to think a biological child is not a right

[Aribura]

and the NHS should not fund IVF in favour of vital medications for already existing people e.g. cancer drugs being funded?

I'm feeling masochistic this evening and am looking forward to munching on some biscuits and getting my ass handed to me.

Outraged "But the difference between fertility treatment and the vast majority of other treatments is that fertility isn't going to get worse because of long waiting lists. That is not true of other conditions that people are made to wait months for."

Er, so wrong I'm snorting. In fact I'm struggling to think of another condition which has such irreversible time sensitive outcomes.

the OP has not been back. Lets just assume chronic heartlessness and write this thread off :)

YABU and a fucking troll.

I don't understand the type of people who find entertainment in poking fun at the sick. As an infertile couple with unexplained infertility and a one per cent chance of conceiving, I would class us as sick and deserving of treatment. FWIW we had a free cycle of IVF and we've paid through the nose for all other treatment.

Yes, of course when my mom and my sister had breast cancer and a carcinoid respectively, I'd have given ANYTHING for them to be better, including my own chance of a healthy pregnancy and a baby. So I've been on both sides of this farcical 'dilemma' you've set up.

Hope you feel suitably entertained by what you've read this morning. I notice since your original post, you've pretty much fucked off. Stay there.

fertility is compromised by waiting lists.
I was lucky to get pregnant on my first round of IVF but had been waiting ages and had to appeal the decision not to give me ivf on the nhs.

Fertility issues ARE time sensitive.

Fertility declines with time , so to say fertility issues are not time sensitive is ,well, wrong .

Op have you ever seen a couple with fertility problems ?

I don't think you have .

You couldn't comprehend the heartbreak and utter devastation and post what you did .

That may be, but I don't think you can compare fertility being time sensitive with things that will actually have a detrimental affect on health. It's not the same as waiting for a knee operation which you need to be able to get back to work, it's not the same as having eye surgery that will enable you to see and prevent the damage from getting worse, it's not the same as allowing cancer to spread to the point that it's inoperable. If I knew more about the vast array of medical treatments that can be offered then I'm sure I could go on for quiet a while.

Like I said, I support IVF being available on the NHS, but I think the arguement in favour of that is diminished by saying that 'it's just fixing something that is broken' therefore it should be given the same priority. It is fixing something that is broken, but there is an element of choice involved. People choose to have children, and if they can't do that naturally they should of course be helped. But no one chooses to be disabled, or in pain, or to have a chronic life threatening condition.

The arguement for IVF being available to all who need it should be made on its own merits, not by saying its just as bad as other things that the NHS has to treat.

I'm struggling to think of another condition which has such irreversible time sensitive outcomes

Then I would say you are lucky.

The arguement for IVF being available to all who need it should be made on its own merits, not by saying its just as bad as other things that the NHS has to treat.

I have no idea what you mean by this. The argument for treating any condition rests on its own merits. What we are talking about here is how to prioritise medical intervention for one condition per medical intervention for another. And to do that I think you do have to look across treatments and consider them against the same scale (eg what happens clinically to the patient if we don't intervene now etc)

over, not per

Oh op where are yyoooouuuu???

Not really loving the medical top trumps argument.

Well said, Northey

No a biological child isn't a right, but let's look at this from an economic pov.

We know that there will not be enough children to balance out our elder heavy society in the future, so why not look at it from the angle that actually the provision of Ivf is investing in our nations economic future.

For what it's worth I would rather the NHS spent money on providing treatment to a couple who desperately want and would provide a child with a stable home than throwing good money after bad treating alcoholics who don't want to be helped. ( talking from personal experience here, so no flaming please.)

Yes people choose whether they'd like to have children, but where's the "choice" in being unable to have them due to a medical problem?

I think one of the saddest things is that IVF leads people t think that if they try it they will end up with a baby, whereas the realilty for a substantial proportion is that they will make a huge emotional and financial investment and end up very disapointed. Medical advances don't make things better for everyone and in the "old days" when there was nothing that could be done perhaps people accepted this more easily and suffered less anguish.

From a purely and coldly economic argument, it's better to let the sick die off, especially if they are, say, 50 or older, and thereby reduce the problem of the ageing population.

But because, thank God, we are a charitable society, we don't do this. Also because we are a charitable society, we treat infertility.

And the government is spending £2.375 billion on the Olympics...

Bollocks higgle.

I'm not sure that's true higgle. At least with IVF people have the chance to try and know they've done everything humanly possible. For many it will work, not always on the first attempt but of course, that's the same with trying naturally. I'm sure people in the past suffered anguish too and found childlessness hard to accept.

'We know that there will not be enough children to balance out our elder heavy society in the future, so why not look at it from the angle that actually the provision of Ivf is investing in our nations economic future.'

Ponzi demographics. We currently have a baby boom, in fact, which is causing big problems with schools in some parts of the South,but that is by the by.

My SIL has gone through heartbreak trying to conceive and is now finally pregnant, aged 42. I think she thought it would never happen.

Only read the OP but right away you've pissed me off!! Do a heavy smoker who ends up with lung cancer, who chose to smoke regardless of knowing the health issues, has more of a right to treatment than a couple who desperately want a child?!?? Get a grip.

No, it's not a right. Just as dying comfortably in your sleep aged 100 is not a right. But as a society, I think we should do everything in our power to help.

Perfect post, restassured.

I agree with you Northey. I was responding to another poster.

I also think most people don't realise what is actually meant by cancer treatment.
I think most people visualise curative treatment or a bald child having a bone marrow transplant.
In reality the biggest cost is palliative treatments of which a large majority will not serve much use but will cost millions.

As a cancer nurse I daily gave hugely expensive treatments to patients who might only live 4 weeks longer and the drugs might only have a 20% chance of working. In effect pouring tens of thousands of pounds down the sink.
But people want a 'chance' even if it doesn't work. Should we let them?
If you take away the emotion, a lot of it is a big waste if money.

I think the COST of IVF is the problem. Couples are being ripped off as private hospitals are inflating prices for profit.

If IVF was given 'at cost' it would cost about £800 a cycle (according to my Fertility Doctor friend) and this would make if much more affordable for all