Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To think if your DH already has kids.....

49 replies

MortifiedAdams · 01/03/2013 13:22

....and you dont (obv. step kids aside), you should still qualify for free IVF?

A woman I know who has never been pregnant is unable to and IVF may work for her. Our local entitlement is three attempts on the NHS. She doesnt qualify for even one free attempt, because her DH has dcs from a previous relationship.

It would cost them around 7k, and they are saving, but it is taking a loooong time.

OP posts:

catloony · 02/03/2013 00:31

The post code lottery is so wrong, it should be a across the board criteria. What that should be is another debate, but at least it should be fair as to where you live.

HillBilly76 · 02/03/2013 00:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

wannaBe · 02/03/2013 00:45

Personally I don't believe any IVF should be available on the nhs. The nhs should be there to preserve where possible, existing life not create more.

Dominodonkey · 02/03/2013 00:50

"when my minted friends get free drugs for every illness just because they have epilepsy"

It's hardly the same though is it? That is treatment for a life limiting illness.

I do agree with what others say though - no postcode lottery and 1/2 chances for those who do not have children already. There is no way the limited resources should be used for couples who have each got children already.

SilverOldie · 02/03/2013 11:37

I agree with WannaBe that IVF shouldn't be free on the NHS and say that as someone who could never have children.

GreatSoprendo · 02/03/2013 11:49

As someone who has had the one 'free' IVF cycle the NHS will fund in my area, I still don't necessarily think it is the right use of NHS resources. Obviously it was on offer to us (neither of us has an children) so we took it - who wouldn't - but alongside funding one cycle of IVF locally, there is a massive campaign on to recruit adopters in our area as there are so many looked after children. Seems like a real contradiction!

I'm not anti-IVF - my first LO is due in 4 weeks as a result of our second, self funded IVF cycle. But I was only going to have the IVF I could afford, and would have then stopped. I am not convinced it is the right use of limited NHS resources in any cases, even those who have no children, as being childless is not an illness.

Callisto · 02/03/2013 11:54

No, but then I don't think the NHS should fund any IVF.

bedmonster · 02/03/2013 12:00

Personally I don't believe any IVF should be available on the nhs. The nhs should be there to preserve where possible, existing life not create more.

I think this too. I rarely comment on threads like this as they can be controversial but having experienced first hand (as many others will) just how stretched our NHS staff are I think the money could be better spent elsewhere.

CloudsAndTrees · 02/03/2013 12:03

I agree the money could be spent better else where.

It's such a difficult one though because infertility can be devastating for people, but not nearly as devastating as many other illnesses that are underfunded.

HavingALittleFaithBaby · 02/03/2013 12:05

I'd be interested to know if those who say it shouldn't be available on the NHS at all had fertility problems...

It's definitely not on for a man to lie about not having children to ensure they are entitled! It makes a mockery of the system. I'm sure they have ways of checking that anyway.

OP I do see what you mean. It's very tough on people who would love to be parents together not to get a chance due to one of them having children already. The issue of IVF and 'entitlement' on the NHS is a highly contentious one. Even the number of rounds you get varies between postcodes.

I don't think it's fair for people to start doing the whole the planet is over populated. We're not in a culture that restricts how many children people are allowed to conceive therefore I disagree with people saying some couples shouldn't be entitled to IVF (for one child) just because there's overpopulation in the world!
I also disagree with the stance they should just adopt. Adoption is not a simple process and not for everyone.

undercoverhousewife · 02/03/2013 12:09

silveroldie I agree. When the economy is in crisis and the whole NHS is under threat, I don't think there should be any IVF for free. If you can't save up for a year enough to pay for IVF then how will you support a baby when it arrives and you will have lost income and/or child care costs? If you really want parenthood, then pay for it if you need to. Just the same as if I really want a large house/ fast car/ meal out I need to pay.

It's sad but true that infertility is not a life threatening illness. The ability to bear children is a privilege and a joy but I am not sure it should be at someone else's expense.

perplexedpirate · 02/03/2013 12:24

I have read some shot on here, but lying about existing children to get free IVF takes the cake.

CloudsAndTrees · 02/03/2013 12:26

I'd be interested to know if those who say it shouldn't be available on the NHS at all had fertility problems

That's a fair point, but I'd be interested to know if those that think that 3 cycles should be available to everyone on the NHS have ever suffered with an actual illness that has been in adequately treated because of costs.

squeakytoy · 02/03/2013 12:50

I dont have children, but I also agree that IVF should not be free too. Adoption should be made an easier option for people.

