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

So having IVF is a choice,but having a baby naturally is not?

@Rosie2024 do you know how offensive it is to essentially call the existence of 10 million people 'ridiculous'?

And again, fertile people get their 'want' funded on the NHS?

I also assume you don't think contraception should be on the NHS? As it is just a 'want' after all. This would just mean contraception is an added expense only to women.

There is a large difference between IVF and maternity services under the NHS. IVF is a choice. If the NHS does not provide it people may be very unhappy, but it is not a health problem. If the NHS did not provide maternity care, mothers and babies would die or be severely injured with life long disabilities.

Holding the baby at birth has pros and cons. The need for attachment is immediately fulfilled, but then the object of the attachment is taken away again causing distress to both parties.
Yes, it could happen if a mother is unwell following the birth, though it may still be possible to lay the child on the mother's chest or stomach. But hopefully the baby will soon be returned to the mum and less harm is done.

Thank you! Exactly what I wanted to say. If the NHS can pay for the care of pregnant women, births of babies, contraception etc why not IVF? Infertile couples pay into the system too. Infertility is a health condition.

The problem here though is that the fertility needs of a women diagnosed with cancer are not greater or more important than the women with infertility of a different or unknown cause. So ethically you have to go all out (with realistic age limits) but the NHS can't afford this. Arguable not providing it to anyone is more ethical than one person's medical cause of infertility trumping anothers.

But this is the crux of the NHS funding debate across just about every speciality.

This isn't just a question to you but also to the people here who have said that the NHS shouldn't fund lifestyle choices (as if being infertile is a lifestyle choice but anyway) .. I take it you also don't agree with the NHS providing care for pregnant women and the delivery of babies? The NHS also funds contraceptive pills etc, so I assume you're also against that? Can I assume you've never used the NHS to have pregnancy related appointments or to deliver a baby if you have one, or to give you contraception?

As I said (in my first reply) I am the product of a donor and do find this difficult. The man who donated sperm is still my biological father, he gained financially by donating his sperm and was happy in knowledge he would never know his future children. There is plenty of evidence to show other donor conceived children like myself have found it difficult in its own way.

But egg/sperm donors don't give away children they give away gametes.

Babies born from donor gametes weren't unwanted by their biological parents because they didn't exist when the gametes were donated and weren't given away as children. Donors don't give eggs or sperm because they don't want the children they could possibly make, they give them to help people. Even if a baby concieved using donor sperm was wanted by the man that gave the sperm, he couldn't have had that child because the child wouldn't exist without the woman who used his sperm to make a baby and that baby is hers and her husband's not the donors.

I understand the trauma of adopted children knowing their biological parents didn't want them and gave them away but donor conceived children were never unwanted or given away it's completely different.

If you conceive a child with donated sperm, for example, the situation to be phrased to a child is “we wanted you so much and this man chose to help us have you because your Daddy wasn’t able”.

If you had a one night stand and accidentally got pregnant and the man was horrified and wanted nothing to do with the mother or the child, sadly that is closer to the child being rejected. Donors don’t “not want” children, they want to donate for whatever reason they choose.

Needless to say, either one or both or neither of the children in the above scenarios could have great childhoods. The method of conception of planned, desperately wanted donor conception really isn’t as bad as some people make out.

The law in this country means children have more rights and will receive information about their donors. We can only truly measure the impact when this cohort have grown up fully and when more time has passed. I do understand why people go abroad but anonymity is really problematic. I would always advocate for donor conceived people to have the choice of being able to trace their biological origins.

They will always know know one or both of their biological parents did not want them.

It is not remotely related to not wanting a child. You are framing this with emotion that doesn't exist.
You said you speak from experience.
What is it?

Infertility can be the result of an illness though. If breast cancer necessitates the removal of a woman's breast(s) the NHS will cover implants. When cancer leaves a woman needing IVF in order in conceive either because the cancer was in her reproductive system or because the treatment for cancer renders her infertile shouldn't the same apply?
IVF isn't all about women who left it 'too late' often it is needed because of an illness. Why should other symptoms be treated but not infertility? Either the NHS should be for life threatening situations only or we accept that it encompasses treatments that improve quality of life.

They die when their organs are removed.

Yes but when they are on life support and will die when it's switched off. Different to someone who is a " live" donor for a kidney for example then continues their own life with one kidney

Once someone has died their organs aren’t suitable for transplant.

Organs must be removed before death occurs for a successful transplant.

I don't think that would affect the child, Neesnewname. It would be different if it involved donor sperm or ova.

What many find difficult about IVF is the idea of fertilised eggs being stored and maybe thrown away after a time. It's quite an emotive subject.

Surrogacy is a different matter altogether.

@ConfusedKangaroo I disagree. Some would go for IVF despite what they say here, others would not.

I was more talking about the posters who are totally opposed to any IVF or donor conception in general (of which there seem to be a lot of on this thread)

That is not always true. My friend is infertile, tried IVF unsuccessfully, but would never do surrogacy as she is ethically opposed to it. Not everyone changes their minds just because it personally affects them.

Why on earth would the place of egg fertilisation have any affect on the child?

Assuming we are talking straight forward IVF, Mums eggs & Dads sperm, Mums womb.

Agreed, how can people share such ignorance with no lived experience. Some of these comments are crazy.

I think a lot of these opinions would change if the posters’ circumstances were different. So many uninformed comments about something the posters have no experience of. It’s pretty gross tbh.

@ForRealTurtle of course they can - I didn't say any different. What I did say was that they might want to think about spewing them all over the internet (or anywhere else for that matter), particularly when they are uninformed opinions. That is what I object to: not the fact that I personally find them hurtful - that's a me problem - but that they are uninformed and often based on supposition or complete fabrication in direct contradistinction to the actual verifiable facts.

My opinion is that your comprehension skills could do with some work.

I think there's loads of ethical issues with IVF that people can have mixed opinions,

Donor IVF and future feelings of resulting children surrounding their parentage.

Where own eggs and sperm are used, the risk of causes of infertility with a hereditary component being passed on through generations due to ability to reproduce where it wouldn't have naturally been possible and therefore the implications for the offspring of the medical procedures.

Age of parents beyond natural reproductive norms

Cost, funding and rights of access to IVF.

Medical science frequently progresses faster than medical ethics.

Surrogacy is an entirely different matter to IVF. It is unethical, abusive, exploitative and misogynistic procedure and linking it in to IVF is just a way of blurring the boundaries and suppressing those speaking out against it.

Has there been any research done comparing the incidence of eg. psychological disorders & attachment issues over the lifetimes of those conceived by IVF vs natural conception?

I'd be very interested to hear of any.