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?

You can only take Chlomid for 6 months as it has cancer risks,IVF drugs are safer. Chlomid also brings a small risk of miscarriage so I believe.

I know this is going to upset some people and I'm really sorry for that, but I'm not sure that I agree with IVF at all, how ever it is funded.

This is easy for me to say, as I conceived naturally, but having been in care as a child, I think no IVF should mean more fostering and adoption. I think both of the latter processes need to be better supported and more accessible so that the children who desperately need loving homes are given them.
As has been said many times already on this thread, it is not a right to have children, and I question people's need to have their "own" children over offering homes and love to those who need it. I realise this sounds very simplistic and idealistic, but I have to ask myself, if someone is not prepared to offer a needy child a home and love, do they deserve medical intervention to create a child?
Clearly, if you don't have fertility problems these questions are never asked.

For what it's worth (whole other thread here, I know people will think this is awful and ridiculous, but...) I have a theory about mandatory reversible vasectomies for all boys at birth. In my queendom, men would have to simply make the decision that they want children in order for it to be reversed; no exams or anything, but they must express the desire for children.
When I'm queen though, the population might take a bit of a nose-dive...

You'd want to sterilise all men until they ask nicely? Ok then.....

op, tbh, i am amazed that it is as high as 68%.
of course you have every right to be annoyed at the rest, but they are also entitle to an opinion. you may feel their opinion isnt particularly empathetic, but they are still allowed it. last time i checked, this was still a free country.

loopy what a barbaric idea mutilating babies forced medical intervention?
"mandatory reversible vasectomies for all boys at birth"

fuck you are daft

Message deleted

Loopy
With all due respect, I think that you need to talk to someone about the issues you have, caused by your experiences as a child. You do sound slightly loopy, when you suggest forcible vasectomies at birth for boys.

Message deleted

I am surprised the figure is so low.I thought it was a more commonly held viewpoint

I'm one of that 32% OP.
If the country had the money to use then i wouldn't have a problem with it but the sad fact is the UK is billions of pounds in debt and infertility, whilst heartbreaking for those who suffer it, is not life threatening and i think the money must be prioritised to help people already in this world. It might be unfair, but lots of things are unfair, it doesn't mean its the wrong thing to do.

Voudrey, the difference between paying for terminations and paying for fertility treatment is that a termination is a LOT cheaper than raising a child.

That said, Sassy makes a very good point. In cost/benefit terms (and WMMC makes an excellent point about why you can't look at things that way), an IVF child born to a middle class family who will:

Pay school fees
Buy their own home
Stay employed on an ongoing basis
Buy local goods wherever possible

...etc, will only cost the State the amount of the IVF treatment, and arguably the existence of the child will mean increased spending and stimulate the economy.

Compare that to a child born to third-generation unemployed parents who will require ongoing council accommodation, social services intervention, benefits, schooling, I don't know what the fuck else because I don't live in England, and who is themselves extremely likely to continue that cycle and be a welfare recipient in their own turn?

Now, you can't say that Poor People Can't Breed, and you certainly can't look at someone and predict their future because it's uncivilised and barbaric and awful. But that's exactly why you can't make judgements based on pure cost/benefit analysis. Because my whole post is icky, right?

Maybe vasectomies is a bit harsh, but I can see the theoretical benefits of everyone having a (also theoretical, as yet uninvented) non-invasive contraceptive implant at birth. You could get it removed whenever you wanted, but both sides would have to request having their individual implants out in order to concieve. Then they'd go back in at the birth of the baby.

Of course, STIs would probably go through the roof. And the population would plummet. But there would be benefits too in that people would have to make the positive decision to have children, rather than just being careless. Likewise, men wouldn't be able to turn round after the event and whine about being "trapped" into it.

I'm with the 32% as well for most of the different reasons detailed above. Rather than repeat them again I have two questions/points:

1. To the people who believe it should be funded 100% - where do you propose the extra money should come from?

2)I completely disagree that funding should be determined by people who've 'been there' and that no one else is eligible to comment. It's the same reasoning behind not letting the victim determine the prison sentence.

There are a lot of medical conditions that cause enormous distress and are non-life threatening. There's a limited pot of money. Some people are going to be unhappy/seriously depressed/suicidal. It is up to independent policy makers (based on consultation with the general public) to decide what gets funded and what doesn't.

