Thoughts of IVF lotto

[welshbyrd]

I apologies if it has already been done, but what do we all think about it?

Actually Juggling my DH and I will be adopting and have been discussing this for years. We are currently waiting to emigrate at the moment and hence will wait until we move and then start the paperwork. It does not matter which country the adopted children come from but we will certainly be making the best effort to adopt we can, even if we only had adopted children that would be completely fine. If we were infertile truly we would just adopt, infertility is not an illness.

As Coccyx says if you are interested then fine buy an IVF lottery ticket and at least you might have a chance if you really want the treatment but my point is there is NO money in the NHS and they have to draw the line somewhere. There are too many people using it who have never contributed towards the cost of it plus when it was formed we were not expected to live as long.

My DH is a Nurse and teaches in a hospital, he has worked and studied for a long time for what is an unacceptable wage for the studying etc and time he has put in. Yet now some of his colleagues are to be made redundant because basically they need to make cuts. I would prefer there to be more Nurses than people being treated for a non related illness.

I don't get the fact that if you really do want a child that much than surely it doesn't matter that it is not biologically yours. Surely you will love it just as much.

there's another thread on this with somne good information about why 'just adopt' is a stupid thing to say.

Infertility is absolutely not the same as plastic surgery. Anyway - this lottery is for people to win the money to have IVF, NOT for them to have IVF 'on the NHS' and I imagine would be bought by those people who are unable to get IVF on the NHS because they are too young, too old, already have children etc.

Anyone having a child could be a child abuser and if you have IVF (on the NHS) you do have to not be on any kind of sex offenders list, they do check this out.

Mostly I think people who have this 'ivf isn't an illness' attitude have never suffered from infertility and I would hope too that they all adopted older children who need a home rather than having their own biological children. Did you? Or are you all childless by choice and loving it?

Cheshire - I think it's commendable that you are going to adopt but wonder if you realise how difficult it may be considering you are now pregnant with your own biological child? An older child with extra emotional needs or abuse issues may not be able to go to a home with other children and I may be incorrect but if you want to adopt a baby you may not get the chance in this country or any other first world country if you already have your own biological children. Maybe adopting from a third world country could be an option for you but that is fraught with issues too. it really isn't as simple as people like Madonna make it seem.

What are the success rates for ivf? I was under the impression they are depressingly low? This lottery idea sounds callous to me. I think it's hard to have an unbiased opinion on ivf and Nhs- I would be inclined to say if it hardly works then it's a waste of money but I have children and so don't have an unbiased view point.

Cheshire you are having your own biological baby first though, yes? But that's okay because you've become pregnant without using NHS resources? Well, lucky you.

Surely if you're so concerned about the NHS you wouldnt be emigrating with a nurse that the NHS has paid to train?

Seems that it's okay to waste resources if it benefits your family.

I was 39, almost 40 and IVF worked for me first time. I was incfredibly lucky.

Success rates are here

I've thought about it and the reason I think that this is wrong is because I can see in my minds eye the woman who cant have a baby without IVF. She has been told she needs IVF and cant afford it. The NHS arent funding treatment for her so she is facing a childless future. So she buys her tickets for the IVF lottery, and at £20 a time probably spends more than she can afford. Then every month she not only gets her period despite hoping against hope that just maybe she is pregnant, she also finds out that another woman won the IVF not her. And her heart breaks again.

As horrible as it must be to have to accept you cant have children, if you are out of options then the acceptance of that and the healing begins. This lottery might deliver the dream for a very small amount of people, taking into account winning the draw in the first place and then the small IVF success rate, but for the majority it wont. But the hope this draw offers, no matter how small, is surely dragging out that pain and means that the acceptance and healing may never happen?

what about the men? men can be infertile too. And as far as I am aware the pain drags on until the menopause and then you are just forced to accept it.

Sorry DuellingFanjo, I did write that from the POV of a woman, buts only because I am one! You are absolutely right about men being infertile too.

But my (badly made) point was that this lottery can prevent women and men coming to terms with being childless by offering them the hope of treatment that chances are they wont win.

Cheshire, you ignorant idiot, fertility problems are very very often the result of an illness, a bi-product, side effect if you like. If you have complications of diabetes for example, and lose your sight or a limb, or become impotent, should the NHS refuse to fund treatment for it?

