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?

How was the survey done - did the questions asked actually say that would you let couple have one two or three treatments - was the 32% agaisnt any treatment or just unlimited? have you read the whole report or just asumed that as 68% agreed so therefore 32% must be against - as this is not how surveys are done

Interesting, Edam, I was told at great length by our private clinic that they weren't allowed by the HFEA to put back more than 2 embryos - something I was quite grateful for, actually!

When I said multiple birth, I was thinking of triplets+, apologies (twins run in our family so to me it's not so unusual!).

The problem of going abroad for multiple embryo implantation isn't really relevant to this particular argument, is it, as they wouldn't be using the NHS to pay for the treatment abroad (although I take your point re costs once they return)?

Thank you, Emmakate

Kickassangel, perhaps it would be cheaper and healthier if children with cancer were left to die, but I think if the world was like that it is not a place I would want to live in! I don't believe that life should all be about survival of the species as I mentioned before. Isn't what makes us human the fact that we can show love and compassion for the weak and not just leave them to die?

There are some very good postings here I must admit - even the ones that I do not agree with are very good and have made me think (but not change my mind!)

FortunateHamster you are right. IVF doesn't cost £10,000... often it doesn't even cost £5,000. It depends on the amount of drugs you need and also if you are able to freeze embryos then your second treatment is considerably cheaper.

I'm not sure that IVF should be on the NHS and Freddo's posts are making sense to me.
And I'm not being all 'alright Jack' about it.... It took more than 3 years to get pregnant with DD (and have been unable to conceive a 2nd), so there was a long period of time when I was thinking it probably wasn't going to happen. It was something I was coming to terms with and sort of made sense to me in a funny kind of way as we're so lucky in other ways (lucky in love - can't have everything) and I was feeling that it would just make sense for us to be one of those couples who can't have children. We got married during this time, I think as a sort of message to each other that we wanted to be together whatever, even though we both so wanted a baby together.

I don't think the 32% is that high a figure really.
But that's interesting if having limited IVF available on NHS does actually save some money.

I can't imagine what it must feel like to be infertile, and I understand why people go to such great lengths to concieve. However, this is the NHS we're talking about. The already struggling, under-funded NHS. People have to accept that when it comes to free healthcare, compromises still have to be made, and priorities still have to be kept in order. When it comes down to funding research into new medicines to alleviate suffering on a worldwide scale, or bankrolling the desired lifestyles of healthy people that for reasons beyond anyone's control, have been left unable to concieve, I would choose the former. Unfortunately, not everyone can have children, that's simply the way it is. It's not fair, but it's the truth. And I don't see how we can feasibly put the burden of trying to cheat biology onto the NHS. It simply wouldn't be right.

Also, on a related note, age is obviously a big factor. If such treatment did become available on the NHS, I definitely think that there must be regulations in place. The fact is, anyone around the menopause age is not designed to have children. Women seem to believe that they can satisfy their sense of entitlement without consequence. IVF at that age has a huge effect on the life of the child and their children, speaking from experience. I'd say; late thirties, early forties; maximum.

Lovecat, yes, HFEA used to encourage clinics to cut down to two but is now encouraging singles (although using all suitable fresh and frozen embryos before starting another cycle).

Treatment aboard is a big factor when the health economists crunch the figures - the number of and costs of resulting multiple pregnancies really do outweigh the costs of providing three cycles of IVF to women who qualify. Not what I expected at all when I looked into this for work!

It's shocking Riven, I didn't realise things were so bad. Imo your DD's wheelchair should be put pretty close to the top of the list of things that the NHS should pay for. Perhaps the reasoning is that a disabled child is more likely to appeal to people's generosity than someone who is old or has damaged their own health through alcohol abuse etc... but you are so right that children should not have to go begging to Charities for such things.
I sincerely hope your DD gets her chair soon.

I think it's very naive to think that parents can, unless having conceived by IVF, have an unbiased opinion about funding of IVF. For some the biological urge is overwhelming, consuming and can fill every waking moment. Tis shocking that many of the posters on this thread would think nothing of a lifetime on benefits, wouldn't think about those to poor to be parents, every human can be a parent and all that. Yet they would deny someone the chance to be a parent.

I would rather see less young parents living off benefits and skipping to the top of housing lists, less healthcare given to people that have just arrived here, less interpreters at the tax payers expense than people not being helped with fertility.

Everone is entitiled to their opinion & these opinions will differ because people have had to go through different experiences in life. I am lucky that I was fortunate enough to get pregnant naturally and didn't need to consider fertility treatment (thankfully). I don't think it would be justified or fair to make a negative comment about IVF not having had the misfortune to need it. How could we understand how somebody feels if they can't have kids. I am sure that the 32% might reconsider their views if they found themselves in the situation where they might need IVF on the NHS.

Just to add for the standard drugs package you need in ivf i was charged £900 - bought outwith the clinic they cost £65. Massive variation in price and a very nice Mark up
For the Nhs. All adds up when you think of the amount of people who purchase their drugs through the clinic.

On the basis of that argument June, no one can possibility comment on the atrocities of rape, genocide, torture who hasn't had that experience

Posieparker

PosieParker Wed 04-Aug-10 17:09:58
I think it's very naive to think that parents can, unless having conceived by IVF, have an unbiased opinion about funding of IVF

True.

But also very naive to think that parents who did conceive using IVF have an unbiased opinion either. I have had to make extensive use of both Urology and Mental Health Services - so I think they are important.

No-one has an unbiased opinion on health issues.

"How can you understand?"

You don't have to have been through the same experience to feel compassion for someone in a difficult situation.

That doesn't necessarily follow that 'lifestyle treatment' should be free on the NHS!

Riven, where are you based?

We (at work) have had some success with WhizzKidz, but more success through minor charities and foundations, such as the Roald Dahl foundation and Sunshine Fund (I'm up North), but there are many others.

Sorky, thanks for the biscuit I have just made a cup of tea. If you think IVF is 'lifestyle treatment' then you really have no idea about anything.

kickassangel Wed 04-Aug-10 15:54:12
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.

'Life & happiness'???
If that's what you really think, then we had better all start sorting out private medical insurance now, because the money for THAT remit is going to run out next Wednesday!

Posit Parker - you clearly have a very clear idea of what is considered the correct lifestyle choice and what isn't. If only the world were that simple.

It makes me seeth that people say overweight people shouldn't get medical care because of their lifestyle choice. Does the same go for car drivers, cyclists, people who take part in sports. They are all risky pursuits.

It's eugenics, nothing more. You are making class decisions and dressing it up as morality and it is all a bit shabby.

I think this has been a very well tempered thread but everybody seems to be getting a bit tired.

Go for it PP, how is it NOT a lifestyle choice?

Fruitstick, I haven't said that fat people shouldn't get treatment, I asked the question whether or not they're more deserving than couples requiring fertility treatment. I do think we have a generation of people just handed out money and perhaps if that generosity was reigned in we could afford to help people who help themselves a bit more. I couldn't give a hoot if that sounds like a 'class decision'.

When we start deciding the nitty gritty of who gets the treatment and who doesn't why should it be people that have fertility issues and not those with weight/drug/alcohol issues(completely excluding those that cannot).

Kiss had the most reasonable and balanced POV as far as I can see, free from prejudice and discrimination.

forget the shite in brackets.

PosieParker please tell me you're kidding. "less healthcare given to people that have just arrived here" .

What? You think that fertility treatment for people born here is more important than emergency care for people who haven't lived here long? I admit, some of my posts might have been upsetting to those very sensitive to these issues, but yours are bordering on fascist. Please rethink your priorities.