to be cross with the 32% of the population who think ivf shouldn't be available on the NHS

[tholeon]

I read an article in the paper this morning saying that only 68% of the population think that ivf should be available on the NHS.

I have an ivf DC. He is the best thing that has happened to me. Infertility was the worst. We are lucky in that we could pay for the treatment without bankrupting ourselves. Not lucky in the 'hurrah lets whip £10k out of our back pockets to pay for all these lovely invasive and unpleasent treatments that may not work, while other people just get to have a nice shag' sort of way - but still, relatively so. I know plently people on fertility forums who are unable to afford treatment at all.

Any of the 32% out there? I know money is tight, but infertility is a medical condition, and it causes great heartache and unhappiness in a way that might be hard to understand for those who have not been through it themselves or seen it at first hand. So why do so many people see it as such a low priority?

Why do people keep saying that for economic reasons we cannot afford all of the NHS treatments we need when we clearly can? We are one of the richest countries in the world. We spend a lower proportion of tax on our healthcare than most of Europe. In the last few years we have committed to spending billions upon billions (and this is only off the top of my head) on the following:

Bank bailouts
The Olympics,
the Royal Family
The War in Iraq
The War in Afghanistan
Trident Nuclear Missiles
Child benefit for kids abroad
Subsiding car industry through Car Scrap Scheme
Free public transport for kids
EU food and fisheries subsidies
At least 2 failed government database schemes

We have the money, the government doesn't prioritize public health or education.

Killing babies is a revolting idea to me, but perhaps that's a different thread and we should get back to the issue in hand?

I'm sure there are lots of areas that NHS funding could be cut without it affecting lives, most health professionals will admit to a massive wastage in the system.
The question has to be where on the priority list does IVF lie? I think we are all agreed that it is below cancer treatment and other life-or-death illnesses, but what about other issues? As the resources are finite, can IVF be prioritised over other treatments? The thing is, as has been said before, we all feel more passionately about the issue that have affected us. To me, better antenatal care and mental health care should be more of a priority, but for someone who longs for a child and has no other issues, this becomes a priority. Who decides anyway? Anyone know?

sanielle Wed 04-Aug-10 12:09:35
To the poster who said they knew they would never go down the IVF route if they couldn't have children. HOw did you know? You couldn't possibly know.

And the urge to have a child it isnt just broodyness... it becomes and obsession after years. It isn't cut and dry.. And many woman back in the good old days had the option of sneakily getting a baby (because they were availabel for adoption) If you woudl like to go back to those ways you will have to close adoptions the way they used to be.. Which caused much heartache to the adoptee who may have found out later.

I can't speak for other's, but I was 1 of several who commented that I wouldn't go down the IVF route..... & in my case I DIDN"T go down the IVF route, & I DO know for sure, because I had my Daughter VERY late in life, well past the NHS cut off & past any acceptable age to easily go the IVF route privately, & at the time we did have money to go privately, but it was something we had looked into & discussed, & though we both wanted Children, accepted that if it wasn't what nature intended, then that was something we should just learn to live with.

It was never an obsession for me, & I do agree with the others that, if its something that leaves you feeling so worthless & contemplating suicide, then that is a completely different issue to easy NHS access to IVF, & I doubt even having the Baby you crave so much would solve that for yore other forces at play here, & sorry, I don't want to offend, & do feel for you, but thats something you really need to explore, before even contemplating parenthood [sd]a

oh have to add that yes my moral beliefs do 'colour my view' (do other people have moral beliefs that don't colour their views???) Am I allowed to think it is wrong AND a poor use of NHS funds?
Thank you for explaining to me how things work in the 'real world', that should be useful to me if I ever move there from the alternative world that I live in

but, rockinhippy, you had a child! you had one! Is that why you found it easier not to go down the IVF route or were you one of those lucky people who got pregnant after you decided to stop trying to get pregnant that we infertiles hear about so often?

DuellingFanjo, of course morality should come into this debate. How utterly ridiculous to suggest it shouldn't! We are talking life and death here. In the same vein, if we lived in a society that accepted cloning as a norm, shouldn't people have the right to speak up against it, and expect those making the legal and big financial decisions to hear them?

mo worries Freddo - glad to be of help

Is a difficult one. I don't actually know anyone personally that has had an IVF baby. I conceived my 2 without any trying. dh wishes there had been a bit more trying !! 3 of my 6 sil's had terrible trouble conceiving, but all ended up with 2 children.
And saying there is not enough money. well yes thtas true. not enough for certian things, like cancer drugs makes me cros.. and i don't even know antyone to whom, this has happened. but it seems so wrong.
so yes, maybe ivf is not at the tiop pf my list of priooritesis. whilst i have sympathy. i suppose i think that there would be enough money for ivf and all other things if our government and alos our nhs weren't so badly run.

you know when you read of srtories, of ministers expenses, mortgages nbeing paid and profits of 250k by mop on houses, you see thta a stupid health report has cost 2 million to do. then that makes you cross. adn you realise there probbaly iis enough money for everything, if so much wasn't wasted.

I had a feeling that religion was behind some of the posters opposition to NHS funded IVF...

The debate is, I believe, about the use of NHS resources loopy. Not about the moral/religious issue of IVF.

obviously people have their own moral views.