Well you wont like it.

the NHS was set up to save lives not enhance life style choices.

Slate me but I'd rather my taxes went to a worthy cause. If you want to be a parnt - plenty out there to be fostered and adopted. It's not a RIGHT to be able to procreate.

Trois, no, your wrong. The NHS was conceived as a way of delivering equitable healthcare - caring for health - and protecting public health, free at source. Nothing to do with "saving lives."

See how I got the word "conceived" in my post?

and I would like my taxes to go towards my treatment. I have barely used the NHS so I am glad that I got to have IVF on the NHS using some of the taxes I have paid into the system.

In answer to a previous question I would rather my money go towards my IVF treatment than someone elses cancer treatment. Sorry.

I see the 'just go and adopt brigade' are out in force again. What a stupid and ridiculous thing to say. The air must be a bit thin up there.

And as for the brigade that seem to be suggesting that this lottery is a bad idea because women need to be saved from further disappointment. How patronising and patrician is that!

The trouble with IVF is that the genie is out of the bottle and it just won't go back in again. Medical treatment exists that may help couples conceive. And contrary to populist belief it is not women who have left it too late and are hoping for a magic bullet. Unexplained infertility is the least represented sector. In 80% of cases, the reason for the infertility is known and that 80 % is split fairly evenly between male and female factor. The other 20% comprises the unexplained and where there is a problem with both partners.

What is shocking in the IVF world is how crap the NHS clinics are at it compared to the top private clinics. The best clinics in this country are achieving 60% live birth rate. That's really really high and getting higher all the time.

Have the 'it's not natural' brigade been on this thread too? Well if we left it all to nature then the NHS would be much better off as everyone would die as surely no medical treatment is natural.

Thankfully decisions of what to fund are usually quite sensibly done. It's where the decisions of HOW to fund are made that things come unstuck. I'd rather my taxes were spent on fertilty treatments for people, which might work, than homeopathy/acupuncture etc and other such clinically unproven bollocks.

Why is it always IVF played off against cancer? Of course cancer treatment should be funded. But there are many other things the NHS funds too, many of which cause less distress than infertility.

Deux, I'm a bit in love with you.

BagofHolly, aw shucks I'm just getting started mind but v tired so off to bed.

me too, a bit in love.

Stop it you two. And no fighting.

And me as well! So angry at some of these posts so think I will leave it to people like deux who unlike me are still able to be eloquent at this time of night.

I'm shocked at peoples "Oh just adopt" attitudes. What makes you think it is so easy to adopt? From what I hear it very hard and take alot of time. Many men and women do not find out that they have fertility issues until later on in life and it can be even harder for older couples to adopt.

I personally think the process of giving someone a chance to have a child of their own a worthy cause.

Adopting a child is NOT an alternative to conceiving a baby. The two are not comparable.

Those who say that infertility is not an illness and therefore shouldn't be subsidised by NHS funds presumably accessed NO NHS care throughout their pregnancy, delivery and post-natal needs?

Those who say that having a baby is a lifestyle choice and not a right - I would be interested to hear about your experiences - how your own lives have been enhanced by having children and how you would feel if you were ever denied the chance to have that family life

Infertile people pay taxes too...

The IVF lotto is a very sad sign of the times, in my opinion, and doesn't help emphasising the very real issues and challenges faced by infertile people

Just to be clear my
*I think its disgusting. Playing with people's emotion's each week, whilst making financial gain from it

Fgs, whats next? lottery jackpot of over expensive cancer pills, that are not given out on nhs?
Perhaps, an ebay auction on someones healthy kidney?
Why not throw in a boob job online bingo
A raffle for a healthy bit of bonemarrow

Where does it end?*
comment was not meant to play cancer treatment or IVF off against each other, I was using the cancer pills as an example

I have no problem with IVF on the NHS, yes I pay my taxes and yes I have DCs without treatment
I do however think, this lotto is just insensitive to say the least, I have visions of desperate women/men stood around a TV every week, clinging on to what essentially is very little hope[with regards to the lotto] whilst the lotto is making a financial gain. There will only be a handful of winners at the most each week, and leaving the 99% of non winners empty, and close to almost grieving each week. I find it very hard to see any positives from this stupid idea
And again where does it stop?