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?

Should old people not be given surgery on bad hips or legs? Bad hips aren't life threatning.. So by everyone's definition of what is acceptable for the NHS they would deny their nan's a new hip? Or would they say the surgery is worth it because it greatly improved the quality of their life?

Again though , there is a very big difference between new hips and ivf in terms of quality of life. A person needing a new hip is in physical pain and has limited mobility. The physical quality of life is being hugely compromised. Not having a baby is not the same.

You can talk about depression and emotional health but there is no medical link. Divorce causes depression, not finding a suitable partner causes depression, redundancy causes depression. The Nhs is not responsible for removing the cause.

"This is easy for me to say, as I conceived naturally"

yup!

It shouldn't be available on the NHS, just like Viagra, cosmetic surgery and much more that passes for healthcare nowadays

This is a troll right?

Actually, there's a very sound economic case for providing three cycles of IVF on the NHS, using all suitable fresh and frozen embryos from each cycle as current guidance says.

This may go against the common sense of people who haven't had the chance to look at the maths, but it is still the case.

Put simply, when people have to pay themselves, especially if they go abroad (which is a big draw as it is cheaper) they are more likely to have multiple embryos implanted, which can obviously cause multiple births. These are vastly more expensive for the NHS given twins and triplets are far more likely to have problems requiring medical care and time spend in SCBU costs an awful lot of money.

(Clearly this is no reason to criticise twin or triplet pregnancies once they exist - but it is far better for the NHS on cost grounds to do everything it can to help people avoid them.)

Why should it be a troll?

As far as I can see noone has been offensive and this seems to be a well balanced and reasonable discussion.

The NHS makes awful and controversial decisions everyday, whether or not a teen with DS gets a transplant, whether the over eater gets a gastric band, whether the heavy smoker gets his gout ridden leg amputated, whether the baby born at 26 weeks with limited life expectancy gets saved, whether the cancer patient gets another few weeks, whether the interpreter is provided....it's not anything I would like to decide, but budgets are set.

(Btw current NHS guidelines don't offer three cycles to everyone, only to those patients who are most likely to benefit i.e. under 40 or 38, I forget, and there are other restrictions. You can look up the guidance on the NICE website.)

I think that it is quite interesting that those who cannot get treatment because of the NHS postcode lottery decide that they don't want IVF enough (because of the low success rate) to spend £5000 per cycle - even if they have the money.

I don't think IVF should be free on the NHS. I do think the NHS should continue to do IVF research in order to improve the chances of healthy pregnancies, but I don't think IVF should be a right. It would be nice if there were more collaboration between the NHS and private clinics to enable the costs to be kept down, and perhaps to part-pay for treatment.

This country has a huge and growing problem with age-related diseases. These must take priority.

A massively emotive subject and one people seem determined to make black and white, when it just isn't!

Each time I try to write an argument against, i come up with an argument for...

I think deep down I believe it should not be free, but I am certain my belief stems from the fact that if i needed to afford it privately i could, and the comfort that I haven't had to use it. So really,to be perfectly frank, I do not feel unbiased enough to judge this at all!

To those ladies who have had success on IVF - congrats!

in Wales you only get 2 goes and you have to be a certain age. Up until very recently it was just one round.

What edam says is absolutely right.

As someone who had successful IVF on the NHS I am extremely grateful, though I am of course completely aware that I was very lucky to get the treatment and that the NHS can't provide a never ending source of funds. On the other hand I have never had any major illness, never spent a night in hospital and have paid my taxes for many many years.

A family member has been trying for children for 8 years, been mis-diagnosed several times, had IUI and IVF (resulting in a miscarriage) and is hopefully soon to benefit from a second round since they changed the rules in Wales. I don't think anyone can really understand the pain of infertility, or more so the pain of having to 'give up' unless they have actually been there.

Agree Riven, my great aunt says she is quite glad she lived in an age before Ivf. She accepted it wasn't going to happen for them and got on with her life. I can see how it would be easy to be drawn into the Ivf merry go round and always be thinking "just one more round" and suddenly find you've spent a decade of your life trying and failing to get pregnant.

the thing is, the merry-go-round doesn't start with IVF. For many it starts with checking your EWCM, then taking pills, putting your legs in the air, then changing diet, then doing acupuncture and taking herbs, then having tests, then being referred, then trying clomid (for some), then IUI, ... and so on. You don't just jump straight into IVF; I think sometimes by the time you have been through all that it's quite difficult to get the roundabout to stop spinning. Plus, of course, when you start you never think that you might be the one who ends up doing IVF. By the time most people get to IVF they are 2-3 years older than when they started trying.

