Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to be cross with the 32% of the population who think ivf shouldn't be available on the NHS

505 replies

tholeon · 03/08/2010 19:17

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?

OP posts:
proseccogirl · 09/08/2010 11:40

I think this thread has died a death, but following the earlier comments from SassySusan about the working time directive meaning that doctors don't work long hours any more ---I have just spoken to my sister who is a junior doctor on a surgical ward, she has worked 102 scheduled hours in the past 8 days, but stayed late a minimum of 2 hours after every shift (not included in the 102 hours).
I suspect this will go in one of Sassy's ears and straight out the other as she clearly just doesn't like doctors though!

AnnieDelores · 19/08/2010 15:05

Girls,

I'm about to start ICSI (6 week waiting list apparently) so it looks like I might miss my first day 19 on 10th of Sept and have to wait until my next likely day 19 on 10th Oct.

Only trouble is, I'm about to be made a job offer for a new company and I'm worried about the amount of time off I'll need! Can anyone advise me how often I'm going to need to go in to the clinic so I know how much holiday to book? Timing isn't great....but I don't want to delay treatment as a baby is more important. I don't really want to tell my new employer what I'm doing so does anyone have a good excuse as to why else I might need to be in and out of hospital that sounds plausible?

Thanks!

Ryoko · 19/08/2010 15:17

I think IVF should not be on the NHS, not as long as people are dying from cancer because they will not buy the drugs/equipment that can save lives or make them longer and less painful.

Priority for cash should be the treatment of those already born.

I'm sure your baby is lovely but perhaps when you see a relative dying in agony in a hospital bed screaming for pain killers you may be a little more understanding that the limited funding of the NHS should be for those who really need it.

sanielle · 19/08/2010 15:33

AnnieDelores your question will be overlooked on this thread, check out the TTC forums.

Good luck

BABYBUFF205 · 19/08/2010 21:01

I think it should be availa as it seems to be a rich mans world who can afford it when all of us suffer.Sad Wear][[http://www.motherwearclothing.co.uk

tholeon · 19/08/2010 21:56

Ryoka please read the whole thread - I was never suggesting IVF over pain killers. Honestly!

Over and out on this one I think, though it has been very interesting!

OP posts:
Jules2963 · 10/09/2010 11:02

I am so pleased that sometimes appeals work, we were lucky with ours - being in Croydon stinks but sometimes they do listen.

Funding For Fertility has draft appeal letters which I used.

WHO - world health authority recognise infertility as an illness.

cancer inspires people to donate - knowing the pain it causes hence lots of 'rich' cancer charities - not so many infertility or childlessness not by choice ones!

Jules2963 · 10/09/2010 11:03

Is anyone going to The Fertility Show there's a seminar on funding but my dh can't make it - anyone booked on?

scaryteacher · 10/09/2010 11:26

I'm torn as if I hadn't been able to get pregnant, I don't think we would have gone down the IVF route, as there would have been other compensations and things to do.

I love my ds to bits, but I had envisaged a life without children and could see that it would work.

madmn52 · 10/09/2010 11:35

Agree with you Strictly - although it is very sad that some people want children and have problems - I'm afraid I dont see it as a right - there is CF in my family - I think my GKs have more of a right to breathe/live beyond an expectancy of late 20s and I know where I would spend NHS limited funds given the choice - very sorry and all that !

JJR81 · 26/01/2011 21:06

someone said it's a "cosmetic" procedure! i don't think so, we don't inject ourelves for minimum 6 weeks out of choice!
as you have probably guessed i am one of the 68% we have had 2 attempts on the NHS both of which sadly FAILED! we are now about to have our 3rd attempt which we are funding ourselves.

at least when our baby eventually arrives we will be able to tell it how much we wanted it and loved it... unlike some!!

i know of people who have had "cosmetic" surgery i.e breast enlargment and the reason " it was harming my confidence!" what a load of rubbish!!

for those of you who think it's a waste of money think about this... should some one who has been an alcoholic for several years be able to have a liver transplant? i don't think so... not when they have had the chance to give up what they have craved. there is plenty of "free" help from the government. why should we pay for them to go and do it again lets face will they change?

i agree with the cancer debate, i don't think it should be a postcode lottery when it comes to cancer drugs, everyone should be given the same.

after all most of us pay our national insurance why shouldn't we benefit from it?

PlanetLizard · 26/01/2011 21:42

YANBU

mjovertherainbow · 26/01/2011 21:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Dawnybabe · 26/01/2011 21:55

YAdefinitelyNBU

PlanetLizard · 26/01/2011 21:59

There are numerous things the NHS treats that are not "life-threatening illnesses".