I had my first & only Child at 42.......officially past it.......but we were never really trying, that would of made it too much of a core issue, & that didn't feel the "healthy" thing to do......... we just stopped trying not too, & hoped for the best.........so yes, we were VERY lucky.........but if she hadn't of come along, we would of accepted that as our lot, in reality we already had, so she came as quiet a shock

Yes, quite. But where it lies on the priority list surely has to be determined by taking into account:

cost
effectiveness
future health implications
AND ethics

no?

Has anyone mentioned religion? Beliefs aren't necessarily dictated by religion. I believe in the sanctity of life but am totally against all forms of organised religion as a means of controlling morality.
Can't talk for the others, mind.

I agree with capricorn. We do have the money. its just not prioritised and there is so much wastage.

Why should my life be decided by YOUR ethics?

Many people believe nature should be allowed to take its course.. and that doctors should not use medical intervention on anyone. Cancer patients etc. If Jehova's Witness ruled the world you woudln't be allowed a blood transplant.

Would that be fair?

ethics are fine. I guess that's why they have an age limit and other criteria.

Morality and religion are different things IMO and when they are introduced into an argument about finance and cost I think less of the validity of the argument.

I certianly am not saying my need for a child was more important that someone else needing cancer treatment btw. I just think money being used elswhere could and shoud be appropriated for IVF. Which has been mentioned by countless other posters. Why has no one agreed with that?

should say why has "no one addressed that" not agreed with that!

My freudian slip was showing....

Sorry, not read the replies as I'm off out but wanted to say you are definitely not being unreasonable. The key biological purpose of life is to reproduce, so to be unable to have kids is the worst illness going in a way. It's up there, IMO, with cancer and other severe conditions and deserves to be taken seriously as a medical condition.

DF- morality and ethics are not extricable concepts, although religion and morality are not the same thing at all.

(from Oxford English dictionary):
eth·ics / ˈe[unvoicedth]iks/ ? pl. n. 1. [usu. treated as pl.] moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior: Judeo-Christian ethics. ∎ the moral correctness of specified conduct: the ethics of euthanasia. 2. [usu. treated as sing.] the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

Sanielle, your life should not be decided by my ethics. But ethics generally need to be taken into account. Why is euthanasia not permitted in this country? Clearly, the Powers That Be have decided that ethically it is not viable for the country as a whole. You need to look into libertarianism if you're going to take that line.

YANBU I think it should be allowed on the NHS. I can only imagine how painful it must be to suffer infertility and if treatment is available it should be given. I have been through stillbirths and m/c etc and desperation for a baby after loss and that was bad enough but to be inferitle must be terrible.

The NHS helpes people who have problems due to being drinkers, smokers, obese etc....

Hello

well I knew this would generate a discussion!

Thank you for all the thoughtful posts. To the few ( I hope) who equate ivf with a cosmetic boob job or tattoo removal well I can only assume that you don't have children, and have never wanted them. Otherwise presumably your children are as important to you as the size of your boobs, or a tattoo??

It is hard to make a hierachy of needs. Of course different things are important to different people. I never said take money away from cancer sufferers. Of course I didn't. My Dad died of cancer a couple of years ago. Still, although I miss him greatly if I had never had children that would have ultimately been a greater sadness for me than losing him at the age he was and I was then. A different sort of sadness - less acute, more chronic - but as a life regret, I think a bigger one. My sister also for a long time struggled to have a baby although her problem was pregnancy loss, not conception. She also has a bad back, which she (rightly) recieves NHS treatment for. I think that, before she finally had her baby, she would have said that the pregnancy losses were causing her more sadness and difficulty than the bad back. We are all different.

I've never said you can't have an opinion on something until you have been in that situation - but as much empathy as possible helps. Some people are clearly better at that than others.

Say one of the 32% had an adult daughter who as a child had suffered a burst appendix, which blocked her tubes and left her unable to concieve naturally, even at 21 and living the healthiest lifestyle imaginable. Say she and her husband work in low paid jobs, for the sake of (my..) argument as a care assistant and a nursery nurse. Their taxes contribute to all child benefit, to all schools and childrens facilities, and for the lady down the road to have 10 children by 8 different fathers, and not a job between them. Operations to correct blocked tubes have a low success rate but in the circumstances outlined above ivf would have a very very good chance. Shouldn't it be funded by the health service?

I wouldn't take money away from other parts of the NHS to pay for it, but there are many other options, some of which have been helpfully listed by other posters!

And I was never talking about myself. We are very lucky. We could pay!

Actually that reminds me I read about a study where they compared the mental strain of women undergoing fertilty treatment and compared it to someone battling cancer. In that they had similar stress levels (not sure how they judge stress levels ) I will try and find a link to it.

Most IVF is needed due to age-related infertility. If you are in your late 30s you have had 20 years of adulthood to save up for it. Or you could take out a loan and still have 30 working years to pay it off.

The thought of infertility terrified me so I made sure I had my DCs when I was young. This meant I had to raise DS alone but it was a sacrifice I was willing to make.

I have no objection to NHS IVF for someone who is infertile due to chemotherapy or something similar.

If IVF wasn't available for free then less people would make life chioces based on the assumption that they can beat the biological clock. Free availability raises false hopes. If people can have children naturally they should be encouraged to do so. IVF children aren't as healthy as natural children and no-one knows how they will fare once middle-aged and elderly.

jellybeans, so sorry for your losses.