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?

Well, the solution to that is to limit the number of embryos you can implant, not to provide IVF free.

I believe that we all view our own needs as more important than others based upon our own experience. Where Riven may, understandably, feel her daughters needs are more important than IVF another person may feel that their daughter's cancer care is more important than provisions for those with a disability.

If everything were means tested in this way then it would cost the NHS a lot more than it does now.

IVF is already limited by age and circumstance and often by likelyhood of success. People are turned down for free treatment all the time.

I don't think IVF should be available on the NHS. The point of the NHS is to provide free at the point of use healthcare for injuries and diseases. There isn't enough money to go round as it is. If there was plenty of cash sloshing about then absolutely I think IVF should paid for, but since there isn't, some things have to be excluded. Infertility which doesn't result from a disease which gives symptoms or other problems requiring treatment isn't a priority in my view. I know people who have spent their life savings on cancer drugs not available on the NHS because otherwise they would have died. I think that funding new treatments for seriously ill people should take priority over IVF any day.

yes, Lola, that's what the HFEA is trying to do. But a. actually the NHS can't tell private doctors what to do, that's kind of the point - they aren't in the NHS. And b. many people go abroad because it's cheaper to countries where often there are very few or different rules.

Honestly, the number crunchers have been through this in massive detail and I doubt very much that I or anyone else on MN can fault their economic arguments.

Btw, the HFEA is due to a be abolished under the government's cuts programme. So there may well be no way of persuading private doctors to change their ways in future.

There will always be choices to be made about health care, duelling. I just think we can make those choices easier by factoring out things like IVF which aren't necessary, leaving it down to choices between things such as you identified.

"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 sincerely hope that you haven't ever said or considered saying this to her.

Unexplained infertility doesn't mean that there is no reason, it just means that they have failed to identify a reason yet. This is one of the big flaws in fertility treatment.

Emma, may I just say one last time, it is cheaper for the NHS to fund a limited number of IVF cycles than none at all? Look further down the thread for the details.

Btw, I haven't had IVF myself so this is purely an economic argument, no personal involvement.

Just following on from my earlier post - before I get accused of being on the "alright jack" bandwagon - DH and I had great difficulty conceiving and were just about to start fertility treatment when I got pregnant (which we would have had to pay for privately, so I know exactly how it feels to think you will never be able to have a baby of your own.

That's precisely what the coalition has done Capricorn. The cuts we're facing in the NHS are absolutely enormous.
Frontline services shouldn't be affected, but cuts cannot simply come from admin/management....not the amounts they are talking about.
Provision of services will have to be looked at.

Just to put things into perspective here. The printer may have saved a few tens of pounds. Rivens' Dd's wheelchair will cost thousands of pounds.
Most items of equipment in Childrens Services are upwards of £500

Some items simply won't be funded and you have to search for charitable funding to acquire the item. Why should children go begging to Charities for pieces of equipment which would transform their lives? ( I know no one has suggested this btw)

I too, am amazed by the low % of people who think funding for IVF shouldn't be available on the NHS and actually, I suspect it would be far, far higher if people had to choose between funding IVF and funding another service.
The way this government is going I suspect they may have that in mind. They have already promoted the use of community voting for what Council Tax should be spent on. I can see that happening within the NHS as well......better then letting GP's decide

Clomid for 6 months costs about £90, why can't people pay for that? Why should that be free, or reduced to the £7 prescription charge?

edam - stop bashing everyone over the head with your point over and over again! We can all read what you wrote. It doesn't detract from the general issue of the need to prioritise where there are limited resources, and what should and should not be prioritised.

Duelling, obviously I have never said this to her and never would. I desperately want her to have a baby. What I'm saying is that she is putting herself through tremendous strain, procedures tests etc which can't be helping her to conceive naturally.

I realise I am at risk of being insensitive and I really don't mean to be. It's an awful situation to be in and I don't have an answer.

I know how stressful ivf will be for her if it comes to it as I also know how much time she has spent working towards this point and focussing on it, only for no baby to arrive.

@ Sorky - you say 'just to put things into perspective here. The printer may have saved a few tens of pounds. Rivens' Dd's wheelchair will cost thousands of pounds.
Most items of equipment in Childrens Services are upwards of £500'

I don't think you're getting my point. That was one printer, in one dept in one hospital which cost 3 times more than it should, therefore if you extrapolate that type of thing across all dept in all hospitals/GPs, we are talking many millions of pounds.