Flisspaps · 02/03/2013 13:21

undercover no, it's true that infertility isn't life threatening.

But then neither are millions of things that are treated by the NHS each year. That argument makes no sense.

We treat people who have had serious health issues because they choose to smoke, use drugs, drink, eat until they're morbidly obese. They have made lifestyle choices that the NHS pays to put right.

Perhaps those people should be told that treatment is no longer available? (I don't agree with that suggestion by the way, I am glad to live somewhere which offers treatment, free at the point of use, to all those who need it.)

Being infertile is an illness. It's not caused by lifestyle. It's not a lifestyle choice to have children. It's absolutely right that those who cannot conceive naturally have the chance to receive NHS help, in the same way as any other medical condition.

undercoverhousewife · 02/03/2013 13:30

Flisspaps I quite agree with your point about people who have chosen to smoke/drink/ overeat and that is why I favour high taxes on cigarettes, alcohol and sugary/fatty nutrition free food so that those people self-fund themselves as a group.

We have been spending money as a country as if we are rich enough to provide free services for anything people want (I wish) but actually we have been overspending and are stealing money from our children's generation as they will be repaying our debts for years. It has to stop. As and when the country is rich enough to afford free IVF treatment then it should be provided. Until then, sadly, not.

Yes, adoption should be easier and quicker.

HavingALittleFaithBaby · 02/03/2013 13:33

Well put fliss.

It's also a poor argument to say infertility isn't 'life-threatening' - a long time TTC had a massively negative effect on both my and DH's mental health and at times we have both felt suicidal.

It all comes back to a sense of 'entitlement'. Is the ex-alcoholic entitled to a new liver? I've actually treated patients with lung cancer while they're still smoking. Should they be entitled to treatment? Distribution of NHS resources isn't as simple as if we pay out less to x, we could do more for y.

I work in the NHS and see ridiculous amount of waste and inappropriate spending. IMO that needs tackling to free up wasted resources.

expatinscotland · 02/03/2013 13:38

I don't agree.

CloudsAndTrees · 02/03/2013 13:38

Whether infertility is an illness is debatable. It's a medical condition, but IVF isn't actually treatment to fix the problem. It's a way to get round the problem. There are lots of ways to get round problems with our bodies that wouldn't even be considered by The NHS.

When someone who has drunk, eaten or smoked to excess and then needs treatment from the NHS, they already have an undeniable, measurable illness.

Infertility isn't like that. There are countless stories of people who have thought they would need IVF, or who have failed IVF and have then conceived naturally. There are people that thought they were infertile and have adopted then gone on to conceive naturally. It isn't an illness in the same way that smoking or alcohol induced illnesses are illnesses, because those things don't just magically resolve themselves. You cannot even begin to compare the two situations.

expatinscotland · 02/03/2013 13:41

If your DH, or YOU, have kids already, you shouldn't get a shot on the NHS to procreate together. Too many people here have this notion they have to have a child with every one of their partners.

HavingALittleFaithBaby · 02/03/2013 13:58

I actually agree that inferiority isn't an illness a such. It's an umbrella term and a consequence of many different factors that can result in the inability to conceive naturally.

worriedmum100 · 02/03/2013 13:59

I agree with Flissaps. Not being able to conceive is caused by a wide variety of things, some of which are genuine medical conditions why should these not be treated/resolved in the same way as any other condition/illness.

And for those saying the "state" or "the NHS" shouldn't fund IVF - might be worth remembering that the state's money and the NHS are funded by US. Our taxes and national insurance contributions.

HavingALittleFaithBaby · 02/03/2013 14:00

infertility, not inferiority! :)

Lilka · 02/03/2013 14:11

Well I'm not contributing much on the IVF front but as an adoptive mother can I just say something?

Because 'what about adoption' is always mentionned at some point on these threads, and it annoys me a bit. Yes, i do wish more people would adopt

But - I was (to the best of my knowledge) fertile when I adopted my first child. Why is it the responsibility of the infertile to adopt? Why don't fertile people who can have birth kids take a look and ask themselves whether they could adopt? Because it seems to me that the people who say 'they can look at adoption' have never adopted themselves, they have managed to concieve. In other words, adoption isn't good enough for them, but they've no problem telling other people to do it

And also, the people who should come forward to adopt, are people who WANT an adoptive child, people who embrace and feel positive about adoption. It's really really NOT a good idea if the people coming forward desperately want a birth child but feel forced into adoption instead. Very cruel on the children, who should feel that their parents actively wanted the, not settled for them

Flip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread