To think that IVF funding should only got to people who have never had children

[Mrsdavidcaruso]

My Sister has been turned down by her PCT for IVF and we are looking t ways to help her raise the money for private treatment.

Her situation is that she has a new partner and they have not been able to conceive, she has 2 dcs from a previous relationship and her partner has 1 dc but they want to have a child together, I can understand it I suppose and am supportive but.

AIBU to think that scarce funding should be used for people who have
NEVER had the chance to be parents not for people who already have children even if not with their current partner.

I suppose if I was in her situation I might think differently but I cant help feeling that if she got funding someone who never had children may lose out.

Prepares to be flamed

[thermalsinapril]

digerd not having a solution doesn't mean people "accepted" being childless.

I agree that childless couples should have priority for IVF, but ideally anyone in need of this treatment should receive it IMHO.

[aladdinsane]

Each case is so unique its not right to make such a blanket statement
My DS was born 15 years ago after ICSI
At that time ICSI was not available on the NHS. We worked and saved like crazy - it cost around £15000 - I think it may be cheaper now
When he was 2 it became available on the NHS - in our area anyway - but we were not eligible because we had a child
I felt so cheated and once we had a child no way could we save that kind of money
Years later we adopted and, for anyone who bandies around this suggestion, adoption is nothing like having a birth child
It is the most rewarding and challenging thing I have ever done but its completely different
adopted children come with a whole load of baggage and its a very different life

[lozster]

This is a bad place for an ivf discussion - anyone wanting some help and guidance should move over the 'becoming a parent' infertility thread.

There are many misconceptions about ivf and ignorance of the facts - that's why professional bodies such as NICE make the decisions rather than relying on results to a public opinion poll.

I'm five months pregnant after a mix of nhs and self funded treatment. Yes, it is possible to do this in tandem combining cycles and buying some of your own drugs. Access to ivf is tightly controlled and there is a huge lead up to it that will take years as other routes (yes, there are other fertility treatments) and solutions are explored. Not only that, your suitability to parent will be assessed despite what coronation street may depict.

My private cycle cost 5k. It was provided in the same hospital where my nhs treatment took place. By my reckoning (and comments from fertility expert Prof winston) this was about a 2k mark up. I attended the largest unit in Europe. It is in essence an efficient production line serving a substantial section of the uk. The point is that, relative to other procedures and medication, a round of ivf may not be as costly to the nhs as popular opinion thinks.

For those calling for priorities to be made you might want to think more broadly. As someone said up thread, an epidural isn't a medical necessity in childbirth, nor is gas and air for that matter. Im hesitating before typing this as i'm not suggesting it for one second, but breast reconstruction post masectomy isnt necessary either. The point is that there are many medications and procedures that are not necessary to sustain human life but are paid for by the nhs. in terms of efficacy too, it is erroneous to assume that all procedures are 100% efficacious and that 100% of medication is effective. To the person up thread whose grandad needs a knee replacement - they are not guaranteed either (my own parent is testament to that) so you might want to balance that in too.

Infertility is a struggle on a day to day basis precisely because of the opinions against it expressed here. You don't talk about it because people are ignorant and judgemental. Society is family oriented - there is a reason why being pregnant is called 'being in the club'. Apart from a fundamental natural desire to be a parent, non-parents will be judged by many as 'selfish' excluded from conversations and feel marginalised in society. That's my experience based on my infertility and now my pregnancy.

On adoption - well where to start? So many misconceptions. Adoption is about finding parents for children NOT finding children for would be parents. Yes - there is a difference. Children in need of adoption often have special needs best met by those with experience of parenting. Being infertile does not qualify you to parent challemging children. Added to that, agencies require a 'cool off' period between fertility treatment and starting the adoption process. This can be any thing up to two years. Given that most people spend years investigating infertility it's a very long road and one that requires you to shut off the option of conceiving your own child before knowing if you would be considered suitable to adopt any child.

So frankly I do not feel guilty at accepting nhs help to conceive my one and only child. I do not accept that I have denied a child a hearing aid or ripped the iv from the arm of a cancer patient any more than a substance abuser or nhs health tourist has.

[Crawling]

Im pretty sure a family member sold some eggs to fund her treatment why cant you do that?

[lozster]

Not sure if that is addressed to me Crawling?

Egg share (not 'selling') has strict criteria that makes it an option only for a select group of individuals. You need for example to have a suitable AMH score and be under 35. If your reason for infertility is say a blocked Fallopian tube then you may be suitable however, the reason for fertility treatment being needed in many cases is precisely because egg reserve is abnormally low.

Again - I would re-frame this idea to 'pay your own way'. If you needed a heart bypass would you think it was acceptable to ask the patient to donate a kidney at the same time?

[sarlat]

Very interesting thread. I urge those who have never experienced infertility to do some real research in to the causes of infertility and pyschological impact it has before determining if we have the right to access nhs funding for ivf. Please take a step back, and then with an open mind and open heart consider the confusion, shame, distress and stress which is felt. Please consider very very carefully how it might feel if your child never came about or was lost during pregnancy. Please consider very carefully what it is or isn't that would make a couple consider adoption. Studies have proved the emotional stress caused by infertility is up there with grief of an untimley death. Adoption is a wonderful wonderful thing but the psychological process that leads to it is not an automatic continuem of infertility.

My infertility was likely caused by negligence and disinterest by medics following a miscarriage. I wasn't believed when I told them how big the foetus was that I passed. I appear to have damaged tubes as a result of the lack of monitoring post miscarriage. Prior to that I was exceedingly fertile and fell pregnant first attempt immediatley. Now I am not so fertile. Do I not deserve some nhs treatment? All infertiliy is a medical problem, not bad luck. As euro says, do not compare ivf with life saving cancer treatent, compare like with like (as do the nhs clinical commisioners), I.e, stroke rehab, hip replacements, and some aspects of maternity services.

Thank goodness we live in a society which recognises ( I hope) the emotional as well as mechanical health of people. The world health organisation states that a persons psychological well being is of equal importance as the damaged physical tissue. We need to nurture all humans and all health complaints. We need to have respect for all children waiting to be adopted, ensure they are adopted by couples who are full of joy to do this and promote better processes for this to happen. We then need to suupport those new families with adopted children who may or may not be adopted by infertile couples.

[sarlat]

Very interesting thread. I urge those who have never experienced infertility to do some real research in to the causes of infertility and pyschological impact it has before determining if we have the right to access nhs funding for ivf. Please take a step back, and then with an open mind and open heart consider the confusion, shame, distress and stress which is felt. Please consider very very carefully how it might feel if your child never came about or was lost during pregnancy. Please consider very carefully what it is or isn't that would make a couple consider adoption. Studies have proved the emotional stress caused by infertility is up there with grief of an untimley death. Adoption is a wonderful wonderful thing but the psychological process that leads to it is not an automatic continuem of infertility.

My infertility was likely caused by negligence and disinterest by medics following a miscarriage. I wasn't believed when I told them how big the foetus was that I passed. I appear to have damaged tubes as a result of the lack of monitoring post miscarriage. Prior to that I was exceedingly fertile and fell pregnant first attempt immediatley. Now I am not so fertile. Do I not deserve some nhs treatment? All infertiliy is a medical problem, not bad luck. As euro says, do not compare ivf with life saving cancer treatent, compare like with like (as do the nhs clinical commisioners), I.e, stroke rehab, hip replacements, and some aspects of maternity services.

Thank goodness we live in a society which recognises ( I hope) the emotional as well as mechanical health of people. The world health organisation states that a persons psychological well being is of equal importance as the damaged physical tissue. We need to nurture all humans and all health complaints. We need to have respect for all children waiting to be adopted, ensure they are adopted by couples who are full of joy to do this and promote better processes for this to happen. We then need to suupport those new families with adopted children who may or may not be adopted by infertile couples.

[Crawling]

It was a general question and no its not for all but some can and its nothing like a heart transplant but I would hope anyone willing to receive a transplant will donate on their death.

[lozster]

Not sure you quite got my point Crawley. I said a heart bypass not transplant with the general point being that if you expect an infertile individual to donate something of themselves to pay for health care, why would you not apply this general principle to other (living) patients requiring other procedures?

[Crawling]

Because they need the procedure to live.

[stressyBessy22]

I don't think NHS should be funding IVF at all.
IMO scarece resources should be directed at lives who are actually here rather than creating new ones.

[lozster]

They could have the procedure AND live AND still self fund with the kidney money?

I say heart by pass as i have spent much of the last couple of months visiting on a cardiac ward where I had to fight my way in past the smokers congregated under the no smoking sign to a ward of overweight patients, one of whom was actually boasting about the bypass being a second and that he wouldn't be stopping his pints and fags....

[lozster]

But Bessy, ivf does treat the person who is here as I (and my partner) are the ones who were treated. Receiving this treatment has made a fundamental difference to my life, health and well being and to his.

[Crawling]

You cant seriously be comparing heart bypass to ivf . When I first came on I was undexide now hearing people comparing ivf to heart surgery ion smokers and refusal to look at a perfectly good alternate way of getting ivf while helping another poor infertile couple im now leaning towards stop it on the nhs.

