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?

Sorry, I should add that I think that perhaps the NHS could provide one go, with any further attempts paid for privately.

I do agree that if you can't afford 5K, then you'll probably struggle to support a child anyway.

As for being non-life threatening... so are many ailments and illnesses treated on the NHS. Being infertile isn't a choice. In most cases, obesity related illnesses are, as is smoking,

Whilst it's still not an easy option, T
the success rate for IVF is increasing all the time BTW.

I think that IVF should be available on NHS but that the this will not be possible while the NHS is in such a state. And unlikely to get better.

We should not be talking about taking money from cancer patients to fund IVF, but taking it from other areas of government funding where the money is truly wasted. (eg. bailing out the banks).

The Brits moan about their NHS but pay a much lower amount towards their health insurance than other countries, where the standard of care is much better. In Germany we pay 14% of our salary towards health insurance, in Switzerland it would be much higher.

I've heard it mentioned in discussions before that there are also 'hidden costs' associated with IVF, e.g. more likely to be born prematurely/spend time in SBCU etc.

Anyone know how true this is?

Sorry, but the comment that if you cannot afford £5k then you could not afford a baby is just absolutely ridiculous.

My brother could not afford that but they are managing fine to bring up their daughter.

That is one of the worst arguments against state funded IVF treatment that I have ever read.

I think hat you should have to tick certain boxes to qualify, like be working and have a home....sort of like adoption.

I'm afraid I don't think IVF should be available on the NHS. I can only imagine how devastating infertility is, but having children isn't a right or a necessity.

agreeing with valhalla...

Well I am one of the 32% and I have an IVF baby (psid for - my PCT don't fund IVF). I know exactly how traumatic and awful infertility is but that being said it is not life threatening.

As others have said, the NHS have limited resources and much as we would all want it to fund things closest to our hearts (eg my sister has alopecia, my gran has dementia - the funding for medicating that is appalling, my mother in law needs a breast reduction due to severe back issues and has just had this refused) this just isn't possibe. I wish it was possible to have all the above paid for but unless tax payers are willing to go up to 40 - 50% tax then this will never be possible.

Another here who is suprised that so many people think it should be available on the NHS.

It is an expensive, not terribly sucessful treatment for a non life threatening condition.

I cannot imagine many (any?) would argue it shouldn't be free if the pot was bottomless. But it isn't and so no I don't think it is a priority.

I do wonder whether the NHS couldn't help private patients a bit. For example, it could use its purchasing power to buy the drugs in bulk more cheaply and sell them at cost to private patients. As I understand it the drugs can add £1200-£1800 to a cycle, so it would be good if that cost could be somehow reduced.

MmeLindt - But even if you don't have 5K upfront, either for IVF or for a naturally conceived baby, you certainly would start to save some money each month, or redirect it for either situation?

I don't think it's a particularly good argument to use against funded IVF either and I do sort of see what you're saying, but it's no worse a one than the 'it's not life-threatening' argument.

As for 'it's not a right, or a necessity' - you could argue that for the whole of the NHS. It's not a right or a necessity to have a lovely water birth in a midwife-led NHS unit, or an elective non-emergency C-section just cos you fancy it. Doesn't stop women who got easily and naturally pregnant wanting and getting them though... again at the expense of cancer patients apparently.

Posie Parker - we did have to tick quite a few boxes actually - including ones to do with age, non-smoking, BMI, partner and myself not having any previous children, or any offences to do with child-protection issues. Are you seriously suggesting that only home-owners should be eligible for fertility treatments??

Good point Haliborange.

I take yuour point posie, but those things can change in a heartbeat. People lose their jobs, marriages break down. You don't need to sign a 'I promise I will be rich and stay with my partner forever and ever' contract to have a child for goodness sake

YABU. What Riven said.

Also agree with Valhalla. The NHS has finite resources, and saving the lives of people already here has to take priority.

I would have expected it to be lower too. I'm afraid there are worse problems.

Sorry, I would prob count myself in the 32%. Only because my family knws first hadn how underfinded the NHS is in many fields that are far more key than this.

Ummm mrsnozzle a water birth hardly costs the same as a round of IVF does it?! They don't put Evian in there you know, once the pool is paid for it can be used thousands and thousands of time with little extra cost.

