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?

WMMC - you want an example of when it's not a choice to wait until you are older. Like many women, I had two miscarriages that were easily conceived, when I was 34. I then had two years where I couldn't conceive and I tried some fertility treatments (clomid, IUI) privately. We also paid for our own IVF, that was unsuccessful. We started a second cycle, when we found NHS funding had come through, so the NHS paid for it. By then I was 37.

news flash - lots of people have IVF/ICSI?IUI because their husband (who they may or may not have met after they were 35) is the one with the fertility problem.

It's not always about women waiting until they are old. The whole argument that blames women for waiting is based on the premis that it is the woman who has the problem. NOT always the case.

Yes but similarly 50 years ago, you got cancer - you died.

If you got heart disease - you died - you didn't get betablockers/stents/pacemakers etc.

Where do you draw the line?

If the NHS needs money why don't they make scotland and wales pay for their prescriptions?

yep, the boob job comparison is kind of insulting! Does the person who made that comment think of their child (ren) as similarly important to the size of their boobs?

Loads of people who have ivf don't have fertility issues which relate to their lifestyle. I was 29 when I first tried to concieve, non-smoker, didn't drink much, wasn't fat, etc....tried charting/ov kits etc etc for 5 years. It didn't work. IVF did.

Adoption is different. Why do all the people who can concieve naturally do so and add to the overpopulated world when there are chldren available for adoption? Actually, I would have considered it seriously, but DH (for personal family reasons I won't go into here) couldn't do it.

The NHS pays for loads of non life threatening things. Abortion is one. (am pro choice btw - but pregnancy is not normally life threatening.)

DF - seems like we have similar stories...

I agree it's always the women who gets the brunt of the blame in these arguments. ie: She must have concentrated on her career, she wanted it all etc etc.

Whomoved - I don't know the answer to that - and I'm thankful everyday that in this instance I benefited from other peoples financial decisions.

Pregnancy isn't usually life threatening but in the case of abortions, people would resort to extreme measures if it wasn't available.

"yep, the boob job comparison is kind of insulting! Does the person who made that comment think of their child (ren) as similarly important to the size of their boobs?"

Well frankly, if I had to choose between the poster's MIL who was destined for a lifetime of back pain and limited mobility and IVF treatment I'd rather fund the breast reduction.

"Where do you draw the line? "

You don't die if you don't have IVF

I think we have to draw a line and say 'okay we can't afford everything so we are cutting X Y and Z for five years then we'll review'.

It's a cultural thing though, we expect in this country for things to be taken care of and for no individual cost.

Mind you, I still think we should pay to see the GP.

goodnightmoon, I think many people would argue that 34 IS leaving it late anyway. Doesn't fertility start to drop off at 35?

Or did I misunderstand your post?

My mom (American) has some sort of personal deductible on her health insurance that if not used, she can spend. So last year she decided she was going to get braces on her lower teeth!

of course the NHS doesn't operate a policy where people can claim back, but I do have some sympathy for people (men and women) who hardly ever get sick, don't use the NHS, but the one thing they need is help conceiving.

In any case, thought the birth rate was declining in the UK or am I confused?

Vallhala Tue 03-Aug-10 19:40:36
I'm one of the 32%. Admittedly, I've never needed IVF.

Whilst I agree that infertility is a medical condition, so is cancer. I have had that.

Infertility doubtless DOES cause great heartache. So does cancer.

But cancer also kills.

So, until there is enough money in the NHS kitty for BOTH needs, priorities have to be made.

My priority is to keep alive the mothers and fathers of the children who already exist.

Sorry. In an ideal world I'd agree with you. Until it is, I can't.

I own up to being another of that 32% & couldn't of put it better myself

Its not about wanting to deny anyone the joys of Parenthood, but about resources.....I was very late in becoming a Mum, we were lucky, it happened naturally, but at the age I was, it may not of happened at all, we didn't expect that it would, & we were sad about that, but accepted it as our lot, & even if I was at an age that would of made me eligible for NHS IVF, I would not of chosen to go that route, because sad as it is, reality is there is just not enough money in the NHS Kitty for everything, & I too would of rather that money was used to save the life of a Childs Parent that already exists, than on the off chance it could create a life for us

I am firmly in the camp that think it should not be funded by the already over stretched NHS, I am sorry but having a child is not a right, not having one is not life threatening, and the NHS does not have the funds to treat the people already here so why use valuable resources to create more people?

I also think boob enlargement is a no no, and getting your " virginity" back is a big big no no, want to be a virgin on your wedding night keep your legs shut till then
Tattoo's removed also something the NHS should not fund, if your stupid enough to get one then thats your problem not the tax payers.

Oh I so agree with all that Runnaway ...... I remember years back waiting 18 months for Sinus operation, & being continuously ill with ear & Sinus infections & trying to keep on working .........whilst a very confident friend, who had the gift of the gab had managed to persuade her own GP that she was so ashamed of her small boobs, & hid in jumpers mid Summer etc etc.....that she ended up getting an NHS boob job ....there was nothing wrong with her......she waited only 5 months

goodnightmoon - I'm sorry about your miscarriages, I had two as well. Unfortunately that again is something that increases with age apparently. Which is another argument for starting sooner.

Also (and not directed particularly at goodnightmoon but all those of you who have had IVF), how do you get off that particular train if not 'we can no longer afford it'? I do know someone who self funded three cycles of IVF, then had an NHS one, none of them worked. At some point surely you have to say 'enough'? Is the limitation of funding a recognition of that? Would we move to a culture where people got a loan to pay for one cycle of treatment and then stopped? Or would people stop considering it an option and look at other things like adoption.

