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

So you're just playing Devil's Advocate then? On a sensitive thread in which people are discussing their terribly sad experiences and shattered dreams.

Nice.

Huh? Not sure what point you're making on this thread then... If you don't care about saving the planet, then you have no objection to people adding children to it through fertility treatment. Is that it?

I did not say I was bent on saving the planet. Mother earth may well weep, but I don't share some mumsnetters' views on planet saving with their attempts to be carbon neutral and the like which are such a farce when by having each baby they do the planet so very very much harm.

'There is little you can do worse for this planet than having a baby so probably the priority for mother earth is to ensure that the more people who are infertile the better.'

And you have 5.

I hear you, MrsD.

I can't understand why someone who is constantly telling us how busy, fulfilled, well paid and stimulated she is would possibly waste her time posting stuff like that. As you say, RedToothbrush, it's WUMming, pure and simple.

Xenia Fri 22-Feb-13 16:30:31
There is little you can do worse for this planet than having a baby so probably the priority for mother earth is to ensure that the more people who are infertile the better.

Or use birth control.
How many children is it you have again Xenia?

ROFLMAO.

You are at being a deliberate good windup merchant, I'll give you that... pity you are so insensitive.

Says the woman with five children.....

Silly xenia, having babies isn't the worst thing that can be done for the planet, it's curing sick people. Stop vaccinating babies, and giving inhalers to asthmatics, and giving antibiotics to anyone, and irradiating tumours, and cleaning and binding infected cuts, and we will be back to balance in no time. And so much more money in the budget for the barrens - hurrah!

I am a serial offender but it's true, isn't it? Must be. Mankind is ruining this planet. We need about 5 in 6 of us to die to make our living here sustainable not to have more and more babies born.

Wow. Just wow. There is so much wrong with that callous ignorant perspective.

I'm assuming you've stayed childless in the bid to save Mother Earth?

Nice and insensitive there Xenia. Do you have children?

There is little you can do worse for this planet than having a baby so probably the priority for mother earth is to ensure that the more people who are infertile the better.

I have already said I favour the extension of the age limit, the amout it will cost cannot be great and the anguish and unhappiness it will relieve is great. I just wondered if a pot of money could be found to subsidise IVF for those like Onsera3 who don't qualify at the moment, so they might have some chance of saving something towards it and get a grant for the rest? Is it not also the case that if IVF units were bigger and did more work they would not only develop practices that led to more babies but also each cycle would be less expensive?

Onsera, your comments are highly insulting and inflammatory. Considering you yourself have had infertility treatment I'm pretty speechless. You imply that you should have the opportunity to have another child because you are 'young and slim' and that an old, fat woman who have prioritised a career (ridiculous) shouldn't have any chance. Your arrogance is jaw dropping.

Well it is argumentative if you write posts which people disagree with :)

Such as you deserving two children and an older, fatter person deserving none.

But that's what I'm trying to say. For people like me could be more of a burden on the NHS without IVF. My meds for IVF cost less than others I've been prescribed by my gynae. I was in and out of the hosp for egg retrieval and transfer as opposed to overnight stays for treatment of the endo. The pregnancy and lactation hormones keep my condition in check so I don't require treatment from the NHS. I intend to keep breastfeeding for my child's health and for my own.

But anyway this is supposed to be about the age limit. I don't want to hijack the thread. I didn't realise that mumsnetters are so argumentative! I do disagree with some comments but I think this may be a forum for us to voice our opinions rather than debate them? (First time on here)

Now I better go look after the little one I'm lucky to have thanks to the NHS!

I too am slim. I don't drink excessively ok, apart from last night, I eat healthily, I have never smoked. Hell, I don't even have a great career!

I still can't get pregnant, and I couldn't when I was younger either.

Infertility is not just a thing which happens to fat, old, unhealthy people, strangely.

I apologise for my bad language. I'd had a lot to drink. The sentiments remain the same, however.

But if there are limited resources to go round, why should you get priority over someone who is childless when you are lucky enough to have a child already?

Onsera most women who want children know they do and don't tend to 'prioritise their career' over having children; it's just a misogynistic generalisation touted by the likes of the Daily Mail.

The thing is Scarlettsmummy I'm pretty sure that the IVF doesn't cost the NHS anymore than the treatment I'd receive if they didn't help me get pregnant. I don't need surgeries or medications or specialists visits to treat my condition once I'm pregnant or breastfeeding.

I didn't say I was lovely... I was just pointing out that by being youngish and slim and was doing everything in my power to get pregnant on my own. I did everything to improve my chances naturally and cut out things like alcohol, coffee, processed foods and worked really hard to be healthy.

It doesn't make me lovely but it means that the treatment has more chance of working for someone like me while other people are asking for help from the NHS when they've not first done everything in their power to increase their chances. Seems a bit wasteful not to do everything you can.

Fair points triplets. Don't want to be a meany.

Arielthepracticalmermaid you may have a point. I was thinking more about people who have prioritised career etc then those with bad luck with men.

Anoymosity would you suggest that anyone with health issues that could possibly genetic should refrain from having children? Anyone with a family history of asthma, depression, diabetes, dyslexia, should choose not to have children so as not to risk them developing that problem?

My ds might have inherited my dp's rubbish sperm, if we had a dd she might inherit my pcos but I am personally a lot more worried about them inheriting my dyslexia or my mil's depression or my brother's asthma.

From tge research I read there are studies tgat show a higher rate of birth defects with icsi but no correlation has been found between "traditional" IVF and birth defects.

Triplets your story demonstrates how we can never know what is ahead (good or bad) and that it is all to easy to write someone off as being less than ideal candidates for ivf. Surely the same could be said for any medical treatment, if your are older or obese or very underweight, you are less likely to benefit from it, so let's just have a cut-off and say no-one over ten stone or over 55 gets any medical treatment at all.
Anyone seen Logan's Run?

I was 33 when I needed IVF but had to self fund cos I was told I was too young!

I don't have any problem with this age extension but its a nonsense when the PCTs just ignore it.

Oh and passing on IF to our IVF babies is clearly bollocks - I had blocked Fallopian tubes, I don't think either of my sons could inherit that .