CarolinaRua · 26/01/2011 22:41

TBH there isnt enough money in the NHS and I would rather what was there was used to help those suffering with physical or mental illnesses or disabilities.
As much as I have sympathy for those who cannot conceive, I dont think its the best use of NHS resourses

scottishmummy · 26/01/2011 22:49

limited resources,competing clinical pressures.inevitably there is discussion of what interventions/treatments to fund

this naturally is contentious and generates an emotional response

whilst you may prioritise ivf, someone else for example will equally argue compelling case for palliative care, mental health teams, dementia, oncology, midwifery as their priority.

BuzzLightBeer · 26/01/2011 22:50

zombie thread.

poutintrout · 27/01/2011 12:25

I am utterly shocked to read some of these posts about why IVF shouldn't be NHS funded and offended by some of the blithe dismissive reasons; "having a baby is not a human right", "life isn't fair", "a baby isn't a right, it's a gift", "infertility isn't an illness" etc... (especially when the comment is preceded by statements such as "while I've been blessed with my DD/DS"). I am pretty sure that if these posters had have been unfortunate enough to have been unable to conceive they would not be so staunchly against NHS funded IVF.

While having a baby is not a "right" the procreative urge in (most) women is immense and all consuming.

I agree that the sick and ill shouldn't be denied treatment but I also think that there are plenty of other areas where NHS resources are wasted. The amount of money spent on illnesses caused by obesity and smoking for instance. Infertility is not self induced and therefore treatment should not be denied.

merryberry · 27/01/2011 12:51

'why do so many people see it as such a low priority?'

In my case, I see it as low priority because it is rarely directly life threatening, life shortening, or disabling to the point of no longer being able to work. I appreciate the emotional toll is harsh, I listen and care for my two close friends using IVF the past few years.

But I have a severe and aggressive form of rheumatoid arthritis, a condition which is both life shortening and will at some stage prevent me from earning my living. I am so grateful for the NHS help I do get. Which is rationed. I had to endure 16 months of unnecessary pain and irreversible physical damage and emotional hard work, failing on the old fashioned treatments before I was able to access the new and very effective stuff which costs nearly £10,000 per year, as per NICE guidelines, and which keeps me able to work and care for my family. Despite the harsh and taxing side effects of the medications.

I have never insisted on physiotherapy in my Central London PCT, which is just so stretched its sad. The three surgeries I need will also be spaced, not just according to my clinical need, but also by how much pressure the surgeons are under to fit me in. I sometimes need to go to the infusion clinic next to the cancer outpatients clinics and I cannot believe the state of the facilities and the lack of time the staff have to care properly.

NHS resources are finite and should be and are rationed, as is IVF. I would be much happier if this was much more explicit and also did not vary as much by postcode, although population health needs do change by area to some degree.

If I, and those who love me, can live with this level of rationing, I think people with infertility issues can also live with it. I am still not sure if I am in the 32% who say no to IVF on the NHS at all. I think on the whole not, but the rationing needs to fairer and explicit.

PaisleyLeaf · 27/01/2011 12:53

Cor, there are a lot of old threads being resurrected these days!

merryberry · 27/01/2011 13:01

I also think very strongly that we users shouldn't start off by fighting over the NHS resources. We should look at where the real waste is, IMO:

The payments to KPMG, Conservative party donors to recommission healthcare provision are a true waste area in the NHS.

Ditto the IT program which burnt up I think £5 bn and delivered woefully little. Think that was Lab govt initiative.

KnittedBreast · 27/01/2011 13:04

i think ivf should only be available in very strict circumstances.
im sorry but no body has the automatic right to have a child, i think in some instances if you cant conceive its for a reason just because we can push and push nature dousnt mean we should always

HecateQueenOfWitches · 27/01/2011 13:38

It's just money. If the pot was bottomless, then we'd all be able to have everything.

If you can treat someone who has cancer or give someone IVF, which would you choose? When they have to decide where the money goes, then they are going to decide that an existing life is more important than trying to create a new one.

But I agree that so much money is wasted in the NHS. If they managed their money better, then I think we'd all be amazed how much could be done.

And thankfully I have had no trouble conceiving, but I remember how much I wanted a baby. I used to cry in the supermarket. I was obsessed. If I had been unable to conceive and I had been refused help, I imagine I would have been devestated. I think only people who don't have a problem think that having a problem isn't a problem.

er. iyswim.

FortunateHamster · 27/01/2011 13:53

It's never as simple as choose cancer drugs or choose IVF though. If it was there are hundreds of procedures that wouldn't be done, the money would all go to cancer and then it would be cured... Oh wait. It is incredibly important to fund cancer research/drugs/treatment but it is not the only reason the NHS exists - it saves and improves lives with all sorts of problems.

KnittedBreast - the 'reason' you're talking about will be a medical problem, and I think there is room in the NHS to at least look at funding some fertility investigations/treatments (as it currently does). There are many illnesses and problems that we face that 'nature' gave us, that aren't life threatening, but can get treated on the NHS anyway. Also, it is only available in (relatively) strict circumstances.