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

Myself and Dh been trying for 4 years and have had two mcs! We were toldwe need Ivf but both conceptions although failed were natural! I can ony have one cycle of Ivf but can't as I've got raised bmi and insulin dependant diabetic! Sometimes nature is just against the odds

But IVF is famously expensive and low-success

I have been told that the chances of success for people like me (no discernible problem in either partner) are relatively good, and the overall success rates are skewed downwards because of quite profound problems that other couples face. I don't know how true that is.

Someone has already said that one cycle costs about £3000, which compared to, say, a liver problem brought about through alcohol abuse, is peanuts. And long term, elderly people with no adult children I imagine "cost" more than those with children around. I am certainly not advocating procreation for the sake of having a nurse in your old age, but if we are talking about money, perhaps you should consider that.

I had 6 rounds of privately funded IVF.

My attempt at obtaining NHS treatment was lengthy, fraught with difficulty and with a latent feeling that after a lot of effort I would be turned down (Kent).

With privately funded treatment you could essentially fit 2 attempts into a year.

After 6 months of various NHS appointments I hadn't even got to the egg stimulation stage. Frankly women just don't have that sort of time when they are facing fertility issues in their late 30's.

With privately funded treatment it was possible for me to get to know my consultant and together with his expertise and my observations of my body's reaction to treatment we were able to isolate the best combinations of drugs/treatment etc.

We finally achieved a pregnancy and DS. Elated doesn't even begin to describe how we felt.

I do not believe the age limit should be extended to 42. Given all the factors I would say 40 is the appropriate limit.

I believe the NHS should provide more effective, prompt, targeted treatment to get better results for women under 40.

If fertility treatment is available on the NHS at all I agree that there should not be a 3 year wait for it, especially as there is an age cut off (whatever the age actually is)

However I think there are other more universally important things:

• Mental health services
• Nutritional or lifestyle stuff that can realistically assist with weight problems (I mean good, effective stuff, like a regular appointment with a clued up therapist who can take an overweight person through a months- or years-long process of learning to eat better and enjoy exercise - not a GP throwing crappy low-fat advice at you and then forgetting about you. Someone who is trained to look at the whole person and take their personal circumstances into account, and who is knowledgeable about a range of approaches, because the same things don't work for everyone)
• Dental treatment (costs an absolute fucking fortune!)

I think these three things are about enabling people to be healthy, whereas starting a family is not actually a part of one's own personal health. I know infertility is very painful and if there are non-invasive, inexpensive things that can be done to help, then they should be, and without shilly-shallying. But IVF is famously expensive and low-success.

I also wonder whether - tho this could sound very brutal - the emphasis that we currently have that almost all birth parents should be supported to look after their children, is misplaced. When things are seen to be irretrievably broken and a child is taken into care, it is often the case that the child is harder to place than a baby might have been. I know why we have the policies we do but it is desperately sad that while some children are damaged by long term poor parenting, at the same time, potential parents are suffering infertility and might love to adopt a baby. It is a tricky one though because how do you make the judgement that a person is not "good enough" to keep their baby and give it to someone else - realistically, someone posher and richer? Very sad

FairyJen

Agree Ariel,hardly went near the doctors/A&E until I had dc,this winter I realised I'd read all the Hello mags cover to cover 4 times over!

Read that back. Do I win an award for most pointless post??

Yes, very good news !

My own experience is just that TTC took nearly a year. That seemed like a very long time when you didn't know if it would ever happen. So bringing it down from 3 years trying to 2 (before IVF offered) is good news ! Also previous cut-off at 40 was rather arbitary IMO - 42 seems a bit more considered.

My issue with this news is that I worry the post code lottery divide will worsen. I also worry about long term issues for older parents and how it will affect their children etc.

Having said that I conceived my first dc when I was 20 and the second at 25 neither was planned at all. I cannot imagine therefore the heartbreak caused by ttc for years

Good news. Wonderful for people to have the chance to have children who have had problems doing so, I speak from personal experience.

People who are naturally fertile can often have children past 42 so 42 is really not that old at all. Who knows, those children born form IVF of women of 42 may go on to be doctors, nurses, find a cure for cancer etc etc. 42 seems very young now bearing in mind people are living into their 80s and beyond.

We did not get any of our fertility treatment paid for but I am very much in favour of people getting help with this, it is medical and it is important.

ariel really good point about the chances of success being lower at 42 than at 36. It is important that people know the chances of success are quite low.

I know a friend who has just divorced (36 no kids) she is going to have some eggs frozen to give her a better shot at a successful pregnancy later on in life. But she is lucky that she can find this money, she's not loaded but can just about afford it.

You can generally bet that the people who say that having children is not a right, or that the NHS should be paying for childhood cancers rather than helping those infertile people have a child, are not the infertile ones themselves.

From a purely personal and financial perspective, I have cost the NHS very, very little over the years, despite paying taxes from age 22. That's my good fortune and it is irrelevant. But for those saying "The NHS should not not fund IVF", it is often the case that these childless people in their 30s/early 40s have been thus far been far less of a "drain" on resources than someone with children, who naturally are the ones who the NHS spend a lot on. If you want to look at it like that. It is also usually the case that those who have been TTC for the necessary 2 to 3 years before being referred are the non-smokers and light drinkers.

