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 very stupid to think contraception should not be free, yes just what we need more unwanted and unplanned for people on the planet.

Message deleted

why can't people pay for contraception runawaylife? Most working people can afford to and couples could share the cost. If they don't want to then they should just take more care with their fertility. If they end up having kids they don't want they can always put them up for adoption as there are plenty of people who want babies and cant have them sounds like a win win situation to me to be honest.

Message deleted

like it, SassySusan

"I suspect a lot of the issue is that people (depressingly) think the NHS should prioritise things they might need... Most people are lucky enough to conceive without intervention, and if you've already had your family so you know you're alright woooo hoooo... so to hell with IVF...."

No, I was told I would need IVF and in fact that I might be able to get it on the NHS. I turned it down.

I've also paid for my own contraception (before I knew dh had fertility issues).

The reason contraception is free on the NHS is that it's quite simply the cheapest option. If contraception is not free, then you get more unwanted pregnancies, which result in abortions or unwanted children. These cost more than supplying contraception on the NHS.

The alternative to supplying IVF does not cost the NHS anything. Perhaps there should be some sort of test like there is for cosmetic surgery, where if the mental health of the person requiring the treatment is seriously at risk, then they can be referred for IVF.

Though personally, I think someone with that mental make-up needs counselling not a baby.

Do they still have that stipulation for NHS IVF that both partners must be childless? That always bothered me a bit.

Societal expectations amd judgemental attitudes of a woman not being a 'real' woman unless she reproduces, is cruel and utter nonsense. I do wish women were advised that there are other ways to express our creativity, other than bearing offspring.
it breaks hearts, induces a sense of failure and puts huge stress on relationships.
No I dont beleive the NHS should foot the bill.

Semibreve Like I imagine the vast majority of women who have experienced fertility problems I have thought long and hard about my reasons for wanting children. I think for me it was largely the fact that I come from a close and happy family, and I wanted to carry that family on. Parents get old and eventually die (I mentioned in a previous posting that my father already has), siblings move away and form their own families. I wanted to continue a close knit family life of my own. That and the fact that I have always genuinely liked babies and children, and enjoyed the nurturing role. I don't think it had much to do with expressing my creativity, or indeed society's expectations.

I am not sure all of us were being 100% serious about the contraception argument - pragmatically obviously it makes sense to supply contraceptives free as the likelyhood is that they reduce unwanted pregnancies and hence costs to the state. However ethically it clearly is incorrect that the infertile minority (with the medical problem) pay for contraceptives for the fertile majority, if the treatment they need to address that medical problem is then not paid for.

I have never felt pressured by anyone to have children. I didn't particularly want them when I was younger but as I got older I changed my mind and not because society told me to.

@ women being pressurised into having children...

What a lot of drivel - I can't imagine any woman bowling up for the IVF process diven primarily by societal pressure to reproduce...

I am amazed that some people are complaining about what doctors earn. You do know Consultant is the most senior position, right? and to get there the lieklihood is you've worked as a jr doc, as HO, a SHO...earning FAR less than the figures you quote. You realise your job means regular moving around quite large locations, so putting down roots is very tricky. I have a friend who considers a "short day" as 16 hours of work. 16 hours, working on a very busy peads ward, earning a lot less than I do in the city, for a job that saves lives. I cannot begrudge a penny of a salary that actualyl has a life saving element to it. Being a doctor is a calling, it requires incredible dedication and sacrifice at a personal level. She has one Saturday off a month AT BEST.

As for contraception not being free- do you truly believe that would reduce cost?! How many more STDs would be treated, how many more abortions and teenage pregnancies would occur?

I conceived (naturally) and had a baby at 40. Just want to agree with another contributer that this image of deciding to wait for babies because of career etc. is a media-thing I think - it's just about meeting the right man etc. etc. Would have been irresponsibility to try any sooner.

Also, re: IVF I think there is too much reliance on this method - there should be some initial attempts on counselling re:timing of intercourse, diet etc. before medical intervention. A lot nicer for the 'patient' to experience and cheaper to boot. It's amazing the different caffeine, alcohol etc. makes I think.

IVF certainly isn't given to people without having had investigations into why they are failing to conceive. Couples are advised to diet if they need to and are often turned down for IVF if they are overweight. Same for smoking/drinking. By the time you get to IVF you will have had all the counselling RE timing/relaxing/eating well that you need. Some people do find diet changes will help them but for the majority of people who go through IVF they will have tried everythig and there will be real medical reasons why they can't conceive.

I do agree with you on teh first point RE the media and Career women though.