The same theory is applied to extremely expensive cancer drugs that may work to prolong/save a life. Obviously if you're that person/their friend/relative you'll be up in arms if the funding isn't provided. However, the same amount of money can possibly save more lives more certainly somewhere else. It can't be the patient's choice.

I do also think it's rediculous there's a post-code lottery btw. It should either be available or not. It shouldn't matter where you live and that goes for all health care.

FWIW: I have had no trouble concieving. I did, however, still hold the same view before I started TTC when (for some reason) I assumed I would have problems. I just don't consider IVF a priority for funding. If there was a infinite pot of money of course it should be. There isn't.

My pepole have some funny ideas.

It's this whole argument surrounding "it costs less than state funding a poor person" that reveals underlying attitudes on here. The assumption is that ivf is only used by middle class couples who have some kind of sense of entitlement to have a child. Giving ivf to a nice middle class family doesn't STOP another child being born into a poor family so the comparison is meaningless and a little offensive.

Yes it is unfair that some nice couple can't conceive whilst some young scrubber gets knocked up whilst bent over a skip but shit- life is unfair. Good things don't happen to good people. You can't as a result decide you should give ivf to one and sterilise the other.

That should have been "my, people have some funny ideas" as opposed to "my people"

I don't have people, not even a cleaner

That should have been "my, people have some funny ideas" as opposed to "my people"

I don't have people, not even a cleaner

Yes it is unfair that some nice couple can't conceive whilst some young scrubber gets knocked up whilst bent over a skip but shit- life is unfair. Good things don't happen to good people. You can't as a result decide you should give ivf to one and sterilise the other

Well, the last line is exactly what I was arguing, as I think was fairly clear. Which is why the cost of the procedure is something of a red herring in this whole argument.

And I think that your statement saying that it's unfair that a 'young scrubber gets knocked up whilst bent over a skip' reveals a whhooooooole lot more about your ideas. What a distasteful thing to say.

agree with other who have said that there needs to be enough money in the NHS to fund vital procedures and medications first before IVF is doled out for free. It's absolutely wrong that some cancer patients are unable to get the medication or beds they need whilst infertile couples use 30K of NHS cash.

YANBU to be cross about not being able to get treatment that you feel you need.

I have a congenital medical condition that I was born with that has caused me huge stress and depression over my life. My mum lately came into some money and is paying for me to have treatment privately - if it works (like IVF it is not guaranteed) I will be thrilled, if it doesnt I will be dissapointed but will have to just carry on living with it.

Its a pity that my treatment will probably never be available on the NHS, but I do think the NHS should be for treating people who are ill or dying. Not for treating conditions which you can live with.

It must be horrible to not be able to concieve but there are other options besides IVF. Having a baby is not a human right that the NHS should have to pay for IMO.

Mme Lindt - does that part of my post appear to be very serious and heart-felt? To me it seemed as if I had made it quite clear I thought it was a mad idea but one worth thinking about for the sake of argument. Perhaps my writing isn't good enough, but I find your assertions offensive.

Since cancer comes up a lot on this thread - how do people feel about cancer treatments that slightly extend the life of someone with a definitely-terminal diagnosis?

I recently read a novel, Lionel Shriver's So Much For All That, where the wife is diagnosed with mesothelemia (I'm making up the spelling, but the cancer you get from asbestos), and over a year they spend a million dollars on various treatments, which the oncologist says, at the end, would have extended her life three months in all.

Tortoise I was joking! Just reflecting the attitudes often expressed on here.

As for extending life drugs - I think consultants need to make a judgement, along with the patient. My dad had lots of life extending treatment which gave h another 3 months, none of which were happy ones.

But at the very core a doctor's job is to preserve life. It is a very hard call when to say it's to expensive to bother.

However it is a very different argument to ivf. I also think ivf is a different argent to curing known conditions that are preventing conception. Ivf isn't curing anything, it isn't preventing infertility. It is a service provided to those who have fertility problems. I think there is a subtle difference.

I think there is a real question about the provision of ICSI (an advanced firm of IVF) on the NHS. ICSI selects specific sperm and injects them into the egg. There is some evidence that children born as a result of ICSI are weaker and more prone to health problems. The sperm that created them may well not have been up to the challenge of fertilising the egg themselves, natural selection may have ensured these genetically weaker sperm didn't pass problems through the generations, but natural selection was bypassed in the treatment.

Is it really OK that the NHS provides an expensive treatment, with a low success rate, that even if successful may result in a weaker child that itself may need more NHS support and care?