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?

Mrs Nozzle my cousin, lives in Newcastle, had IVF. She had conceived not long before hand and had given birth to her baby at 22 weeks, he didn't survive. She is very very overweight, probably morbidly obese, has polycystic ovaries, no job and a council flat, she wasn't married then either. Perhaps the lottery for IVF is in her favour?

I've had IVF treatment, unsuccessful, so a waste of my money and yours.

Money would be better spent on cheaper therapies (GIFT, proper diagnostic tests, lifestyle & diet) rather than shoving everyone towards IVF with its pitiful success rates regardless of what their actual problem is.

and pointing people towards fostering and adoption too - nobody suggested at any point that we looked at these options. It was only later we found out we could have got precooked instead of gestating our own!

WMMC interesting post - especially the bit regarding sucess rates for people with unexplained fertility being no greater than when increasing health and fitness levels.

If this is really true frankly the mind boggles that the NHS still fund it....

I have only experienced the pain of IVF second hand through a dear friend. However I have also experienced another friend nursing her DS through cancer; DH waiting 8 months in excruciating pain for an operation among other things.

Funding is not unlimited and surely it is more important to direct money to save a childs life than create one?

MrsNozzle I just don't get your arguement at all a caesarian in most cases ends up with a healthy baby and Mother. IVF in MOST cases does not end up with a healthy baby.

It is no where near as cost effective as a caesarian, which, incidentially, is very hard to get without a medical need.

And at the risk of giving a similar example to posieparker of self interested IVF - I know a couple whose IVF child was the result of them waiting till they were both 40 and frankly not getting pregnant because they were both continually in other countries from each other at the correct time. It took them four months to schedule the appts together so they could actually collect eggs/sperm within reasonable timeframes They could have paid but 'we've paid our taxes, why shouldn't we use the NHS'.

Now their child is in childcare while they continued their careers and has been from six weeks old.

"you just have to make the best of the hand you've been dealt "

I bet you had no problems conceiving a child. that's why it's so easy to say.

Personally I think smokers shouldn't be given nhs treatment for lung cancer and obese people shouldn't be given tratment for ailments brought about by their self-abuse but I know it's an unpopular view.

nancydrew - parts of the NHS still fund homeopathy too!

Oh here we go... the old try adoption shite again! Oh and here we are... the old 'and their child is in childcare' shite again.

Jesus wept.

Hello

Well I agree cancer is worse than infertility. But I don't think that saying 'paying for ivf will take money away from cancer patients' is a particularly good argument. There are loada of other areas which are publically funded which money could be taken away from, not necessarily within the NHS (I don't need my child benefit for example..take it away from higher earners to pay for ivf??)

And the 'children are not a right' argument. Well, that is an easy thing to say when it is not a situation you have been confronted with. They are not a 'right', they are their own selves, we borrow them for a bit. But - to me - my child and my family is what life is all about. How many people with children would not agree that their child(ren) is (are) the most important thing to them? Now imagine life without that most important thing. So - I'm talking about the right to medical treatment in order to attempt to overcome fertility problems, not the right to a child.

I was very happy to use my own money to pay for ivf. Like I said, I'm lucky and I could. But why should a hard working low income couple bankrupt themselves to pay for fertility treatment while their taxes pay for the feckless but fertile people down the street to have large numbers of kids and expect the state to pay for them?

I'm really surprised that the number of people who do think the NHS should fund IVF is so high. Honestly, the funding allocated to mental health services is criminal. We should look after people who are ill.

Posie - well clearly in your cousin's area, the criteria were far less strict - assuming it was paid for on the NHS. Which obviously wasn't a good thing in her case, and I'm sorry to hear of it. But I don't know why living in a council flat would be an issue for funded IVF - surely non-home owners are more likely to need the financial help?

Whomoved - again, in my area we waited about 18 mnths before treatment started, not 6 months. We had lots of hoops to jump through. It really wasn't an easy or straightforward route. I'm a non-smoker and within the weight guidelines, eat healthily etc. I could be Paula-bloody-Radcliffe and DH be Usama Bolt and it wouldn't have made any difference - my husband has rubbish sperm due to childhood mumps. We certainly weren't 'shoved' towards IVF either.

I'm not sure IVF should be available - the success rates are not good and the cost both financially and emotionally is high. However nor do I wish to deny the chance of a family to other women - when I've had no trouble myself at all. Bit like pulling up the ladder behind you as you escape from the zombies isn't it. I do think we should sort out the national situation. 1 go for everyone or 2 or whatever - but not the current lottery.

I'm torn, although I do think the money could be better spent.

There are also a lot of children in care who are desperate for good, loving homes - if people are that desperate for a child, why not consider giving one or more of them a loving home.

I was lucky enough to conceive naturally - but I've always thought that if I couldn't and the cheaper, easier routes of assisted conception were not an option or didn't work - Clomid, sperm donation etc then I probably wouldn't want to put myself through the stress, potential heartbreak and cost of IVF, but I would look to adopt instead - if not within this country then from Eastern Europe.

The NHS has better things to spend its money on, and my own money would be better spent on a child who is already in this world.

Only 68% of the population think that ivf should be available on the NHS?

I'm surprised it's that high.

FWIW, I think it should be (but I also think it should be means tested)

Until you've wanted a child, nay ached for a child, you cannot understand what that feels like. It feels like nothing else. Maybe 68% of the population have felt this ache.

I had thins conversation with relatives lately. All were mothers. All have done an excellent job of raising children (who are all now adults). All of them thought IVF shouldn't be available on the NHS. But I pointed out to them they all got pg easily, hadn't planned being mothers. They did not understand what it feels like to desperately want a child. I began to think that they in fact didn't deserve to be mothers if they could be so flippant. Which of course was wrong of me.

To cut a long ramble short, yes, in an ideal world everyone should be eligible for IVF on the NHS...but can the NHS really afford it? We aren't living in an ideal world, are we.

And for the record - yes I had problems conceiving. I was turned down for NHS treatment and decided not to do it privately once we spoke to the consultant about success rates and the risks associated. We conceived naturally later on. Yes, yes lucky bitch but had I gone through IVF treatment I may still have conceived naturally and wasted all that money.

Presumably, the reason people are given the option of midwife led waterbirths, and the NHS does so much to promote them, is because they are much cheaper than a doctor led epidural birth which ends in a c-section.

I also don't believe IVF should necessarily be funding on the NHS, not that I would ever say it to the many people I know who have used it or need it.

I do agree with research into tests that give women an indication of their fertility earlier on in life, so that they can make the appropriate choices. I do think our generation grew up on the idea that we could have children when we were 40 and that would be fine. If women knew in their early 20s that they were likely to have trouble conceiving in their 30s they may make different decisions.

And as for 'some of us don't meet the right man' - honestly, are you really saying that is the responsibility of the NHS? I also don't agree that it costs far more in depression treatment etc. There are lots of issues that cause depression and the state is not responsible for solving them for you. In fact, mental health provision in this country is so haphazard and poor in many respects.

Both of my parents died of cancer and a good friend is coming to terms with the fact that her baby will not survive to be a toddler. All of them have received excellent treatment on the NHS and rightly so. Surely the health of the living has to take priority.

What whomovedmychocolate said.

I think this country needs to really seriously think about what we expect from the NHS. When it was first created, there was no such thing as IVF, so it had quite a straightforward aim: providing healthcare from cradle to grave. I am not sure this is sustainable any longer. We take it for granted, and there are many worse systems out there - I don't think many people can imagine having to pay for medical insurance/all medical bills. So paying for something to ameliorate a non-life threatening condition is something that, in our current dire straits, should be an individual's prerogative, but not for the State to pick up the tab.

Yes, now the anecdotes here about feckless people happy to have IVF without thinking of the consequences.

StrictlyTory - Are you saying that treatment should only be available on the NHS if the odds are definitely going to be good? In that case, there's a lot of cancer and other treatments that we shouldn't bother with. Are you saying that my baby is unlikely to be born healthy? Thanks for that.

Yeah, duellingfanjo - why don't we just adopt - it's a doddle!!!!

how much does the NHS spend per pregnancy? Maybe it should limit pregnancies to two per family. What about abortion? The annual costs must be far more than those spent on IVF.

I'm kind of on the fence with this. I know people who have had NHS IVF treatment so I think that's wonderful. I am too old to qualify (and not sure if it's something I'll need or not). Were I not too old to qualify, and were I in need, I'm sure I'd jump at the chance of NHS funded IVF.

Whilst I do think it's fantastic to have this on the NHS, I also wonder if things like cancer treatment and life saving treatments should be prioritised over, for example, IVF and Gastric Surgery etc.

Would you call having IVF a doddle either. Having children - in any sense - is a long hard slog!

MrsNozzle

I think this statement "IVF in MOST cases does not end up with a healthy baby."

Referred to the fact that most IVF treatment ends with no baby at all, rather than successful IVF treatment ends up with a unhealthy baby

It's hard not to be coloured by your own experience - there are circumstances where IVF is clearly the reasonable option, but with unexplained infertility it does feel like throwing good money after bad.

Mrs Nozzle you are lucky you knew the specific issue and could address it (and congratulations). In your case it was probably worth it.