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?

SassySusan

The EWTD says we are allowed to work 48 hours max but in reality who's going to go home when there is a sick child under your care or your theatre list has gone longer because of complications? It's not like one can shut down the computer and leave. We have to sign timesheets to prove comliance...in the most part people fill in the hours they are 'supposed' to work rather than the hours they actually did.

Agenda for Change....here it is straight from the contract!

^Where an employee intends to return to work the amount of contractual
maternity pay receivable is as follows:

• (i) for the first eight weeks of absence, the employee will receive full pay, less any Statutory Maternity Pay or Maternity Allowance (including any dependents? allowances) receivable;
• (ii) for the next 18 weeks, the employee will receive half of full pay plus any Statutory Maternity Pay or Maternity

Allowance (including any dependents? allowances) receivable, providing the total receivable does not exceed full pay.

• By prior agreement with the employer occupational maternity pay may be

paid in a different way, for example a combination of full pay and half pay or a fixed amount spread equally over the maternity leave period.

• Employees will also be entitled to a further 26 weeks? unpaid leave.^

So NOT 6 months full pay actually!

Re: Infections...nope, wasn't suggesting that I am paid my salary (which is NOT well above the London average certainly) because I'm exposed to infections, it's because I've spent nearly 15 years to get to the point I'm at now, work 60+ hour weeks most weeks and am exposed to infectious bodily fluids etc (Agenda for Change Criteria). Actually I'm on about what a first year banker or barrister would be on (did I mention it's taken me 15 years on top of my two degrees and that I can't earn much more than I do now!!)

And your final retort...I have worked in developing countries (Romania) (and on a voluntary basis at that so I'm clearly not in my job for the money!) and actually salaries whilst not comparable to here are better than your average in that country so I'm not sure what your point was...should we start paying medics and health professionals third world salaries?

I didn't intend to get into heated debate but I thought some of the real life facts about the people that provide health care to sick people when they need it needed to be made evident!

Wanttofly

"People with PCOS have trouble conciving and losing weight as part of the condition it would be unfair to refuse treadment because of that condition."

When I was diagnosed with PCOS the consultant told me that my periods may return if I lost weight. Sure enough I lost weight and my periods came back and I got pregnant without assistance. Its hard to loose weight with PCOS but it greatly increases the chances of both getting pregnant and also of being able to carry to term. Yes often women with PCOS have reduced fertility but if you can't help youself by loosing weight why should the NHS pay for treatment that is less likely to work??

well said JoulesM

Beacuse some people might not be able to lose enough weight in the right time to still beable to concive naturaly or go over the age criteria (sp?) in a healthy way.

I agree and think that most people trying ivf will have already tried losing weight and everything else before starting ivf.

Also the odds of ivf working are realy low so in your statement why try ivf on anyone?

I am realy glad IVF is there and can help people have children. why should it be for only the rich that can afford it?

Message deleted

Message deleted

sassysusan

"Now £75K is just the bare minimum - BUT don't forget to add your bonus - Distinction Awards

The bottom award is £32K - so the starting salary for a consultant is more than £100K."

That isnt true at all - about 10-11% of consultants receive distinction awards, they are given on the basis of an 'exceptional contribution' to the NHS

well said JoulesM

Don't take those criticising hospital doctors to heart, there are many more voices on here appreciating what you do.

Those of us that actually know what you doctors do appreciate that it isn't a "job", it's more of a way of life & everything else in life has to fit round it, a true vocation (although that is seen as an "old fashioned" word these days)

I say that as someone who has worked in high pressure jobs and done 80+hr weeks regularly, but none of that comes close to what hospital doctors can experience, & if I make a mistake because I'm tired no one dies...

Message deleted

Yes YABU to be cross wtih the 32% of people who think that IVF should not be avaialable on the NHS.

Infertility may very well be classifiesd as a "medical condition" but not one which requires treatment.

The planet is overrun with babies who are conceived naturally and the number that we have is totally unsustainable as it is.

I think that IVF treatment should be extremely low priority as far as the NHS is concerned. One round and only part funded at that is what it should be limited to although I'd stop funding it altogther personally as I think it's totally non-essential and the money that's spent on it could be put to far greater use elsewhere actually making people better.

Message deleted

at doctors working a 48 hour week.

My dh is a GP and has already done 55 hours this week (since 8am Monday) with another day to go - but he is finishing early tomorrow - 5pm - so he can get a flight for a weekend away.

Great weekend away eh? He'll have worked 64 hours by then.

Yes, I do think doctors are overpaid compared to some other professions, (we do benefit from the salary, however we don't see a lot of him and are looking forward to him recruiting another doctor so he can go back to a 4 day week - "only" 50 hours or so!! I'd rather have more time, less money, but he has a contractual obligation (not to mention a personal obligation) to his patients and will not let them down.