I planned on starting my family at 34-ish. At nearly 38 I still don't have a child, and have been uncomfortably aware that because of delays and fuck ups with the system, my time could be running out fast.

I also agree that more should be done to get the message through that fertility declines after the mid 30s (even though for many people that is irrelevant anyway, because their problems are not age related). And by this I don't mean Daily Fail -style scaremongering, but proper education in schools. I always assumed that you were fertile until the menopause hit. It was only after starting TTC that I realised otherwise, and I am by no means an unintelligent, uninformed person.

So yes this is a good thing, though people mustn't think that the chances of IVF working at 42 are the same as at 36.

Very happy to see this in the news, fertillity treatment should be available to anyone who needs it. At 41 or 42, plenty of women have a greater chance of success with IVF than a woman in her 20s or 30s - it totally depends on the particular medical condition the couple have, so it is blatantly unfair to discriminate on the basis of age. We started trying when I was 35, after 4 cycles of IVF (only 1 NHS funded) we finally met our amazing daughter last summer, when I was 41. My mum had me at 41, totally naturally, so who is to say I am "too old".

Infertility is a medical condition, a sickness, a life-changing disease - why should we be denied appropriate treatment?

And what World said.

I think a hardworking healthy couple(most lead v healthy lives on the ttc wagon)who have paid tax all their lives are waaaay more deserving of NHS fund age than somebody who chooses to smoke,take little exercise or to live with obesity.

Sooooo if we're going to start nit picking over NHS fundage lets draw up a list re the deserving and not so deserving......

I don't think that IVF up to the age of 42 is a particularly good use of public funds tbh. IVF does not have a particularly good success rate and is hugely invasive. But then I conceived easily three times and had all my kids by the age of 30. It's a very different story from my side of the fence isn't it? Which is why treatment should be determined only national guidance rather than individual sentiment.

In an ideal world in which the NHS was swimming in spare cash, this would be great. When they are cutting front line staff and not able to fund drugs for some life limiting conditions, I don't think this should be funded.
Women need to be made more aware that their fertility declines after 35 (and I think most are in a general sense but don't apply it to themselves).
I've been TTC for 18m and I'm 38, I wouldn't qualify anyway because I already have children, but I have to accept that I'm less fertile now than I was in my 20s and early 30s. It's hard and I have sympathy for those who are struggling TTC, but I would not expect the NHS to fund fertility treatment for me after 40.

note to self do not feed the trolls

Oh and IVF I suspect is waaaay cheaper than treating years of depression x2,care for the childless elderly and endo/pcos treatment which pg can treat.There are also cancers helped by pg.

I do think the NHS should find a way to make it cheaper to do though,it's quite routine now and shouldn't cost so much.

I agree that no one has a right or entitlement to IVF. I strongly believe that no one has a right or entitlement to healthcare of any sort at all. However, we live in a country where there is an expectation that we all put into the pot, and we all benefit.

So anyone shouting that IVF shouldn't be paid for, should also be arguing that obesity related illness, lifestyle induced cancers, and self-inflicted injuries via road traffic accidents should also not be covered by the NHS. After all, no one should have a right to treatment for something that they could have prevented should they? That money could be better spent on childhood cancer ... and maybe we could also cut out NHS care for anyone who hasn't paid taxes or NI too - that should free up some more money for the self-righteous buggars shouldn't it?

And there's actually a lot of benefit to being an older parent. My parents childmind so I can work full time and contribute fully to taxes, and I expect to continue and do the same for my daughter.

Incidentally, IVF, as a health treatment, is actually extremely cheap. A private round of IVF is about £3 - £5K. I suggest you google how much a broken leg costs to fix, or how much a traffic accident costs the country.

Good news but think 3 years up to the age of 30 would be better.I also think more guidance re conceiving,ttc monitoring,rigorous testing before going down the IVF route is needed.

I am an IVF mother who had to pay for all our treatment from blood tests to investigations and IVF ourselves.

It was crippling and we had to sell our flat to do so.Often women going through treatment struggle to hold down jobs as you take a lot of time off during cycles.The financial fall out lasts several years and I don't think having children if infertile should only be a possibility for the rich/richer couples.

I had a friend suffering at the same time in a far lower paid job than me-she was heartbroken seeing me enabled and at least given a chance to get pg whilst she could do nothing. Ivf is heartbreaking enough,can't even begin to think what it must be like if it isn't even a possibility.

As far as I know said friend is still childless,we lost contact when I had children,too painful I guess.

We could always pay more money into the NHS.

No one has a "right" to have a child and the older a parent is, the more likely they are to have health issues or even die before their child grows up. Given that the NHS has limited resources, I believe extending provision of IVF to older women is wrong. I would rather the money was spent on children's cancer care or improving care for the elderly.

But Astley as it stands the nhs CAN fund a woman up to age 39. I assume you would like to cancel this as well. (I also assume you didn't have problems conceiving, though this may be wrong)

astely no one has said a person has a right to have a child. This is about the right to fertility treatment.

You do have a point about the nhs budget though. I am guessing there will be no extra funds to pay for this.