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?

I am saying the amount of money that goes to parents who have children in the way of maternity pay, child benefit, schools, etc That we ALL Pay for, some consideration should be given to the rest of us. My husband has paid taxes for 20 years, never been chronically ill, never used JSA. So why should we have have been punished if we had chosen to go the IVF route. To be fair we are planning our own pension as we know there won't be much hanging about in our old age. So everyone else's child getting an education to pay taxes when we are old doesn't really benefit us.

But that doesn't mean we would ever choose not to pay out for children to go to schools. Because that isn't the kind of society I want to be apart of.

The language of leaving it too late sounds judgementL but it is not meant to be.

The fact of the matter is that we become fertile at 14ish for the next 30 years. However most people miss the first 15 years of that spending it trying NOT to get pregnant.

That is not to say that all fertility issues are unsolvable or age related but the fact that we leave of til we're over 30 means there is then a desperate hurry because it's time.

If we all started trying when we were 20 I wonder how many of us would need ivf at 30. Maybe if the cutoff for nhs was 30 in ten years time maybe girls cod make that choice start trying early or start saving just in case c

The NHS is not there to create life.
It is there to help preserve it.

Preserving life, in terms of depression due to infertility, requires vastly increased funding to mental health services.

I find the whole argument of 'walking in someone else's shoes' incredibly offensive.

In all aspects of healthcare, providers have to weigh up the cost-benefits of treatment. Sad, but true.

Example
An elderly person, already infirm and in need of low level home care, is in pain with arthritis and requires a hip replacement.
This operation is expensive, the recovery period lengthy and the life quality of the person will not be substantially improved, other than pain relief.
The cost of recovery will likely be greater than for a younger more active person, one who maybe able to continue to work.
The cost to social services for increased care at home has to be considered.

Providers are faced with these dilemmas all the time because resources are shrinking. Money has to be prioritised

The same goes for Cancer drugs.
They may prolong the life of someone for 6 months. For the family, the cost can be justified of course.
But at 10's of thousands of pounds......can it really?

I personally would take the funding and move it to Childrens Services.
That severely disabled children have to wait for basic pieces of equipment is a disgrace.
The fact that nappies for incontinent disabled children are rationed is utterly unbelievable.

Well sanielle I don't want to be part of a society that keeps spending money on things that, whilst nice for the individuals concerned, are of no benefit to society. Educating other children is beneficial. Enabling someone to have a baby is not. We need to get past the spending mind set and realise that just because soemthing seems like a nice idea, it doesn't mean the state should provide it.

@Fruitstick, if we all started trying when we were 20, there would be no girls at university. Also most men don't want to be tied down with kids either at 20, do you suggest the girls become single mothers and claim off the state or have kids with older men in their 30s/40s who are ready to have a family?

I started TTC when I was 31, I was not too old. It wasn't my choice to wait until then. I met my DH when I was 27 and he wasn't ready then. The guys I was with before were not father or husband material.

"maybe girls cod make that choice start trying early or start saving just in case "

it takes two to make a baby why should the burdon of saving for something you don't even know you need be on women?

I'm going to take myself off this thread as it is really raising my blood pressure.. Not healthy in my fragile condition!

((Wouldn't want to cost the state by needing to see a doctor!))

quite right sanielle. Though interestingly the state does persist in wasting money making me ante-natal consultant appointments whichI don't need, the pointlessness of these appointments only serving to increase my blood pressure!

I know what you mean Sanielle, I've never seen such a large group of 'I'm alright Jack's' congregate in one place.

I cannot believe capricorn thinks it's an "I'm all right Jack" attitude to think that money should be spent on such things as giving Riven's daughter should the wheelchair she needs rather than IVF, which nobody actually needs, in the true sense of the word.

it might be fairer but it would cost more.

I think means testing costs more in relation to, say, child benefit as the payment itself is small. Would this be the case with something on the scale of IVF? I don't agree with means testing IVF anyway, I just don't think it should be available on the NHS, but it's an interesting point.

I had no idea about Rivens daughter so clearly I'm not referring to her as an 'I'm alright Jack'. I'm clearly talking about those who had children easily then tell people who are struggling with infertility that they should've had kids when they were 16, were too selfish during their 20s to TTC or should just accept their situation and give up.

