New NHS guidelines on IVF treatment to extend age limit up to 42 - what do you think?

How do you propose diagnosing and treating all these myriad problems, Sheila? IVF is the go-to answer because it's cheaper than finding out the real problem, and may well be the only answer anyway.

What do you propose the NHS do with me and DH - we are "unexplained", but at the age of thirty and three years TTC with nary a sniff of a pregnancy, we are quite clearly infertile. How many tests can be done? The doctors don't know what's wrong, but they have a half-decent chance of solving the unknown problem with IVF, so why can't we try it?

The cause of my childlessness is having only one Fallopian tube, which is scarred shut. It would be rather more expensive to treat that than it would be to give me ivf.

Sadly it's all about success rates with IVf.

I think it would be good if you could pay towards your ivf if your chances are slim. To be told no is horrific. To be told well its not that likely but if you want to you can pay x% towards we'll let you have three goes.

Then it wouldn't be so expensive.

childlessness is not a disease - the causes of it might be, but you can treat these without providing IVF.

Alzheimer's isn't life-threatening. IBS isn't life-threatening. Hell; a broken leg isn't life-threatening. All those things are addressed with measures that are paid for from the health budget.

But is infertility not a disease that needs treating? I have Polycystic Ovaries meaning, like it sounds, my ovaries are covered in cysts which inhibit normal hormone production. Why is one disease more deserving than another? Not all diseases are life-threatening: eczema is not, so shall we give up treating that?

Obviously there have to be lines drawn in the sand and im not advocating unlimited IVF for anyone who wants it, but fertility treatments do seem to take an awful lot of bashing whenever NHS funding is discussed.

What about the example of partial deafness, sheila, or the desire breast reconstruction after mastectomy? Neither of those is life-threatening. Do you think they should be untreated too?

Clearly you think the NHS is a bottomless pit of money, Northey

Its not, but then equally, rationing can't be done on price tags and short term financing either.

Long term cost effectiveness is far preferable than short term yearly budgets. Which means that decisions being made on short term yearly budgets could easily be costing us all a lot, lot more over a 5year period or even a twenty year period.

This is one of the other massive issues of the NHS - short termism and passing the costs off to other departments and not tracing this...

Whats the saying about buying good shoes, built to last?

That isn't a reasonable assumption to make, dragon and certainly doesn't work as an answer to anything i have said.

I'm sure there are plenty of people (including me) who would argue that alcoholism is a disease not a lifestyle choice, and, as I said before, it's life threatening, whereas infertility isn't.

Clearly you think the NHS is a bottomless pit of money, Northey.

Fantastic! A mate of mine has been referred after losing her only child, conceived with fertility treatment, to cancer. She's 39. Hope their next cycle is a success - they are fantastic parents!

Heaven forbid that more people should be helped. Let's cancel school hearing tests too. That'll save the cost of a few hearing aids.

So are you ok with the other suggestions here that referral times should be shortened? That would have the same effect of getting people treated before the current age cut off.

What is the difference between giving someone that shot when they are 35 and giving it to them when they are 42?

The cost of funding the treatment for more people. That should be obvious.

dragon, success rate for 42 year olds now is the same as it was for under 35 year olds when that criterion was set. What is the difference between giving someone that shot when they are 35 and giving it to them when they are 42?

Precisely Polka. The short sighteness of people saying "we can't afford it" is annoying. Its not as simple as the obvious price tag.

IVF is 3k and infertility isn't a choice -smoking and most obesity/lack of exercise illnesses are.

Viva yes infertility left untreated does cost money-2x treatment for depression,care for the childless elderly,pcos and endo improve hugely with pg,some cancers are higher in childless women.

How many years of mental health treatment would you need to clock up £3k?

I don't think that IVF up to the age of 42 is a particularly good use of public funds tbh

This is what I think. The NHS is short of money already with life saving treatments limited. A line needs to be drawn somewhere and, personally, I think 42 is far too high.

Frankelly yes but medical care isn't dependent on whether a condition is self inflicted or not, fortunately.

No, but it could be made so, if what we are doing is looking to save money. There are all sorts of criteria we could introduce.

My fertility clinic charges about £3k per IVF cycle too.

If we're saying that infertility treatment is non-essential, then the same goes for non-reconstructive plastic surgery. If the "damage to self-esteem/mental health" cannot count towards IVF then it shouldn't count for anything else either.

Red, yes it might be, but I don't think we should build healthcare around a possibility

Really??! You don't think it is?! Healthcare is ALL about managing risk!

Red, yes it might be, but I don't think we should build healthcare around a possibility.

Viva a privately-funded cycle at my NHS clinic was just over £3k. Of course, the NHS would pay less than that.