A supplier hiking up the prices because they know the auditing within the NHS is pretty rubbish and that there is so much bureaucracy they probably won't be found out or questioned on it anyway is fraud and the NHS is being defrauded by a lot of cash from dentists claiming for NHS patients that don't exit to employees stealing pens from stationary to suppliers overcharging for goods. If this was properly fixed, Rivens daughter could have a wheelchair in every colour in the rainbow.

I just had to have a quick read to see what was happening on this thread, which I shouldn't have done as I should have known I'd have to comment!

Kickassangel I can see the point your making, but I think there is a difference between helping a child that has already been born and facilitating the birth of another one that might be born. Personally if I had £10k and I had to choose between choosing to treat a child with cancer or provide IVF for an infertile couple I'd choose to do the former. Is that really discrimination?

Someone commented earlier that the main purpose of life is to have children. I'm interested to know how many people believe that? I certainly don't think it's true. My belief is that we're more than machines with an inbuilt survival of the species mechanism... people who do not have children can contribute to the world in other ways just as valuable.

The reason I get a bit annoyed by some of the postings on here is that they just seem to sum up what is meant by the term 'Selfish society'.ie. I want a child now, I want the child to be my own flesh and blood (not adopt) and I don't want to have to pay any money towards it... The harsh reality of the 'real world' (which someone earlier commented I didn't live in) is that we don't always get what we want and we have to change our plans and make the best of the alternatives.

I realise that infertility is a completely devastating problem for a lot of people, but I think that some things should be coped with rather than 'cured'.I am sorry if this offends anyone but I am allowed to give my opinion. I appreciate that some people posting on here have been through some terrible misery and I do have great sympathy. However the OP was asking if it was unreasonble to be annoyed that people do not think IVF should be funded by the NHS and yes I do think that is an unreasonable reason to be annoyed! People are allowed to have their own opinions, even if you yourself find it offensive.

Emma - don't be so rude. I mentioned it again because it looked as if people were going over the same arguments not realising there is solid evidence here. Once my post was up realised someone had posted while I was writing.

There is no rule on MN about how often someone can contribute to a thread, you know.

agree with everything freddo said. I too would rather spend £10k on better treatment for a child who is here, and ill, than IVF. I will get flamed for this next point no doubt, but, if all the stories in the paper are true about it costing £100k plus to bring up a child, then why are people convinced that they can afford that extra £100k + over the next 15 - 20 years, but can't afford the IVF in the first place? DH and I don't have £10k sitting around, but are financially secure enough that we could borrow it, e.g. by adding it to our mortgage, and that's what we would have done if I hadn't got pregnant - I wouldn't have expected anyone else to pay for me to have a baby. If we couldn't have afforded that, I would have been worried about how we would afford the costs of bringing up the baby, given that having the baby means major drop in income for me as I am going back 3 days a week instead of full time, and will have to pay for child care, not to mention all the other myriad costs of having a baby/older child.

Point taken Capricorn

They come in a rainbow of colours btw

My twopennorth as someone who has had private IVF/ICSI as it wasn't NHS-funded 6 years ago in our area...

I don't think it should be available on the NHS. Not when people are being told they can't have treatment for life-threatening illnesses on cost grounds.

I don't think Edam's argument holds water, as private clinics won't put more than 2 embryos back at a time (in fact I think there's now a law in place that they are not allowed to put more than 2 embryos back) so the chances of multiple births nowadays with IVF are minimal.

DH had lymphatic cancer, which was why we were forced to go down the ICSI route - by the time it was diagnosed he had bugger all in the way of swimmers left anyway, and the mononucleal antibody treatment he received destroyed the rest of them. We'd spent 10 years trying before we had DD and had 2 failed cycles. It cost us a fortune and yes, we were lucky that we were able to afford it (well, extend the mortgage rather than 'afford' it). Yes, it caused me a lot of grief and anger when I thought we'd never become parents. But I would have adjusted to it. I'm not saying I would ever have gotten over it, but I would have made the necessary adjustments and carried on with my life. Not being able to have DD would not kill me.

OTOH, NICE have refused to licence the experimental treatment that saved DH's life on cost grounds.

I know where I'd rather the money was spent.

I have had two rounds of NHS IVF - luckily the second one worked. If it hadn't been available on the NHS we would've either saved up (although by the time we had more money my chances would've been lower) or looked into adoption.

Though I took the NHS route, I would understand if the government chose not to fund it. At the same time, I think there are reasons to fund it as well.