Sorry to hear about your daughter by the way Riven. Plus where did I say tha IVF is more important than her child's wheelchair? don't put words into my mouth. If you look at all of my previous posts I have said that there is enough money to help people like Riven AND fund IVF.

Riven sadly for your DD I think you made the point beautifully,

none of us are "alright jacks"...FAR from it.. (sorry but I find that an incredibly spoilt brat attitude to take in defence of very valid arguments)....just realists

I too have health problems that can & do, often affect my quality of PHYSICAL life, but on the sliding scale of things, I would put your DDs needs WAY above my own, as I would the earlier poster mentioning shortages & rationing in Childrens health depts......& I just cannot get why a Child that does not yet exists needs to take a chunk out of very limited resources, over & above those that do exist *& struggle

Any money the NHS spends on things like IVF is money taken from more deserving causes capricorn. And I don't think infertile people were too selfish in their 20s etc. I think it must be terrible to be infertile. I just don't think it is something the state should step in to try and deal with.

I wasn't suggesting it as a realistic option, I made that quite clear. And no I'm not suggesting we should have all become single mothers.

I'm metely saying that, whilst waiting til you're thirty is not too late, half of your fertility has already gone. Men and women have both made choices which lead us to have children later, nor all of them willing ones and the natural consequence of that is the increased possibility of infertility. It's bit a judgement, just a fact.

And obviously the pressure is on the woman in that regard as it's her fertility that dwindles more drastically with age. Men coast through life, get to 4o then marry a 25 year old.

Agree with that fruit. Basically "that's life".

The point I'm trying, apparently badly, to make is that lots of couples ttc for such a small percentage of their fertility before requesting fertility treatment because there isn't time to try naturally for a couple of years.

A friend of mine has started the, admittedly, long process as she hasn't been pregnant in 6 months. It has been classed as unexplained infertility. It's incredibly stressful for her but I have an awful feeling that things might be different if she just relaxed about it and gave it a little longer. She is only 30.

I admit, I am alright jack in that regard but that doesn't nean I am not entitled to an opinion.

Yes I'm a spoiled brat for supporting people who need IVF treatment eventhough I don't need it myself. You have had a I'm alright jack' attitude in many of your posts and because you didn't like it when I brought it up you then say that you have a 'real' illness (that you've never mentioned before) not like those scrounging IVF people...Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

BTW I apologise to anyone who thought I was saying that IVF takes precedence over other treatments, that was not my intention because I don't believe that. Instead of fighting over who is more deserving of what, I think we should look at wastage in other areas of government spending and within the NHS. I don't know where I read it but I read that an NHS dept bought a piece of equipment, think it was a printer or something similar from a supplier only to find out later on that the same model was available online for 3 times LESS, clearly money is being wasted and money is being creamed off by various parties via price inflation. If this was all tackled, Riven would have all she needs plus people who need IVF would all get their 2 or 3 tries.

listen, we ALL have health problems - i really don't get why one set of people seem to be easy prey to be discriminated against.

for those of you saying that you don't NEED to have kids, i suggest you pop out a couple of extras & hand them over to people who can't have them. after all, you don't need them & it won't cost you very much, just a couple of days off work whilst you give birth, hand the baby over to the grateful people. if you don't need kids then it shouldn't matter who brings them up.

the reason why i feel so passionately about this is that it is DISCRIMINATION to choose ONE group of adults who have health problems, and say that they can't be helped.

Loads of medical treatment is either a)unnecessary and/or b)increases the population. that means that loads of treatment is taking resources away from other people who could be seen as more needy/worthy.

and just to re-iterate, it is the adults who receive treatment, those adults who exist, pay taxes etc, and whose existence is being made miserable. the fact that, when successful, a child is the outcome, is no different from an existing child having an operation which they survive - there is one more person alive in the UK, which the nhs has enabled.

Or alternatively capricorn, tax payers would have to pay less in tax if the watse - including niceties such as IVF - was stopped.

It is cheaper for the NHS to fund (limited) IVF than to have people going private and ending up with multiple births.

So can we please knock the 'there are other priorities' argument on the head?

I did explain why further down the thread.