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 meant worth the NHS funding as had good chance of success. that sounded so grudging, not intentionally.

well I agree with wmmc and others on here - not at all sure ivf should be available on the NHS. But of course there are lots of difficult decsions to be made - taking ivf off the list won't mean there is enough money available.

fwiw i think taking IVF off the list is a fairly easy decision. taking cancer as an example (as lots of people have on this thread), should we say that cancer drugs to save life should be prioritised over drugs that may give an extra few months of life? that cancer drugs should be given to the young in priority? etc etc. There are so many difficult decisions to make which will only get harder from now on.

People should look at the depression/suicide statistics of infertile women and then say it is not a medical necessity. If the doctor is correcting somethign that is medically wrong surely that is what the NHS is for? And to the poster who said it pays for women who smoke are overweight and drink.. guess what you have to have a healthy BMI for ANY fertility treatments. And I assure you they will want to know abotu smoking and drnking habits

The NHS is there to enhance life, not just prolong it. I find comments like "If you can't afford to pay for treatment, can you afford to raise a child?" completely invalid. Just because someone doesn't have a spare 10k to spend on IVF doesn't mean they will be unable to support a child. The implication is nothing more than economic eugenics.

And not I have not had IVF, NHS sponsored or otherwise.

I also think that anyone who has not had IVF (including myself) is probably not qualified to comment on whether it's 'worthy' of NHS treatment. Only if you've had infertility issues can you really comment on what it's like, how hard it is and how important having a child is to them.

"(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. "

You choosing to have a career is NOTHING LIKE other people's reasons for not having children when they are young. It makes me sick when people automatically assume anyone 'older' who hasn't has kids has done so out of choice.

good point starmucks. ALso if everyone had to shell out 10 grand BEFORE the huge finacial implications of having children most couldn't afford it either!

I'm split on this.

On one side, I have seen the joy that an IVF baby (not sure whether the couple paid privately or it was through the NHS) has brought to a couple who could not conceive. And there was no real reason why; they are both healthy, both a reasonable age, neither overweight. They tried to conceive for years. They now have a beautiful little girl, and I have never seen them happier. They were very lucky in that they fell pregnant on the first cycle of IVF too.

But... As much as I saw the pain they suffered trying to fall pregnant, and the sadness each time her period came, the pain on the face of a man who has lost his sister and both his parents to cancer in the space of ten years was a million times worse. Watching a friend of mine being transferred from unit to unit, getting thinner and thinner with anorexia, and receiving no therapy because it is "policy" that ED patients have to be a certain weight before they can he helped, is terrifying and shocking. Having to do something to help a friend after a suicide attempt because she has been deemed well enough not to need mental health team intervention is sickening. The low success rates of IVF also make me sceptical about it being available for free.

If there is only X amount of money available, I think that should be spent of people who are already here, and not those who don't exist yet, tbh. I wish it wasn't that way, and that there was enough money to cure every condition without a second thought, including infertility.

MrsNozzle - having childhood mumps causing sperm is a structural problem and for cases like that IVF is a good solution - but should the NHS fund it? Over saving other people's lives?

For the record I would also not offer treatment for end stages of cancer other than palliative care because they have no chance of doing more than giving people an extra few weeks. At a massive cost often. And I've made that choice on behalf of a close relative. He wasn't going to get better, his quality of life was non-existent, having another month of being drugged up to the eyeballs, unable to to eat/breathe/move would not have helped.

Horrible hard choices need to be made.

And you are right about the anecdotes, they mean very little. So make a firm rule - no NHS IVF and then you don't have the argument.

what Whomovedmychocolate and Riven said.

we need more money in the mental health services before anything else. we need to look after the people who are already here, the children who are dying of cancer because of lack of vital drugs.

and not in a casual, throwaway, 'why dont you adopt' way, im genuinely asking why dont more people adopt? i know its a very hard process, my friend adopted a baby boy 10 years ago, cant imagine how much red tape there is now. i just only ever hear of the newborn babies getting adopted shouldnt we be spending money on mental health services, helping these sometimes very mixed up and 'difficult' children have betteer counselling, and encourage couples to adopt an older child? someone put me straight if my thinking is all wrong.