I've read the thread pretty quickly so I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned some of the scientific benefits from IVF - for example when I had mine I chose to sign forms saying that unusable eggs and embryos could go into research, such as stem cell research. There would be far fewer eggs/embryos for this valuable research without IVF.

I think it's unfair to solely focus on 'IVF isn't life-threatening and cancer is'. The NHS pays for tons of things that aren't life-threatening! I think it's important for our society to improve life as well as save lives (though I do agree that saving should have priority) and as infertility is a medical condition (save for after the menopause), I see nothing wrong with looking at ways to correct it.

Personally I have unexplained infertility. I'd rather there were more diagnostic tests to find out why exactly, but as there weren't I did IVF. But you don't jump straight to IVF. First there's simply not conceiving, then there's blood tests, sperm tests, waiting for referrals, clomid, ultrasounds, HSGs. At the end of it all you still don't have an answer and someone says 'we'll put you on the list for IVF' - by that stage many people who wouldn't have considered it at the beginning will have changed their minds.

Adoption isn't necessarily the solution. It can take years in itself, there aren't as many babies available as some imagine and older children can often be more difficult to look after due to their backgrounds. It's great if infertile people do want to adopt, but it does require a great strength of character (I admire anyone who does it) and is not for everyone. Isn't it something like one in five adoptions fail for older children?

I don't believe NHS IVF really has anything to do with women who 'wait too long' to have children - for a start there's an age limit on it! I was only 26 when we started to TTC.

Perhaps I could've accepted that it wasn't meant to be, but there are plenty of medical conditions that aren't life-threatening that could be left 'as is' and are treated on the NHS anyway.

Now as I've said, I'd understand if free IVF wasn't available, so I'm not saying it should come before live-saving treatment. But if whoever's in power chooses to put money into life-improving as well as life-saving treatments, then I think that's fair too.

I look at my four-week old now and I am so glad he's here.

ps. isn't IVF more like 5k than 10k? And it's the drugs that cost most of that.

also agree with everything lovecat writes. Delighted to hear that your DH recovered.

To be fair not everything on the NHS is more deserving in my mind that a couple who desperately want a child. Can health complaints from people who have drank, smoked or eaten themselves into poor health are really more deserving than a couple, for no fault of their own, who need help to have a child? This is not my call to make of course.

Discrimination is unacceptable in health care yet it exists on a grand scale.

Lovecat - there's no law. And yes the HFEA is trying to encourage clinics to follow guidance, but guidance is all it is (and HFEA is being abolished anyway). And that still doesn't address the problem of people going overseas for cheap IVF.

I'm not making this up. It may be counter-intuitive - I was surprised - but the health economists really have crunched all the figures very carefully.

freddy - but you're bot treating a child who might be born, you're treating two adults who already exist.

if the nhs was only there for life threatening situations, i would agree totally that ivf doesn't fall into that category - until the couple involved get too depressed, that is. but that isn't the raison d'etre of the nhs, it is there to support the life & happiness of ALL UK residents. therefore, you can't just pick & choose which ones.

to pick on ivf is completely arbitrary & all the arguments to support that decision are just a smoke screen.

can you imagine the uproar if it was decided that only people who were right handed should get nhs treatment? or those with blue eyes? how about the nhs is really only for people with the right skin colour?

couples who cannot conceive naturally have a medical problem. as the nhs DOES treat non-life threatening illnesses, then they are entitled to treatment.

it is unrealistic to think that all health problems, no matter how small, can be taken care of without huge taxes. just as it is unrealistic to assume that gov pensions will support the entire nation. cuts have to be made somewhere, but discriminating against just one group is ridiculous.

2 other points

the reasons for rises in infertility are many & complex but ONE of them is because some genetic illnesses are now treated & children who would have died live to adulthood & pass on those genes, thus weaking the gene pool of society.

children born from ivf do not have a genetic predisposition towards needing assisted fertility themselves.

in fact, it would be cheaper for the nhs AND healthier for the nation if children with cancer were left to die, and grown ups with unexplained infertility were given ivf. harsh, but true. yet, i would never argue that children with cancer should be discriminated against.

Btw, what the HFEA is trying to do is to encourage private clinics to implant single embryos. Implanting two clearly does carry the risk of multiple birth, obviously.

Fortunate - you are right. Just looked at website for my local private hospital and its £4,800 for the first cycle and slightly less for subsequent cycles. Personally, if I couldn't have afforded this, I would have been worried about whether I could have afforded to bring up a child, but I am not saying that people who don't have that money shouldn't be allowed to have children or anything like that before you all jump down my throat, just saying that that is how I would have felt.