[lozster]

No - you miss my point still - I am challenging your principle that self funding of health care by donation of other body parts.

[lozster]

Sorry - that last post was garbled. I am challenging the principle you put forward that it is acceptable to expect people to pay for healthcare by donating a body part. You take a simplistic view of the options available to infertile people (donation isn't an option for many, plus it brings with it it's own issues). That's fine - I'm not informed about a range of other health and social issues too which is why we have NICE to issue recommendations.

[Viviennemary]

I am not saying that IVF shouldn't be funded by the NHS at all. But I think the funding should be limited to people with no children and people who cannot conceive in the usual way. In absolutely no way can funding for IVF be compared to heart surgery. IVF isn't strictly speaking healthcare.

[EuroShaggleton]

As lozster says, egg donation isn't an option for many. When we started ttc, I would have qualified. By the time we had tried for the requisite time to qualify for investigations, had those investigations and tried some less invasive treatments before finally arriving at IVF, I had gone over the age where I was eligible to do that (35). Plus you need certain hormone levels, etc. There are also many ethical issues to consider, as with any donation, and counselling is required before you can go ahead.

Also, I think forcing someone to donate a part of their body as a quid pro quo for receiving treatment for a medical condition is a very slippery slope and not one I would want to see the NHS go down.

[KC225]

People seem to think that before IVF there was no help - nothing. NHS hospitals have been helping couples with infertility for a long long time. Lots of couples have attended Assisted Conception Units and have been helped. Blocked tubes, investigative operations, scans, fertility drugs, IUI as many other treatments are all funded by the NHS and have been for long time but for some reason IVF is very emotive.

As for that crappy 'children are a blessing, not a right' saying, no decent compassionate person believes that, not in the same week the Philpots were jailed for killing their 'blessings'

[Snazzynewyear]

Boiling down a complex issue, my position would be:

If neither partner has a child already, or if one partner does but the other doesn't = yes to funding

If both partners already have a child just not with each other, or if a couple already have one child but can't conceive another, =no to funding.

I think it's right to prioritize giving someone who has no children a child, rather than funding someone with a child already to have more.

[lozster]

Just to reiterate, as the misinterpretation seems to be duplicating itself up the thread, I did not compare ivf to heart surgery as a priority call - I drew an analogy to determine why a principle of donation of a body as part payment for treatment should apply only to ivf. If it makes it easier to understand try these parallels instead - mums who have benefitted from maternity services can donate eggs afterwards to pay back their health costs, smokers on smoking cessation can donate blood for the next five years, you can pay for a gp visit with a sperm donation... Heck we've hit upon the solution for all the woes of the nhs. Just the pesky ethics groups to tackle now.

[KC225]

If we stopped health tourists and or fined embassies for non nationals for using the NHS when they were not entitled to that would fund a lot of the lacking departments mentioned on here

[HesterShaw]

God, this thread is depressing and illustrates exactly why so many infertile couples feel shame. Shame at not being able to conceive, and shame at having to have treatment.

I am currently undergoing NHS funded treatment and this thread has made me feel shit.

[rabbitonthemoon]

Hester don't feel shit or ashamed. Infertility is no ones fault and I will reiterate that it IS a health condition. There are bits of me that aren't working properly! It amazes me that in spite of many thoughtful and considered posts on here, people trot out the accept it/adopt tripe and then sit back for a 'flaming', adding nothing new to the conversation and lacking any sign of empathy. But MN often amazes me.

[lozster]

Hester, rabbit - it's ignorance that you see in this thread. Not in a perjorative 'you're thick and maliciously hurting me' sense but in the sense that if someone has not encountered a situation then they are unlikely to be aware of the facts and the feasibility of the options that may 'appear' to be available. I think in the case of ivf this is exacerbated as the treatment has developed enormously in terms of success, risk and efficiency of delivery at key centres. However, what sticks in the minds of many are the headlines of multiple births, low success rates and side effects of decades ago.

As someone who suffered from infertility I spoke to no one in real life as I could barely cope with my own issues never mind championing the right to treatment in general. I think this hiding away means the profile those effected is low and the area misunderstood. As a childless couple you are faced with judgement whatever you do. Generally people make assumptions about why you don't have children (career, lifestyle....) but those same people would also judge you having treatment. Now that I am obviously pregnant I've found the attention and positivity bitter sweet. People have been beyond kind to me which is lovely but a little bit of me is sad that this only just happened for me and that without the nhs it wouldn't have done.