IVF is a massive cost each and every time with not that great a success rate.

To put it brutally, isnt it more important to cure the health problems of those already here, than bring more people into it?

Riven - so sorry that your dd isn't getting vital treatment - that's clearly not fair. The government's priorities generally are very skewed. There should be enough money for all vital treatments obviously.

Okay I'll stand up and say I'm one of the 32% and I'll tell you why:

(1) The NHS is meant to be a countrywide service provider, yet IVF provision is so varied as to be a total postcode lottery. If it's not equal access to service, I don't think it should be funded publicly.

(2) IVF is not shown to have greater success rates than doing nothing but increasing your health and fitness levels for those who do not have physically determined reasons for infertility - for every person who has structural problems with fertility - there are about 20 with 'unexplained' infertility. Also, the average length of time o conceive is 13 months, so why are people referred within six months after 35? And why are they not encouraged to be doing something themselves?

In lots of cases there are things these people can do (and I apologise for offending people by mentioning it but things like losing weight, stopping drinking, changing lifestyle etc.) and yes you bloody well should be forced to do these things first. Much as I think you should have to quit smoking and eating cakes before you get that heart bypass. Why should society fund treatment before people have done what they can do to help it?

(3) Children who do not exist yet cannot get priority over children who do exist. If you could sit with a parent of a sick baby who has been moved 200 miles because there is no space for them in the hospital because they have had to shut down a ward to save money, perhaps you'd appreciate this. Also, there's a question here of how many children from IVF will need extra care, caesarian deliveries etc. Many of the women who have IVF do so because they are older and less fertile - unfortunately that also ups the risks of pregnancy and problems with the baby.

(4) Age related infertility - well perhaps at some point we need to accept we are too old to have children - I'm too bloody old these days anyway. I chose to have a career first, that was my choice and I knew that was a risky one - are you going to tell me that people cannot rationalise when they try for children. And 'I hadn't met my husband yet' is again a choice thing. Some people settle down early, some late, they choose what's right for them.

(5) Long term health effects of fertility drugs - are we setting women up to have long term problems? I have seen few reliable studies on the safety of the drugs, long or short term. Yet I've met lots of women hospitalised with OHSS.

(6) Multiple births - cost the NHS a fecking fortune. Yes you might say but that's good value if it saves an IVF cycle. But it just doesn't work like that, if you save £10K on IVF treatment you probably lose £100K on looking after two children born early.

(7) If you can't afford to pay for treatment, can you afford to raise a child? Children are expensive little buggers. An optional choice. I choose to limit my number of children - I could probably have more, but it'd be dumb because we wouldn't be able to afford them. This sort of family planning starts before you have your first child, you have to make a calculation. Can we afford ...the disruption to our careers, to pay the mortgage on one wage, childcare costs, school, and so on.

It's harsh but the country is bust as is the NHS. Procreation is not a human right. We would not say to two gay men 'it is your human right to have children because you are a couple in love who yearn for them, so we will pay for a surrogate' just because they are physically unable to procreate. Why do we do so when one of them in a woman?

Why WOULD ivf be available on the NHS??!!

Having a baby is not a right, and if you can't, or in many cases have left it too late, then it is just the way it is. We can't all have what we want in life, and messing round creating children when they are not meant to be is just weird.

I can understand that infertility is hard, however, it is not an illness and a lot of people seem to think that they are entitled to a child when in fact they are a gift. Not everyone gets what they want, and saving a life is much more important than ensuring that entire population is satisfied with what they have in life!

StriclyTory - no, i agree they don't use Evian, that was an example. An elective non-emergency C-section certainly does cost more though, due to the extra staff, equipment, etc. Lots of other treatments, drugs, help and advice available to pregnant (and non-pregnant people) on the NHS is also not a necessity or a right. It all adds up. It just depends where people think cuts should be made. Or whether the lucky people who can get pregnant naturally think that it's OK for only them to have the non-essential freebies.

the NHS covers lots of non-life threatening conditions, including some forms of cosmetic surgery. It also funds drug treatment and all sorts of things that derive from "lifestyle" choices.