The other point that is being completely missed by this thread is that infertility is actually an incredibly important medical field - it is the continuity of the human race. If it were left soley to the private sector to sponsor, it would receive only a fraction of its current investment.

lemonysweet - from what I found out when we looked into it, if you are over 40ish they will not consider you suitable for a newborn and you will be offered older children and sibling groups. I think sometimes people think of adoption and think of a poor little baby not a strapping ten year old with behavioural problems. Perhaps that puts them off. It certainly gave us pause for thought because as complete novices at the parenting game we weren't sure we'd cope!

WMMC

'I hadn't met my husband yet' is again a choice thing.

No. No it isn't.

When there is insufficient money to staff wards properly to ensure sick people eat/drink/wash, when people can't get life saving treatement, when waiting lists are so long for things like hip replacements then I'm afraid IVF comes very low down the list of priorities, just before boob jobs

I am wondering whether people (on both sides of the arguement) would have the same opinion on NHS funded (non-life threatening) abortions?

It seems like a lot of the arguements both for and against are similar.

Greenlotus - thanks! I know what you meant! I obviously was a good candidate.

Just for the record my mother died of bowel cancer so I can see both sides. She received excellent care all through the ten years of her illness, including end-stage care that didn't unecessarily prolong her life or her pain.

So it just shows how bloody brilliant the NHS is! As someone else said, get rid of child benefit for higher earners, sort out the banks etc and plough it back in to this brilliant and unique service that can help both cancer patients and childless couples.

I think it should be available on the NHS. If not then only 'rich' people could afford private treatment. I don't want to live in a county where you can only afford treatment to have a baby if you have money!

Actually reading this thread is very interesting... It comes across (and I include myself in this) that people are more interesting in injecting money into departments they have had experience with on a close level.

Just before boob jobs?!!! That's just plain insulting.

hairytriangle all right if you did not choose to have children till you were older, perhaps you tried from early on?

Without meaning to be rude (and I'm actually genuinely interested in your point so please bear with me) - If it was that important to you, more than anything else, how come you didn't save up and fund the treatment? Why does it become society's responsibility.

In the past people would have said 'we just weren't blessed' (or whatever) and moved on. My SiL has not been able to conceive and has now past the menopause. She's had a brilliant life, she came to terms with her childlessness and didn't go for IVF which she could well afford. She just got on with things.

Please explain more and help me understand the circumstances when it's not a choice to wait till you are older.

I didn't have children till I hit my early 30s because I was too immature and didn't want them till then - but that was a choice. Had I really yearned for them I'd have tried for children earlier.

Whilst I too agree that there are far more deserving recipients of vital and diminishing funds, I do question whether I would feel the same if I weren't a parent already. Would my views be so cut and dry if I were struggling to conceive? There are nothing but emotional responses on this thread and there are many different and personal reasons why we all have a variety of perspectives on who or what is more worthy or deserving of NHS money.

depends how you define medical necessity,needs and wants.isnt a clear cut clinical decision,and in times of scarce resources and limited allocation of cash people will ponder what is a need/what is a want.comparison will be made about front line services, pricey medications, treatments

longtalljosie - last time I looked you didn't get stoned for not being married when you had a baby in this country.

And yes you do decide when you get married, no-one else does it for you. Or are you saying the NHS should offer a dating service so you can find the man of your dreams at 25 or whenever?

"'I hadn't met my husband yet' is again a choice thing.

No. No it isn't. "

It's hardly the taxpayer's fault though, is it ?

Posie - I agree with you there - I was very opinionated when struggling to conceive. And for the record I was talking out of my arse a lot of the time - I'm guessing some of you think I haven't changed much

I also agree that it's easier to defend the familiar - sirboobalot but then I have no experience with mental illness yet I think that deserves a lot more money into it, and I also think hip replacements may give a good return on investment if deployed early in terms of keeping elderly people in their own homes and out of the care system.

Posie - of course, we can all only really understand and comment based on our own experiences. That's natural. Other people's shoes...

And with new medical developments come new moral and other issues. 50 years ago we could only say 'we weren't blessed'. Now there are more options.... which come with more dilemmas on how they should be funded.