Do you believe IVF is ok?

[Ididivfama]

I’ve been reading a lot of the surrogacy threads recently (and I know that is a different topic) but I was curious to mumsnet posters ideas of ethics and ivf. You can see from my name that we ended up doing it, but I won’t be horribly offended by different views. I’m more curious.

Obviously it’s ’unnatural’ as a process and there is the issue of what happens to any extra blastocysts (I use the term blastocyst as they are pre-embryo stage and calling them embryos makes people view it differently - at least I did!) Even so, would you count leaving blastocysts to decay as abortion? I never did but I’ve read that view now so I’m curious as to how many people view it like that.

As is pointed out on the surrogacy threads - no one is ‘entitled’ to have a child. Is that the same for us ivf parents?

I had ivf twins. Then I've had two babies conceived naturally. It turns out the reason I needed ivf in the first place was probably because of grief at losing my mother combined with an intense need for a child which made me soooooo anxious about not getting pregnant. Not what drs said obvs. But I had hypnotherapy during the cycle of ivf that was successful and had an almost physical reaction to the stress being unlocked, the mental release was so vivid. Human conception is much more complicated than we realise. It's not true to say it's evolutionary preferable for those having trouble conceiving not to reproduce.

Conflating ivf with overpopulation is a fallacy. Infertility is not a method to control population.

I am not too worried about the blastocysts because they never implanted. They're just like the hundreds of fertilisations that never implant that happen without women even knowing. In an ideal world there'd be no extra ones that can't be used. I'm pro choice based on the real world.

The mental effects of infertility can be far worse than many other conditions that receive nhs funding. Being short sighted and receiving glasses (which I was until I paid for laser treatment) for example. It should definitely be free for at least some cycles.

I am comfortable with altruistic surrogacy but think paid surrogacy can be exploitative. I also think the bond between a biological mother and child is sometimes minimised and should be regarded more. My reasoning would be things like the babies dna entering the mother's bloodstream and the interaction of immune systems.

I mean everyone's own experiences lead to different views.

She didn’t get pregnant easily she’s been trying for around 7 years and had five losses. It sounds like a lot to me but I guess it’s not considering how long it’s been. I feel very sad for her. There are issues relating to the losses and she also doesn’t believe in ivf to select ones the might work. Obviously it’s completely her choice it’s just sad.

I also don't believe that the NHS should pay for IVF cycles. This country can't even provide adequate dental care, mental health support and even urgent operations for the people that are currently here, so it seems madness to fund the making of extra people

So, why not privatise all NHS maternity services?

The pregnancy already exists, so you follow through with medical care - or else a born child is at risk

But doesn't mean the state should pay to get everyone pregnant

Because there's a big difference between providing medical care for pregnant women, and actively creating extra people, especially as IVF children are more likely to have health issues.

It requires a lot of determination by the couple to even get to the point of embryo transfer - weeks of investigation appointments, pre-cycle counselling, forms to fill in, training appointments (for the injections and the drugs), check ups, blood tests, waiting lists etc. Its not just like you can rock up to a clinic and access this expensive treatment on the NHS easily. It requires a lot of commitment by the couple over many many months (or years) beforehand. And people condemn it, which is hard for me to reconcile in a world where some families are formed from random casual sex, with no thought or planning going into it. People don't go in for IVF unless they REALLY want to be parents, because the process is not easy.

I exercise, I eat right, I don't smoke, I don't drink. I'm not a drain on the NHS. I am a parent now because of my one funded cycle and I am forever grateful.

I hold my hands up to say I wouldn't have the skillset required to adopt a traumatised / neglected / attachment disordered child. If it wasn't for IVF, I would have been childless and I think my life would be much poorer for it.

So all these people saying they don't think the NHS should fund IVF. BUT they are happy for the NHS to fund treatments for so many other health conditions that are actually caused by people abusing their own health and very preventable- for example obesity , diabetes , lung cancer etc etc.
Infertility generally isn't something that can be helped. In some instances it can be helped but there isn't that support within the NHS either. I think it's very unfair to say ivf shouldn't be funded and I bet those saying it haven't suffered with infertility.
I would never have my son if it wasn't for that NHS round and would've never been able to afford self funded ivf.
And to the person who was saying about mental health and NHS should put resources into that... well infertility and the longing to have a child is massive cause of mental health issues in a lot of women.

I don’t know why you think IVF children are more likely you have health issues. Odd statement. There are hundreds of children born by lack of contraception who have a lot of medical issues, often linked to poverty which is sad to say.

They don’t though.

@Twitchie - have you read the criteria for accessing IVF on the NHS? It’s very strict.

I don't literally mean 'everyone', that wasn't the point I was even making.

You can read between the lines. The two (pregnancy and IVF treatment) are not the same as pp suggested.

It has been shown that IVF babies can have more health issues though, there’s lots of reading online about it.

From what I’ve read it’s incredibly minimal.

Aside from smoking, all the things you listed can be as a result of wider societal issues, other physical health problems and also mental health problems. So it’s very tricky.

Indeed. So we are the only species on earth that has no genetic mutations? I'd love to know what the Fbomb your 12 week bloods are for then.

It might blow people's minds to read this https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/science/02tibet.html

I can't believe people are here debating the ethics of IVF when there are infertile women and women who have been or are going through IVF right now.

You're all absolutely awful people.

If you've never suffered from infertility and gone through the hell that is IVF and infertility, you might be a little bit more understanding.

Read the thread, there are plenty of people who have had difficulties conceiving commenting.

Yes a chemical pregnancy - around half of ALL fertilized eggs end in this way.

Eggs get fertilized all the time, and nature throws them out of our bodies

I apparently can get pregnant fine - carrying a happy little critter right now. I don't think I'd have done IVF if I couldn't, simply because it's very taxing on the mothers and I'm not emotionally strong enough.

I'm 100% in support of IVF - it really changes a couples life and brings them so much joy - and I'm in support of the NHS funding it, same way the NHS paid for my breast reduction years ago for my mental health. Quality of life is essential to a persons well being, and depriving someone of the opportunity to have a child would be devastating, if that's what they value to their quality of life

@Scrantonicity2 that’s so interesting, thank you!

Interesting opinions I guess but I don't care if ivf makes anyone uncomfortable.

I need ivf as my husband had surgery and they accidentally damaged a nerve which means sperm doesn't travel where it needs to go.

Peoples comfort levels about nhs money being used or embryos being discarded or views that infertile people should just adopt, or that its 'natural selection' is water off a ducks back to me. I advise anyone else needing ivf or who has had ivf to have the same mindset. You do you

The fact is we don't know. Louise Brown is just 45. My reading is ISCI ( used for sperm issues) carries a great risk than " just" IVF.

Is there proof for this? I believe it has been debunked.

This was published in 2020
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026576/#:~:text=The%20risks%20of%20heart%20defects,but%20also%20on%20IVF%20itself.

That doesn't make sense though - just because something alleviates someone's suffering doesn't mean that it's beyond debate.

Some deeply suffering infertile people purchase babies to order from poor women. Just because they are in serious pain doesn't mean that they should have a moral free pass!

It's completely okay to debate the morals of anything. It's incredibly important that there aren't untouchable topics. Anyone who would be upset by the content can see from the title what it is about, and avoid the thread accordingly.