The reason he works so hard at the moment is that his colleague in the practice worked right up until 8 weeks before she died of cancer - also not wanting to let her patients down!

Sassysusan you couldn't be more wrong, I have very close friends + a family member who work as doctors, no PR machine here, just my own eyes & ears over the years...

Why don't you tell us why YOU have such a beef with doctors? Were you rejected by medical school or upset by a doctor who didn't think you were a "proper" doctor (I noticed you said you were "not a medical doctor")?

But at the end of the day people who need IVF pay their taxes too!!! This is the only treatment I have ever needed and we had to pay in the region of £5k ourselves and were lucky it worked first time and we now have DS

Hello

Genevieve out of interest do you have children or did you choose to not do so, or to adopt, in the interest the the planet?

Also, I'm still waiting for the posters (luckily only a few I know) who equate the importance of ivf with cosmetic boob jobs to clarify whether they have children themselves, and if so how they rate the importance of those children in comparison to the size of their boobs.

To reiterate, I was never suggesting that we take money away from cancer patients or disabled kids. If nappies for disabled kids are really rationed that is appalling. But I was trying to highlight the fact that infertility is a real medical problem which can cause a great deal of suffering. Anyone unsure of how much should go to fertilityfriends.co.uk and look at some of the postings there. I could pay for my treatment, so I was ok. It seems unfair to penalise those who can't.

I'll stay out of the doctor's debate for now. An interesting one but a whole other topic!

Yes, I wonder how many people complaining about how many kids there are on the planet are on MN because they decided not to add to the problem??

I wasn't entitled to IVF as my partner had children from his previous marriage. Therefore the NHS deemed being a step-mother to two teenagers should be enough to meet my emotional needs.

Amazingly we got pregnant naturally eventually after a lot of heartache and now I'm almost ready to give birth at our NHS hospital which will be providing me with aromatherapy oils and an iPod dock in my room to improve my birthing experience. I'm all for the money being spent on cancer treatment, but it's not is it?

Final point - any offspring I have will ultimately be paying the taxes supporting the NHS when we're all old and in need of it. We now have more elderly people than young upcoming tax payers...maybe we should be thinking a bit more long term!

GenevieveHawkings only has one child, by choice, and I think believes other people should limit themselves to just the one. Or in the case of infertile people none.

As far as I can see she didn't adopt the one child she has and her altruism doesn't extend to considering doing so.

Once again it's easy to be smug about other people when you have what you want.

Message deleted

Totally agree with Mrs Nozzle. Yes the NHS is stretched and people need cancer treatment etc. But where do you draw the line? Should plastic surgery for those involved in car accidents etc be banned then? Not life threatening, but no doubt causes massive psychological pain and damage. The whole question of medical ethics is totally fraught.

Yes having children is not a right. But infertility is a medical condition and IVF a medical treatment and people that need it have every right to have it. All they're doing is making the decision to try and have children like any one else and to try and correct a medical problem that is stopping their bodies (for what ever reason) from funcitoning properly. Therefore of course it should be free on the NHS. Yes there's no guarentee it will work, but there's no guarentee any kind of medical treatment will work.

The amount of psychological pain and anguish that infertility causes is just horrific. It's right up there with any other kind of mental illness / depression. To deny people the chance to even try is inhumane.

Also, you are vetted really thoroughly when you have IVF. You have to be in a stable relationship and have passed all sorts of medical screening tests and it's only given to people who are medically suitable. Its not available free to women over 40 and in most counties you only get one go free anyway.

Yeah ok game up, I do have twin sons who born from our one free go of NHS IVF treatment. And I will always be eternally grateful to all tax payers (and current government policy) for making them possible.

thank you marmitesarnie: good post. And congrats on your sons

SassySusan I like the idea of paying for ivf rather than contraception (since ivf is there to attempt to fix a medical problem...while contraception is not..) However I guess the arguement for free contraception is that it helps to prevent unplanned pregnancy...which may in itself end up being a cost to the state.

Message deleted

well yes, exactly. If contraception was no longer free then the NHS would save shitloads. Not sure I would like tht either but you have a very good point.

Still looking forward to GenievieveHawkings returning and explaining why she thinks it is more incumbant upon those of us with blocked tubes, or husbands with low sperm counts (or whatever..) to be responsible for the state of the planet than she is herself...

Message deleted

I am finding people's opinions a bit ridiculous. This isn't a question about whether the NHS should pay for either cancer treatments or IVF. The NHS pays out for a myriad of different things, not just cancer, and I bet a lot of them are NOT life threatening.

Infertility is a medical issue but it is not treated as one. I believe it is a right for people's bodies to work correctly, and if they are not, that is what the NHS is there for. Which things exactly are a right and which are a privilege?

Is everyone who is saying that life threatening diseases should come first happy to pay for ALL their non-life threatening medical treatment themselves or just things which don't apply to them?