Where I live it’s one round, the cut off age is 40.

Aside from the fact that the vast majority of people using the NHS for IVF will be tax payers? And the fact that for society to continue functioning in the future we need people to be having children and the birth rates are dropping?

Whether society (read:humans) should be allowed to continue is a completely separate argument, but for that to happen, we need future generations. So if some people need help for that to happen, shouldn't they get it?

This. It's very easy to say 'no-one should be having IVF on the NHS' but they've not been in the position of not being able to fall pregnant naturally, when you desperately want a child. 'Oh a child is not a RIGHT' some people say. Well so what? It doesn't mean people shouldn't be helped to have one if they're struggling. Have some compassion and empathy FFS!

And I have no skin in the game as I had my 2 quite easily/naturally when I was in my late 20s.

.

So you are pissed ppl hated on you as a teen mum and so want to hate on other mums as revenge. Got it.

If they have reached menopause then they left it too late. If they are not menopausal then they have not left it too late. Simple.

How many women who have reached menopause have IVF?

Not completely true. If you have had two ectopic pregnancies and your fallopian tubes removed, and/or if you have certain medical conditions you can have it on the NHS.

There's high risk factors for baby to teen mums not just older mums.
Babies to teen mums are more likely to be premature, higher chance of low birth weight and neonatal conditions, higher mortality rate and higher long term development delays.

It's well researched.
I don't judge teen mums but the risk factors are not just about money.

Agree

Unless you have surveyed every 'older woman' in the entire country on this and cross referenced with their views on teen parents then this is a pretty pointless thread

Interesting that you can provide statistics on IVF being a booming industry but not on older women criticising teen mums and then going on to have IVF.

🤔

OP, to have IVF on the NHS, you have to have been trying for a baby for two years and be under 40. Between 40 and 42, you can have one round if IVF if you’ve never had it before. That’s in general, because it varies form health authority to health authority, but the absolute maximum number of cycles you can have is three - so hardly “multiple”. As far as teenage mums are concerned, do you really think you were ready to be a mother at 15? At the very least, it seems a bit irresponsible to have a baby when you haven’t the means to look after it. These days there are far fewer teenage mothers. I don’t think most people actually express a view on the subject, unless asked.

But these ‘older’ women might have been trying to conceive for years and years-from when they were young. The health service is there for those in need and funded by us all. I’m not sure your point is valid. The comparison to teen mums doesn’t make any logical sense. We all need the nhs at some point.

Although evidence wise - one is far likely to be true that then other.

It sounds like she's got at least one person in her life that fits this criteria, and it's triggered her which I can understand.

The generalisation though, that all older women needing IVF are hypocrites is just as wrong as the all teen mum's are benefit scroungers assumption.

There are any number of reasons why couples might struggle with infertility, such as cancer treatment, which don't mean they are unworthy or incapable of having children via IVF.

It isn't being judgemental of teen mums to know that a reasonable number will require more state support in the early years of parenthood. Definitely not all, but a higher proportion than parents slightly older who will have higher paid jobs and have had time to save to ensure they can pay for private (not state) housing, claim less in UC and childcare support.

Obviously there are parents at all ages claiming this, and there will be teens who live on family support. But more likely to need it and also be able to get a council house as a very young parent with no other support. A 15 year old is not working full time to pay for their housing and food. Absolutely not saying you needed to, or that they shouldn't be helped, and I haven't looked for studies, but we know it happens.

So are people using IVF to help them become parents when they are older actually using more state funded support than someone needing a council house, extra state paid for childcare and UC? Who are you, or I, to judge who should get more support? Someone pregnant before they are able to financially support themselves, or someone in their 30's or 40's, who could have tried for 10+ years to have a child needing support to get pregnant?

I agree.

I also don’t think the NHS should be funding IVF at all. I know that’s unpopular, but I think the NHS should be there primarily to treat illness and keep people healthy, not to fund every deeply wanted life outcome.

Infertility is obviously distressing, and I do have sympathy for couples going through it, but wanting a child and having a medical need aren’t the same thing. The NHS is already struggling to provide timely cancer treatment, mental health support, GP appointments, dentistry, and basic operations. When resources are finite, I think priorities matter.

I also think people underplay the risks and costs involved with IVF itself. IVF pregnancies statistically have higher rates of complications. That has knock-on costs not just for fertility treatment, but for maternity services, neonatal care and long-term healthcare support as well, so when people say we are only spending £X on fertility treatments, they aren’t taking into account the later strain on the NHS.

Plenty of treatments aren’t funded because they’re considered low priority or not cost-effective enough. Fertility treatment seems to get treated differently because emotionally it’s such a sensitive topic.

I’m not saying IVF should be banned, people who want it should absolutely be free to pursue it privately if they choose. I just don’t think it should be funded by the taxpayer.

This is true.
My close friend’s daughter is 35, and can only have one IVF implant on the NHS. She and her husband are desperate for a baby.

They’re going through the physical process right now. Fingers crossed.

Im not sure she’s classed as an older mother but for sure it’s one cycle only in her area.

Exactly - she is carrying a scar which I do understand because she would have been on the end of judgement after getting knocked up at 15 - but she is aiming the anger of those scars at the wrong group of people.

God yeah, all those awful career women. How dare they!

And specifically, no evidence that women who have chosen to wait til later and then have needed IVF are the same group of people who are rude about teen mum's.

You've literally got ZERO evidence, stats, or proof to back anything up that you're claiming have you @Spiderbug ?

Re; that link you provided, yes, there may be 1 in 32 births born via IVF, but three quarters of them are SELF-FUNDING. And how do you know the women getting the IVF via the NHS are the ones who berate young single mums on benefits? Actually, I don't hear people doing that in real life anyway!

This thread is just pointless.

Bollocks!

It's a complete postcode lottery to how many cycles and acceptance criteria.

There was a NHS IVF consultant who said most who are getting treated have just left it too late. She wanted a campaign explaining the dangers of relying on being able to have a live birth, after 38. Her words were condemned on here. This forum is notorious for telling women to not worry about fertility.