Coraltoes - average UK salary is about £23k. If you earn a lot more than a consultant (where the starting salary is £75k) that probably gives you a very distorted view on what a good salary is.

JeWren - I haven't done IVF either - but I think it takes years to get to the point where it is offered on teh NHS - there is a 2 year wait in my city. Before you get there, you will have been though umpteen tests.... All the poeple are know who went down this route have an encloypedic knowledge of how to get pg....

Ok then question: if it's not choice to wait until 35+ to start TTC then why are women having babies later and later over the last 20 years or so? My mum had me at 31 (she had problems concieving). She was considered an elderly mother at the time. Are we fussier than our parents? Are men less happy to settle down earlier? Why?

I had my DS at 30. Honestly I never thought it'd happen so early but my Dh is older and for some reason I thought we'd have probs. I'm one of the first of my friends to have kids. Some haven't met the right man but a lot have just enjoyed their 20s.

'Do they still have that stipulation for NHS IVF that both partners must be childless? That always bothered me a bit.'

Why? It's not a limitless pot of money. It seems only fair that people with no children should have a go on the NHS over people who do - on either side.

bedubabe, who knows what the many reasons could be. Contraception is one reason, many women pre the early 70's did not have the pill as it was limited to married couples only. Many women have jobs and other things they do with their lives before settling in a relationship with a man who is a. right for them and b. willing to have kids. Maybe we are all a bit more selfish and want to make sure we have a solid financial base on which to start having kids.... could be many reasons.

Where I lived it was a three year wait for IVF, two years TTC before you were even taken seriously, 12mths investigations/clomid etc: that's 6 years even to your first cycle. That took me from starting to think of TTC in late 20's (having been practically a child bride at 24) to having IVF in mid 30's with people obviously thinking stupid career woman left it too late. It's simply maths.

If I'm lying on the surgeons table I want to be sure he's happy with his pay and working conditions, plain and simple!!
I don't want Dr-fecking-Nick responsible for my life at that point!!

Don't forget, it's people earning what they're worth that pioneered the processes you're bleating about!

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you

OP - havent read whole thread.

I presume this article is as a result of how cash strapped the NHS is. And IMO if this is about someone making a choice between someone getting life saving treatment or IVF, I would prioritise the life saving treatments. I have zero concept of how hard infertility is, but I still dont think it should take priority over life or death with another person.

So I can easily see how (if someone was thinking along the same lines), they would fall in the 32%. YABU - sorry.

mistletetoe kisses thanks but you need to read the whole thread really (though its a long 'un..) My OP was NOT 'Should IVF take priority over life threatening treatments?' - though from some of the responses you would think it was!

Re the why people are having kids later thing - well it's the result of complex social changes (including 70s feminism which we've all benefited from), contraception, changing role of women etc. Could write an essay on it but would bore you all to tears. And yep the infertility investigations/ waiting etc takes years in itself - I married early for nowadays, was I think the first to start ttc amongst my group of mates (29), and ended up doing ivf at 34...

The article wasn't about cash strapped NHS actually - it was just a throwaway statistic in the context of an article on something else.

I suppose my point is then that a lot of having kids later is a lifestyle choice. Fertility starts to drop from 30. If we choose to wait until then to start ttc then tbh the time all the tests have been done you're going to be hitting up against the 35 mark for ivf etc when things start to get very difficult.

I suppose my point is to counter the 'i didn't code to start ttc late'. Can all of you honestly say you would have been having a baby at 25 if the right man was there? I certainly wouldn't have done.

I'm aware that it's not only women who have problems of coyrse

I wouldn't say it was a lifestyle choice - it's more that we have a society geared towards encouraging middle class, educated women to have children later in life...

If we wanted to change that, we'd have to move away from the traditional model of higher ed, years in training, fulltime work to climb career ladder, before having children in your 30s - and develop more flexible models where it was possible to break off to have children in the middle of the process without detriment, and there was less discrimination against women working part-time...

We also might need to think about housing provision and mortgages... When my parents bought their first house only the man's income was taken into account - now lots of couples are looking at 2 f/t incomes to even get a food on the property ladder...

It's not so much lifestyle choice, but Hobson's Choice..

The reality is though, that most 30somethings will be fine, and it will only be a few unlucky women who do encounter problems. Not just with conception, but birth defects, miscarriages and still-births.. but it is a terrible shame and misleading to think it is their problem for being selfish, stupid or whatever.... our choices are constrained, and they just got unlucky.

and let's face it, though fertility does drop after 35 the vast majority of people trying for a baby naturally do manage it without help...

"Figures suggest that 94 per cent of women aged 35 years and 77 per cent of women aged 38 years will conceive after three years of trying"."