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

onsera what is your definition of old and fat please? This is a difficult subject, we each are entitled to our own opinion and to express it, but please word it carefully because you can hurt peoples feelings. This is my life experience.........my life.
I married in 1978 and just a year later gave birth to Matthew.
For the following 14 years we tried to have another baby, it just didnt happen. On June 2nd 1994 my beautiful child died in my garden, totally unexplained. After 2 years of utter raw grief we decided to try ivf. After three attempts all funded by ourselves and using donor eggs it worked. At the age of 46 I gave birth to Thomas, Rebecca and James, all healthy beautiful babies. When they were nine their father was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, he is currently in remission. Life is hard living with three teens at our age. <strong>But</strong> I know parents with twins/triplets and young children of different ages who cant cope and they are years younger.
We all are here only once, some for a very short time.
IVF I believe should be offered to older women also if they desperately want a child, they should be offered the chance, even if its only offered once. Why don`t they offer partial funding?
It is difficult but we each have our own reasons.
As for being "old and fat" ...........hmm .....I suppose onsera I now fall into that categorie being a size 16/18........but I did have triplets at 46 and I have lots of much younger friends who are very much overweight and look the same age as me! Please be kinder :)

I've seen no evidence to suggest that children born via IVF are infertile. Didn't the first ever IVF baby recently have her own child, conceived naturally.

It's been said a million several times already, adoption is not a substitute for having your own child. You need to be in a whole other place mentally to be able to handle the complex adoption process. Plus, again as has been said, children being adopted deserve to go to homes that truly want them, not see them as second-best.

Perhaps people who are able to have children naturally should be limited to one child and then adopt if they want more [sarcasm]

As the very eloquent MrsDeVere said earlier in the thread, why are women with infertility problems being blamed for the adoption problems in this country? Surely it is everyone's responsibility to look at this avenue?

You can't look at it in isolation though, can you - you can't just say "everyone has the right to fertility treatment" if you don't look at all the other issues.

There has been recent press suggesting a) we're creating a generation of infertile people (the babies born to those who have had IVF) b) that we're creating a generation of people with increased illnesses / allergies and disabilities.

I don't know if its true, its just what has been reported in the press as a suggestion.

But also what is happening on the adoption front - thousands of small children are not being adopted, in favor of searching for your own offspring. And they continue to be left in foster care or homes and that can also create a bigger underclass.

I am not passing judgement I am just saying it cannot be seen / viewed and decided without these factors having some impact.

And the prize for most tactful post goes to onesera! And I am going to be even more selfish and say I don't give a toss what age you are or how slim and lovely you are, but you shouldn't get to have TWO babies funded by the NHS. There are better uses of the money, and if you want a second save up for your own IVF.

I didnt realise if one person had a DC and the other didnt you werent eligible, i think thats awful! I also didnt realise waiting times were so long. I do however still think that younger people with fertility problems should be a priority, as everyone knows your fertility declines with age, there are far more concerns with older parents both during pregnancy and as your child grows up. Surely its much harder on you as you get older dealing with lack of sleep, tornado toddlers etc.. Just my opinion though

Like it having taken taken four years before you've got anywhere. Like only meeting fuckwit men. Like the NHS having fucked you around.

Those sorts of lifestyle choices.

But hey, you deserve two children.

I'm going to be selfish and say no, it shouldn't be extended. Instead I think younger people with fertility issues like myself should get more rounds of IVF.

I have endo and polycystic ovaries so was unable to conceive. I had IVF on the NHS at 31 and it was successful.

I'd love a sibling for my little one but I'm not entitled to anymore free treatment.

After studying the stats during my treatment I learnt how it is much less successful for older parents and the overweight and obese. Trying to get pregnant when you're older or overweight means that you have made some choices or lifestyle decisions that have inhibited your chances if having a baby. (Like smokers etc that others have mentioned who need help from the NHS)

If there was enough money sure. But IVF for someone old or fat is still much less likely to work for someone younger and slim like me so it seems kind of wasteful.

Wonderful news. I was lucky enough to have been able to pay for IVF myself and had DD after the first cycle. Cannot begin to describe the joy after trying so desperately. Good luck to everyone trying now

Me too Zara1984

KristinaM thanks that was already the fourth local authority we'd tried (and we spoke to one independent agency as well) so at that point we gave up and decided we'd have to do IVF (privately) which worked for us second time around and we are now proud parents of a baby DD. We were entirely serious about adopting but the process was so byzantine and upsetting that I think we had a lucky escape really. I feel like we might get the thread off topic though so will leave it there although it doesn't take long in any discussion of IVF before someone says you should 'just adopt' instead. AARGH! That word 'just'...there is no 'just' about any of this.

