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

(higher likelihood of multiple embryos especially for people who go abroad for less expensive IVF where the practice is more lax on number of embryos.)

The 'limited resources' claim against IVF isn't actually true. It's far cheaper for the NHS to fund infertility treatment than not. Counter-intuitive, but true. That's because if you leave people to go private, they are far more likely to have multiple embryos implanted and multiple births, which are far more expensive for the NHS (higher rates of complications, premature birth, extra needs throughout childhood and even adulthood). Of course many twins and triplets are fine, but there are higher rates of stuff that requires extra resources.

I did some research on this for my day job, and it is a fact that it is cheaper for the NHS to fund IVF treatment - at the time I was looking at the figures, it was, IIRC, three cycles using all viable fresh and frozen eggs.

NICE weigh up the economic case for potential NHS treatments extremely carefully - if they say it makes sense, it does.

There may be other arguments against IVF, but there is no economic argument against - quite the reverse.

xenia, you said overpopulation was a big issue. We will address that much more effectively by letting more people die than by enabling a few more couples to have a shot at parenthood.

Also, you seem to be assuming that all infertility is age-related. It isn't. And when it is age-related, the NHS doesn't treat it - hence its age cut off points. So your argument about waiting till later in life doesn't work. In fact, waiting till later is better for your overpopulation worries, as if all your children reproduce at 22 like you did, it is far worse than me having one child at 35, who then reproduces at 35 itself.

I love children and of course I sympathise with men and women fighting for very scarce NHS resources. If we gave all that was needed to IVF then children already alive would die. So the issue is whether funding for those who want to fulfil a hope is a better use of money than saving lives of those already alive. Not surprisingly all NHS resources have always been rationed. Cameron needs the female vote he has just about lost so increasing IVF age limits will certanily be useful in that respect.

As for choices people do need to decide when they are young where they will concentrtae their energies, marrying that wonderful boyfriend at university when they are 21 or 23 and working full time whilst working through their 20s (which is not easy) or taking a punt they still might be able to have babies in their mid 30s and thus running the risk they will never have a child but enjoying free 20s without babies. Whether the state should underwrite that risk I suppose is the issue.

anoymosity to me your post did come across (to me) as if you were saying that children born after IVF would be infertile, have more alergies illness and disabilities therefore we should adopt instead of having IVF.

Have you looked into this opinion in any other way other than reading a newspaper? Have you had IVF yourself and asked a Dr?

My point is that very few people have a family history clear of any ilnesses and most fertility reducing conditions are less bad (in my opinion) than many common illnesses.

I have adopted siblings and it was a long hard journy to get them, you don't just pop down to the local childrens home and collect a newborn in a basket you know.

For me I would have put money towards attempting to adopt rather than spend it on IVF (after the free cycles) but it is a very very personal choice and not something that other people should comment on. My stepdad who adopted his children because of fertility issues was supportive of our IVF even though it wasn't the same as what he opted for.

I live in east Berkshire and after having to stop IVF in Nov due to the effects of the drugs, my clinic had to appeal to the NHS to extend my one chance of funding for 3 months to enable me to complete the process. This was because I'd just turned 35 which is their cut off. 35!

While I welcome these change in guidelines completely, I fear it will make no difference whatsoever.

And why should it be down to infertile couples to adopt the world's children? People need to stop having kids they don't want/can't look after and those of you who can have kids, maybe only have 4 and adopt you 5th?

And bollocks to us just accepting it and finding other ways to lead a happy and fulfilled life. Imagining being 70+ with no children or grandchildren kills me

For whatever reasons women are leaving it quite late to try for a baby - I left it to 32 myself and then was shocked and upset that it took me nearly a year to get pregnant (I know I was lucky though in the end)

I still think it's great to spend your twenties exploring the world and developing as an individual and in your career (though I was a bit random about that bit !)

But leaving it til your late thirties is something many regret and more should be done to tell young women of the potential problems they may experience to help us all in making those life choices.

So Xenia, I should have made sure to get impregnated during the messed-up one-night stand I had aged 22, rather than wait for my wonderful supportive husband, whom I met later in life?
Are you for real? Do you really think this is how life works? We all skip happily through fields of daffodils with our incredibly mature and family-focussed teenage sweethearts and then rolling around in magic piles of cash for the rest of our happy lives?

FFS

I did not suggest anyone "refain from having children" but I do resent having to answer a poster who clearly CANNOT READ my own post and choses instead to be a total arse.

