, and either died early from neglect or were hidden away.

ADHD kids were just naughty or silly daydreamers.

We have moved on thank goodness!!

Children born from donors do get to know "where they come from." The donors provide medical history, ethnic/cultural/language info, generic testing is done, physical descriptions are given along with the donor's photos (often at least one baby pic and one recent adult pic), a short essay written by the donor about themselves, their interests, education, why they are donating; and whether or not they consent to contact once the child reaches 18.

There are also numerous dna/ancestry sites available.

I agree children have a right to know where they come from. However, many countries/states/provinces have adoption legislation that allows birth parents the right to deny the children they give up the right to find them.
How does this fit with the "right to know" assertion?

I draw the line at the NHS dealing with actual people - not creating new ones.

Infertility is not a lifestyle choice.

It is a medical problem usually caused by illness.

I don't have a problem with IVF but there needs to be an upper age limit. I know the NHS have a cut off at 42 but if you've got the money age doesn't matter. There's a German woman who had triplets at 65 when she already had 13 children. It would have been illegal to have it done in Germany so she had to go abroad. It shouldn't just be about what the adults want. She'll be 83 by the time they're old enough to go to university.

There is no 'but so does adoption' argument.

In adoption the child already exists and the birth parents are not able to parent. Adoption is considered the 'least worst' option for the child.

In surrogacy you create a baby with the express intention upfront to remove the child from the mother who carried them for 9 months.

On all of the above. The sooner we introduce a system whereby people take responsibility for these things the better.

Surrogacy and IVF are very different things.

IVF is a medical procedure to overcome the fact that some people cannot have a child naturally. The way some people are talking here they wouldn't have a blood transfusion or chemotherapy etc- neither of them.are "natural" either.

It's very easy sit in judgement of others without knowing their experience.

I can't have children and IVF was ruled out. (Not because it wouldn't work but due to the fact it would be a very high risk pregnancy for other reasons ressons).

I have a very high AMH level. Many years after coming to peace with my infertility, I asked if I could donate my eggs. I was told it was too late as I was too old by that time.

I really don't see what is so wrong with someone else benefiting from my eggs and I would have been donating them of my own free will.

This! Also the reason we are going through IVF. I think it's ridiculous people who had cancer that impacts their fertility don't get automatic entitlement to IVF. Instead it's a postcode lottery. We're very lucky living where we do but in other parts of the country we'd have limited or no entitlement.

Welcome to mumsnet! I've never encountered such anti surrogacy feeling in the real world.

While those with serious health conditions are refused medications or treatment on the NHS I’m against IVF being offered by that route.

I never even knew people had a problem with surrogacy before reading this thread.

I think ivf would worry me from a heath prospective, as I’ve heard of health links to cancer etc. Surrogacy I think has a negative impact on bonding but so does adoption with babies moving between foster carers at times. There is no ideal solution in my view.

The comments on this thread are wild and ridiculously uninformed. Is everyone who is against life being made in an "unnatural" way also against other medical treatment, all of which could be considered "unnatural"? Does the PP who believes that people are infertile for a reason (wtaf?!) believe that children who get serious illnesses that would be terminal without medical intervention were "meant" to pass away? Do people who think the NHS shouldn't fund IVF because it's a "lifestyle choice" believe that the NHS shouldn't offer treatment to people who are ill due to obesity or smoking or lack of exercise?

I can also guess that most of the posters commenting in line with the above have their own biological children and have never had to deal with infertility.

I had IUI three times. It worked once (but I miscarried in the second trimester - nothing to do with the treatment, just random bad luck). After that my doctors advised moving on to IVF, which eventually worked after I was offered a new (at the time) treatment for my mild adenomyosis. Personally I think the success rate of IVF depends on what the actual problem is in the first place. If the uterus is the problem it's more likely to fail than if the issue was male-factor.

Perhaps but viagra is available for men?
and piles will not kill you but nhs will give a cream for it

Many children are born with medical issues. Nothing to do with IVF.

Standard IVF is mixing eggs and sperm up, just like in a womb, and seeing which sperm make it to the egg.

Sometimes if the sperm look lazy they’ll catch a few and get it them in the eggs just to make sure. They need explicit permission to do this.

This hopefully creates blastocysts which are graded after 3-5 days according to the strength and speed of cell division.

Then they pop the best one/ones back in. Freeze the others.

Nature decides the rest. It’s all still random luck.

Eye colour etc is a whole different ball game and not standard IVF.