I mean I worry that the changes (42 limit) will make postcode lottery situation worse.

I used to think it was silly to fund IVF. Now I look at baby DS and it breaks my heart to think anyone would be denied this joy who really wanted it. But on the flip side (having had shitty parents) I don't think anyone has a right to have a baby.

On balance I would come down in favour of funding one round of IVF.

But I do worry that without further funding it will make the postcode lottery situation worse, ie longer waits.

I think it's awful too that individual trust have different rules. Shouldn't there be consistent rules nationwide.

I think it's unfair to use anything other than a complete lack of womb as an arbitrary reason to stop access to ivf. I had a home amh test in 2010 which showed my levels to be really low, and according to the 'statistics' i had a very small chance of having any eggs (at aged 30). The nhs turned us down purely on this basis so we went private and after one cycle on gonal F i'm now due to give birth next month having only used 1 implanted embryo from my 5 eggs. Nothing wrong with me other than not many eggs, the ones I had were perfect, so had i believed the nhs that we had no hope, we'd have ended up with no children. Until more people have access the stats are only based on a few people which isn't an accurate reflection of reality. My gran gave birth to my dad at 42 in 1948 and he was perfectly healthy, all cases should be judged individually.

Smokers, alcoholics and obese people. All these groups take take take from the NHS. I would prefer my tax money to go to fund healthy prospective older parents receive one chance of hope with IVF.

But really we cant pick and choose who gets help from the NHS. Everyone has their own health problems, but waiting to meet the right person before settling down is a good thing in my opinion. I might be in that boat too if I hadnt met my husband young.

I see the higher age asa cut off point good, I think that it is unfair to judge fertility by age when it is so easy to do a AMH test and see how likely it is for IVF to work.

I don't think the 2 year ttc before having IVF is a good idea. I was ttc for 20 months, I live in a country with a national healthcare system that offers couples 3 fresh and 6 fet cycles (free) me and DP went to the fertility specialist when we had been ttc for a year, she did a sperm analysis and a load of blood tests/ultrasounds for me, they found my DP had not so great sperm (not really bad but not great) I had pcos but I still ovulated and had regular cycles. I am 28 (was 26 at the time) the fertility specialist referred us directly for IVF, I asked about trying other treatments, maybe clomid or iui but she said what is the point just go and have IVF.

We got the drugs, I went for injection training and we were all set for IVF, I just had to wait for my period to come, it never came I was pregnant. We still have thousends of pounds worth of drugs in the fridge.

I feel like we were rushed into trying IVF, bothme and DP had reduced fertility but nothing in our tests showed that we couldn't get pregnant just that it might be a little harder. I feel like if they had made us wait 3 years it would have saved them lots of money and us lots of stress. If they say for an average healthy couple it can take a year 2 years for a couple with reduced fertility would be normal.

I see it as good news. People say no-one has the right for the nhs to fund IVF for a child but I don't particularly like paying for cancer treatment on the nhs for smokers or for their emphysema treatment. As for the tax on cigarettes it nowhere near covers the nhs costs. Similarly why shouldn't older people be able to have kids? A smoker is easily knocking a minimum of 10 years off their life so maybe they should be banned from having kids due to health issues if older people are refused IVF.

PHineyJ-if you are seriously interested in pursuing adoption right now ( instead of infertility treatment ) , I would contact your local authority again and ask them to put it in writing. AFAIK that is NOT the official policy of any Uk adoption agency.you could also contact any other local agency and ask them to assess you.

If I was asked for my personal opinion,I would advise that families make sure they have explored ALL the options they feel confortable with BEFORE pursuing adoption. For some that will be less invasive treatments such as ovulation induction, others IVF or AID, or perhaps surrogacy. It's a very personal decision.