Skiing is a lifestyle choice. Driving at 100 mph is a lifestyle choice. Driving drunk is a lifestyle choice. Smoking is a lifestyle choice.

You damage your health doing any one of those, or hundreds of other, lifestyle choices, and the NHS will pick up the tab to fix you.

Infertility is NOT a lifestyle choice.

And as for Xenia being clever - judging by the standard of her level of debate on here I would say that was stretching the definition of that word to breaking point.

That may be true, however infertility is not a lifestyle choice, whether you are 30 or 40.

Not ttc till 40 is generally a lifestyle choice.

Infertility is not a lifestyle choice, even if you don't start ttc until you are 40. Why shouldn't the NHS help infertile couples realise their dream of having a child? Why should someone like Xenia have 5, and a childless couple should just suck it up? If one of Xenia's children becomes ill, perhaps through their choices (risky behaviors, traveling in third world countries etc) should we turn them away from healthcare?

What an insensitive, horrible thing to say, when you have 5 kids. Unbelievable.

I too have 5 children, but I feel no guilt for it. I don't want to have an argument about saving the planet. I imagine some of my 5 children may be contributing taxes to and perhaps even working with the aging population. However, having some compassion for others struggling to have a child of their own is not difficult.

I had my last baby at 41. So what if you have a baby after 40(or 42 or 46)? Older parents make great parents, and the argument about their health etc doesn't wash. I have lost three friends to cancer, all before age 50, and my brother in law died at age 42 from motor nuerons. People can have ill-health at any age, surely that doesn't mean they shouldn't have children?

Perhaps finding the money for NHS funded IVF from other areas (military spending?) might be a good idea.

And fecund.

And don't forget well paid?

If we were all like Xenia then she'd be on minimum wage (if she could find a job at all), wages tending to be closely linked to supply and demand.

Xenia is very lucky that we're not all as clever, hard working and driven as her

Revoking? Logic. WTF is up with my phone...

jethro - if we were all as fertile as Xenia - 5 kids was it? - then by her revoking the earth would be fucked

Lovely tho that you can produce as many offspring as you want, but that 'mother nature' would prefer those of us with fertility issues to remain childless.

And the prize for poster with least tact and insight goes to...

Norf I think Xenia's point is (as always) that if only we were all like her the world would be a better place

xenia, exactly what point are you trying to make?

Xenia, I'm not sure you are helping here. We all know how hard you work, how well you plan, how much you earn and how well you provide for your five children.

But given that you have had five, the point of your posts are somewhat puzzling.

Xenia - I'm sure will agree you a bit of a special case. I would ask if you knew at the age of 22 that you could definitely support your children for the whole of their childhood without a shred of help from anyone, but I know your answer would be Yes. But you do see, especially in this economic climate, that 99% of young women will not have that confidence?

I see it all the time on here, especially in the last week or so, young women criticising parents who claim any tax credits at all, saying that they can't themselves have children because they can't afford their own home/aren't earning enough. You encourage them to keep thinking that then they will never have children, or if they do they will be the ones starting TTC in their mid thirties and possibly needing fertility treatment when going on 40.

Immigration.
Yes, infertility is a sensitive topic but the issue is all about NHS rationing. I was just bringing up the dreadful pollution and damage each baby we all have has in terms of the impact on the planet. In fact when I was small having more than 1 or 2 children really was very very much the bad thing to do. We don't hear that today. Very different ethos at the moment about babies and over population even though the population is much bigger and the planet suffering even more.

The answer to gaelic sheep is do what I did - marry young, babies at 22 and always work full time then you tend to have a much better life, full time work, just about no maternity leave, good career and a happy family. Planning - start it young. I was reading NCT leaflets of my mother when I was 14 on the best position in which to give birth.

Well if having children fucks the world i have done a great job at fucking it. I havw five and i donated eggs last year, my egg recipient had twins. I am bloody thrilled at that, world fucking or not. i cannot begin to imagine the pain of infertility so i welcome these changes just wish they would stop it being such a post code lottery and bring down waiting times as well.

My God, will you look at Mumsnet at the moment:

women who have kids young at the expense of their careers - they are irresponsible scroungers, having children before they can be sure they can support them properly without ever needing help from the taxpayer AND they have reduced their future earning power. Shocking.

women who establish their careers before having children - have trouble conceiving? Tough, you shouldn't have left it so long, being selfish putting your career first.

Men say they can never understand women. I wonder why?

And believe me, if we need to limit the world population - and do remember the UK has an ageing population - there are far far better ways of doing it than letting fate have the casting vote.