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?

Genuinely - define 'odd'?!

It (IVF) is a medical treatment to solve infertility which is classed as a disease by the WHO. What else would you class it? Cosmetic?

I think IVF is fine if you're using your body and your egg. I don't agree with egg 'donation' or being highly selective eg choosing the sex of the embryo.

I think the word "miraculous" is more appropriate. I do wonder how they first thought of how to do the process etc.

Might help her figure out why she is losing the pregnancies. Maybe screen embryo's for abnormalities etc.

Future taxpayers being born. ££££.

You wouldn't do that via IVF though, surely? They genetic test your miscarriage, don't they. after a certain number of losses? They don't send you for IVF...

Maybe a better word is “unnatural”? I dunno but the thought of someone injecting an egg with a sperm in a Petri dish to make a baby is a bit mindblowing.

I have severe endo and damaged ovaries from surgeries so like I say I’ll prob need it, just won’t think about it too much 😆

@fluffyguineapig As someone that has had three miscarriages yes they offered to test the third loss; that I was made to pass at home, with no pain relief then was told to put it in a lunchbox in the fridge till they reopened the next day. The tests were inconclusive.

This is the horror of infertility and recurrent miscarriages. The idea that the NHS is pumping loads of money into caring for women and their families going through this is a total fallacy.

Infertility ruins lives; of course we should fund IVF

I don't know. Guess some do unless you can get pregnant easily. Some might do screening to prevent the chance of miscarriage. No idea. I have had one IVF miscarriage, one natural conception miscarriage.

Yes but this lady did get pregnant easily. IVF isn't a treatment option for recurrent miscarriage.

Yes, like I said I think the NHS is on its knees and therefore not even providing the basic services necessary for a civilised society. It's been underfunded to such an extent that it can't even provide the very basics, and people are dying as a result.

Which basics are you referring too? Miscarriage care or IVF? Please bear in mind that it can take an average of 7 years to get a diagnosis of endometriosis which can be a completely debilitating condition. There are millions of other conditions that only effect women that are underfunded. Maybe if some of these women received proper care from the start it wouldn't decimate their chances of conceiving naturally.

There are SO SO many things we treat on the NHS that are completely self inflicted. Sports injuries, complications from obesity, alcohol and drug abuse. Why on Earth is it always women and women's needs that are the first ones to be put on the chopping block?! Women's health care is shit as it is.

Infertility isn't self inflicted or a lifestyle choice.

I agree the NHS is on its knees; take that up with the tories

The basics I'm referring to are mental health treatment, hip replacements, autism diagnoses and dental treatments.

I completely agree that womens healthcare should be better funded! It's so shocking that women aren't believed, are left to suffer by dismissive doctors.

I'm not sure the point about self inflicted things - I guess that's a separate discussion whether the NHS should fund self-inflicted things? I'm not sure exactly where I'd fall, I'd imagine there is a lot of nuance - e.g. is obesity caused by mental health issues, should we be encouraging physical activity so we have to expect some injuries, etc. etc. I do think that it's a separate issue to the one we're talking about though.

I believe that funding IVF is against the public good though, in a crumbling system without the resources to treat the current people who live in this country with dignity, I don't believe the taxpayer should be funding the making of extra people, especially people who are more likely to have health issues. I believe that, similarly to cosmetic surgery, yes providing it could definitely positively affect the mental health of the recipients, but that scarce resources shouldn't be allocated towards it, and it should be self funded.

Future taxpayers being born. ££££.

Tax used: £0,000,000s from birth to death (education, medical, higher education, nhs dentist etc.

Tax paid: £000 per month from age 18-65.

I have endo and it took me a lot longer than 7 years to be diagnosed. I'm in my 20s and recently had a baby - such a shock because I was told I wouldn't conceive naturally (and I did). Probably won't be able to have another. The NHS needs to take gynaecological issues more seriously and better fund women's health conditions eg endometriosis.

IVF is funded but only for a certain number of times, which I think is fine. NHS shouldn't fund several cycles of IVF because it's so expensive. I'm not sure what tests drs run to investigate recurrent miscarriage, but I know there are blood tests to check for chromosomal disorders. You don't need IVF to check for that.

The basics I'm referring to are mental health treatment, hip replacements, autism diagnoses and dental treatments

Why are autism diagnoses a 'basic' but gynaecological diseases and disorders aren't (in your mind)? I have endometriosis and I'm in debilitating pain and weak from blood loss. There are women with other gynae diseases, prolapse, damage from childbirth etc.

I do believe that gynaecological diseases and disorders are basics. It says so in my second paragraph.

You just said it should be better funded but you didn't say it was a basic. Many gynae issues result in infertility due to poor diagnoses. This should've been at the top of your list.

I didn't say childhood cancers either, do you think that means that I don't consider it a basic?

I was giving a non-exhaustive list of the kinds of things that I consider to be basic treatment in a civilised society, that aren't currently being provided in an acceptable manner.

@fluffyguineapig if someone is having reoccurring miscarriages and they have tested the miscarriage to know why it's happening and there is a genetic issue, you would then have IVF - test the embryos created and select the genetically normal ones to be put back in.

With my IVF round (1st and only), I only had one embryo. He's now a healthy 3.5 year old. No other embryos.

The OP stated that IVF would be the recourse for a Catholic lady suffering from recurrent miscarriage. That is patently not true. You're saying that if the miscarriages were genetic tested and if it turned out to be a genetic issue then the lady could have embryos screened and selected and use IVF to implant them - not only is that many, many steps away from the story that is recounted, you're not going to find any devout Catholics doing embryo selection, especially when they're idealogically opposed to IVF.

In as much as it's a want rather than medically necessary, yes.

Was that not more by luck than design?