But if you start adoption and then change your mind about one of the other routes to having a family, there's no going back. Adoption is very very slow and you may have lost your place on the waiting list for IVF etc. You will be older. And if you pull out of the adoption assessment to get treatment you will find it very hard to find anyone else to asses you, unless you are the " right kind " of black family or can parent a child with special needs (normal rules don't apply )

Adoption is a very risky route to having a family. You will not get a newborn baby and there is great competition for healthy toddlers. I've not done both but everyone I know who has says that adoption is much much harder than infertility treatment.which is saying something as many of you know

Sorry,don't mean to hijack IVF thread but so many posters had mentioned adoption I just wanted to clarify

great news. I had no problems conceiving, but had I had problems, would definately have wanted to try IVF. If I then had found out that either postcode, or age, limitations were then in place, I can imagine the utter feeling of helplessness I would have felt.

Allthingspretty why don't you agree with the changes? How does it affect your life?

I am delighted at this news, though I would be happier if the various PCTs would be consistent how they apply guidelines. I have seen too many friends get desperate and end up needing other, more costly medical treatments to combat despair and depression.

My situation: damned lucky. I was married for the first time at 37 and we started ttc 9 mths later when I was 38. I told my GP that we were very 'que sera, sera' about it all, and if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be seeking IVF. I'd had gynae problems since 13 so figured there was a fairly high chance nothing would happen.

6 months later, when 39.4, I got a BFP and after a hellish pregnancy (hyperemesis) my gorgeous DS arrived 4 weeks after I was 40.

If we had been desperate for a child, and one of us had been infertile, we'd have run out of time before the 18mths ttc guideline and I'd have been too old given the current limit. So upping the limit is good in my opinion.

This is excellent news! Fertility problems are health problems, no different to any other. I am shocked at people referring to the right to have kids as some sort of luxury or lifestyle choice! 42 these days is a young age, I have women friends that conceived naturally and had healthy pregnancies at that age so I welcome the news.

Snazzynewyear, thank you for linking to that Moore article - this is exactly the sort of thing that I mean by saying that there is a weird quasi-moral prioritisation in this conversation of medical issues over other barriers to becoming a parent.

I do however think it is important to note that there is nothing historically weird about people having babies in their 40s. My parents' generation all seem to have more than 10 siblings, the youngest ones born maybe 20 years later than the oldest. (Catholics). It's only in a context of people choosing to stop at some point that it can be portrayed (deliberately, by people with an anti-feminist agenda) as weird for women to have children in their late 30s or 40s, (whether or not these might the only children a woman may have, unlike the great grandmothers I am thinking of who started in their 20s and didn't stop)

There are too many barriers and judginesses about having children altogether.

• having them too late

• having them too soon
• having them single
• having them too poor
• having them without owning a house
• having them to more than one father

If we got rid of some of this misogynist hand wringing, maybe fewer women would need IVF. And then, if cost is the barrier, everyone who wanted it could have it.

KristinaM as a matter of fact my DH and I were told in no uncertain terms by the local authority with whom we'd applied to adopt to go away 'do IVF' and come back when it had failed and we'd 'grieved the loss of the children we hadn't had biologically' and then they might re-consider us. I didn't even want IVF at that stage! It's also very hard given the way IVF is developing currently to say when it is 'finished'. There is always something else you can try if you can scrape the funds together. Although, I think the NHS ought to be making it easier to access counselling so that individuals/couples can deal with their grief over not conceiving and agree on when it might be time to stop.

blackswan I think there are some points regarding the NHS 'already providing a reasonable amount of IVF'. Firstly, they don't, as it's on a postcode lottery subject to a lot of quite arbitrary rules (like the one about previous children of the partner disqualifying you). Also, as other posters have pointed out, they don't even do it in the most efficient way e.g. not carrying out diagnostic tests that are routinely offered in the private sector first, so that treatment can be appropriate for the individuals concerned and therefore most likely to succeed. There is also a lack of impartial advice in primary care -- the emphasis seems to be on going straight to IVF when healthcare professionals could if they wanted go through the range of options with patients (and some options would cost a great deal less than IVF).

The NICE guidelines have simply changed what is considered 'reasonable' regarding the age cut-off because of increasing success treating older women.

I've just started a new thread in AIBU on the subject of NHS funding for Homeopathy BTW !

I agree that homeopathy is an area where cuts could be made.

This article from Suzanne Moore on this topic is interesting: "The discussion about at what age IVF becomes pointless is one for the doctors. For me, the much more important one is why do we produce a society that makes it so difficult for women to provide for children when they are most biologically able to have them?"

Warning: I find the comments on CiF often quite woman-bashing so if anyone's sensitive about this issue you might not want to read those as you'll probably get harsher stuff than has been said here.

Completely agree also. Homeopathy proven not to work, nhs should not fund.