Incidentally Duellingfanjo in my case it wasn't a female problem, but a male one so I am aware that it's both parties. But the woman is the one who goes through the majority of the invasive treatments and so that's where focus naturally falls. I don't think it's anyone's fault if a couple is infertile. And it's a shame if we assume that. Women these days tend to be a bit more aware of their sexual and reproductive health (in most cases) whereas lots of blokes are still drinking/smoking/wearing tight pants/eating rubbish etc. plus the depletion in sperm levels over the last few decades due to feminising hormones in the environment etc. - make it more likely than ever before for fertility issues to be male focused. But you are right, we shouldn't make this sort of assumption -so I apologise for that.

Sacharrissa makes a good point. The danger with non-NHS funding is that those who can afford it can go private, but those who just cannot scrape together £5000 would have no chance of having a baby.

There have been enough threads on MN where posters have been honest about their finances for me to know that for some people it would just not be possible to save that kind of money.

I think it is wrong to say, "Funding IVF takes money away from cancer patients"

Of course there is only a limited amount of money in the NHS pot but I think that decent research to find the methods that offer the best results for the money is the way forward. And it should be funded without cutting spending on any vital service.

I am of course aware that this fairy tale is unlikely to come true, particularly at the moment when services are being slashed everywhere in the government sector.

MmeLindt but if you look at outcomes and say for IVF the desired result is: at least one baby and for cancer it's a: survival five years after treatment, hands down cancer survival rates are much better and therefore a better use of money.

If you want to look in cold hard cash terms, right, stop any investment in stopping people smoking - smokers die earlier and actually they pay in taxes right till the day they die by buying fags - just stop treating them. In fact encourage smoking in anyone with a high stress career, thus maximising job turnover and also income as they will smoke more if they are stressed.

Stop treating anyone over 70 too - they are generally economically inactive and a burden to the state. Of course they'll die, but they would eventually anyway and they've had a good innings.

See if you look at it purely from a 'research shows this is good value' then you will come undone at the first hurdle. Health spending is, and has always been, predominantly determined by a consensus view of what's important. We place a value already on some treatments and not others and individual hospital trusts have some role to play in assessing need and prioritising.

I just think IVF is a nice to have rather than a must have and I don't think we can afford it.

ALL nhs treatment takes funding away from other areas. and whilst some people see that there's an argument that ivf produces new people, rather than helping existing ones, they rather miss the point that it's the parents who receive the treatment.

any form of treatment that prolongs a life - be it a newborn in itu, or an elderly person having heart treatment, they are pushing the population numbers up.

by choosing one specific group to be declined treatment (which is masses cheaper than cancer or heart treatments are), the nhs would be discriminating unfairly.

if people want to discriminate that's fine, but perhaps they could first decide what is & isn't necessary treatment, then there could be turn taking - one year cancer patients get treatment, the next year people over 70 are allowed to go to the doctors. or we could have it as part of the lottery 'yeah, this week the redheads have won the bonus ball. if you're a ginger, you get one visit to the gp this week, and you can apply for life saving treatments'

the thing is, you can't just pick one group of patients with a medical need & make up excuses not to care for them, it's discrimination.

WMMC
You are right, we cannot afford it.

When I say that we need to research which methods are most effective, I mean that there are (as I understand it) different levels of reproductive science. Whether a couple are offered the full shebang or eg. Clomid to start with, then moving up through the range of treatments available.

I am sure that I read somewhere the there is evidence that the full IVF treatment is not that much more effective that the less expensive and less invasive treatments available. Will ask Lenin, I think she told me about it.

Why is IVF constantly put up against Cancer?

There are masses and masses of non life threatening problems treated on the NHS nobody gives a 2nd thought about. Said problems are often far less damaging and costly to the NHS than infertility.

Infertility must cost the NHS millions when you factor in treatment for PCOS,Endo,depression X 2 per couple etc,etc. Investigative procedures could go on forever costing more millions. I had 1 lap and dye test after another under a general each time,endo burned off,Chlomid,ovaries drilled etc,etc.

I round of fresh IVF(funded by myself) also resulted in frozen embryos (2 of which later were my twin boys) put an end to it all and has probably saved the NHS £1000s in future bills.

If funded, couples who are in a position to save (many aren't)don't have to spend years waiting with their fertility diminishing so it's far more likely to be successful.

MmeLindt - ah now I follow you. I did read that too and I think generally Clomid etc is offered first in cases of unexplained infertility - but not before expensive investigations - and not always with lifestyle advice and changes.

For example, when we visited a consultant it was only on the second appt after being prescribed Clomid were we asked 'how often are you having sex'.

Which is not that dumb a question given that a lot of people TTCing try and 'save' sperm or only have sex on the 'right' day.

YABU

The NHS should be there to save lives and to provide essential rather than desirable treatments.

I put IVF in the same category as tattoo removals, breast enlargement / reduction, sex changes etc - all things that drain away money from essential services.

Actually the 1st round of IVF is often seen as an excellent diagnosis and jumping board for future treatment. Some women will find out they need ICSI or it's an egg quality thing or drugs need to be upped in order to produce more eggs etc.

MilaMae
I think that Cancer is such a big thing nowadays because it is one of the main causes of death. Sir Ken Robinson recently said that the interesting thing is that there are more cases of cancer now than ever before, and that is partly due to the fact that science has discovered cures, or vaccines, for so many diseases that used to kill us before we had time to get cancer.

If you were to look into funding in the NHS, I am sure you would find other areas that are less "worthy" of funding - to anyone not directly affected anyway.