Not much to add except this has been really interesting

my gut feeling is of course it should be available and free to all who need it.. but on further examination, i agree there are probably better uses of resources

also think things like tattoo removal should not be on the NHS. freeing up more money for other more important treatments.

I have not had IVF. Know a fair few people who've needed Clomid, a couple who've needed IVF.

I know people who've gone abroad for IVF-- interestingly, one person I know who'd had treatment here and IVF and it had nveer worked, went abroad for IVF, it worked first time. she said the foreign clinic was much more holistic and person centred. if you needed a scan or a check up or something on a sunday, because that was the optimum day, you got it.. whereas in teh UK you had the treatment or whatever on a friday or a monday, regardless as the clinics were not running over the weekend.

maybe that has an impact on success rates/costs etc?

Its very easy to say "IVF is not an essential", but then again I had no trouble conceiving

for that reason, I really think I cant make an unbiased comment

maybe means tested??? but then it brings the "why are you having kids if you are poor argument in

we are all having our babies too bloody late thats the issue IMO

If we can afford two multi-billion pound wars in Iraq and Afghanistan whilst gearing up for a 3rd against Iran and at the same time find trillions to bail out the finance sector, pay for a Royal family and subsidise the farming and fishing industries then we can afford to provide every treatment needed on the NHS and that includes IVF. Its just that government doesn't see the NHS as a priority.

Instead of everyone nitpicking over who is most deserving of what, why don't you ask why the government quickly decided we could afford all the things above whilst we apparently cannot afford cancer drugs and IVF at the same time? Only a tiny percentage of women in this country need IVF so the overall cost is not that great considering.

Also its very easy for people who have easily had children naturally to say that they don't agree with funding it. Luckily I never had to have it, but I was offered 3 rounds and conceived from my first IUI which cost around £1k. I have paid a lot of money into the NHS so I think its okay that I was given that seeing as I'm happy to pay for many things on the NHS for others, that's how it works. You have no idea what infertility can do to your mental and physical health.

I can't believe how many people have been deceived into thinking that we cannot fully fund the NHS, classic divide and rule.

No one NEEDS a child (although I can imagine the pain of wanting one badly) but the babies who are already here will need incubators amnd the people who are already here will need operations/ pain relief/medication etc so YABU. IVF is not a right. I do think people should be able to adopt a lot more easily though.

The government is also considering spending billions on trident yet we apparently cannot afford to fully fund the NHS.

Also this may be controversial but adoption is not the same as having your own child. Very easy for someone who has their own kids to suggest someone with fertility issues just give up on wanting their own to adopt someone else's. I wouldn't have totally ruled out adoption and in fact my DH and I are considering adoption if we have problems having a second but we wanted to exhaust every method of having our own biological child first.

I am not a health economist but I think Edam is probably right about the economic arguments. It is a lot more complex than adding up the cost of each IVF cycle.

Duelingfanjo: good point. I started TTC at 30 and had my first child at 37. Despite what the dailymail tries to tell us, I don't think many women reach their 35th or 40th birthday and think "I want a child, let's get IVF treatment." It is one of the last chance options in a long and painful journey for many couples. I had no idea of the investigations done or the time it all takes to work through the range of treatments before unexplained infertility happened to us, and I expect that many of the 32% fall into that camp.

I didn't used to think IVF should be available on the NHS but apparently resources are so plentiful that women can have their hymen re-stiched so that their partner believes they are a virgin on their wedding night!

Capricorn - I understand that you want your own biological child, but why?

Is it because you want to carry on your genes? I know very little about this but would an IVF child be more likely to have inherited fertility problems?
Is it because you "don't know what you're going to get" (a reason a friend's DH won't consider adoption). Surely this is the case for any child?

As I said in my previous post, I haven't encountered fertility problems, for which I am very grateful, but admittedly this means I can't empathise fully. I'm asking these questions because I know how much it means to have a child, but I don't understand why a child has to be biologically connected to the parents.