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

[Callisto]

I don't think anyone should get IVF treatment on the NHS.

[Munxx]

Agree with euroshaggleton absolutely

My fil was very outspoken against all fertility treatment which made speaking abouty own fertility issues very hard.

Fertility is often caused by a medical problem which deserves treatment and care, and understanding.

Too many people are quick to say its just one of those things and so on.

Walk a bit in a women who is desperately ttc's shoes. Fertility issues cause stress, can cause mental illness and is just the most horrific and heartbreaking thing to bear.

All women deserve their own children, and deserve the help they need.

[mummytowillow]

YANBU I have a daughter through IVF, in total we spent £15k to get her.

Our PCT refused to fund as my ex already had two boys from a previous marriage, but I had none

If they already have children from previous relationships, then I agree funding should go to those with no children.

Feel for her though as infertility is painful and I hope she finds the money from somewhere.

[HesterShaw]

It's always cancer isn't it? People shouldn't get NHS IVF treatment because of cancer.

[mummytowillow]

Just read that through and don't think it makes sense!

What I mean if one had kids but other didn't, they should still get IVF. Which was my case.

But if both already have kids then no they shouldn't get funding.

[99problems]

I have a child from a previous relationship, my DP has a zero sperm count. There is no way he will father a child without IVF/ICSI because he is making sperm but it can't get out.

We won't get funding as a couple because I have a child - dp doesn't. We are now in a position where I feel terribly guilty that because of me, he can't have his own biological child, and he feels guilty as he can't give me the other child I wish I had.

I think this situation is wholly unfair on dp, but appreciate the lack of funding NHS have. The other criteria for IVF funding (weight, smokers and age) I can understand as they can directly effect the health of a baby and risks in pregnancy. But DP and I are young, in our 20s and won't get this chance.

[Fleecyslippers]

YANBU and I say that as somebody with fertility issues. The NHS has finite resources and the money needs to be prioritised . IVF is not priority. It's harsh but its the reality.

[HesterShaw]

There are lots of things which aren't priorities though aren't there? What about hip replacements? Hips don't kill you.

Are we saying that all things which aren't terminal ought to be scrapped?


PS I agree that those with children already should not perhaps qualify as much as a couple who have no children and a medical problem is preventing them conceiving.

[Pickles101]

YANBU.

[themaltesecat]

How many countries in the world offer free or heavily subsidised IVF to anyone? It must be a very small number.

Since there's bugger all in the kitty, I'd rather some living person got the money for life-saving treatment, at least in these straitened times. IVF should be cheaper, but not funded by the public.

[DontSHOUTTTTTT]

YANBU but it is a sad situation. There is only so much money in the pot and I think it is better to prioritise childless couples.

[HesterShaw]

But it's not a question of either/or is it? Other countries don't have an NHS which they pay for out of their taxes. We do.


I wouldn't personally treat illnesses which are a direct result of a person smoking. So it's a good thing that I, with my prejudices, am not in charge of allocating budgets and deciding on priorities.

[iZombie]

I'm another who thinks it's not a procedure that should be available on the NHS at all.

[Hugglepuff]

YANBU - resources are really scare in the NHS. However, I do think that the policy should be the same in all hospital Trusts.

[99problems]

What about fully fertile couples who chose to have 3,4,5+ kids. 'Maternity care costs the NHS on average £2800 per woman for
antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care'.

Should everyone limit themselves to 1 or 2 children to avoid cost on the NHS? Not to mention the cost of education etc.

[flatpackhamster]

HesterShaw

There are lots of things which aren't priorities though aren't there? What about hip replacements? Hips don't kill you.

A failing hip is agonising, makes you prone to falls and further injuries and destroys your mobility. It's not the same as being unable to conceive, however upsetting that may be for the people who want children.

Are we saying that all things which aren't terminal ought to be scrapped?

We're certainly saying that there ought to be priorities and that those prorities are not being considered wisely at present.

But it's not a question of either/or is it? Other countries don't have an NHS which they pay for out of their taxes. We do.

It is a question of either/or. The NHS is a scarce resource and the money has to be allocated. It's not an unreasonable question to ask what should be treated and what shouldn't.

I wouldn't personally treat illnesses which are a direct result of a person smoking. So it's a good thing that I, with my prejudices, am not in charge of allocating budgets and deciding on priorities.

The difficulty is how do you decide what's a direct result of someone smoking? I have a client who has emphysema and has never smoked. But emphysema is a classic smoking-related disease. Should he be denied treatment? Does he then have to prove a negative to get treatment?

[eminemmerdale]

I agree with you. My daughter cannot get a hearing aid due to funding. I appreciate they are diffeent 'pots', but there are some bizarre things that are funded whereas the right to hearing doesn't seem to be a priority :(

[HesterShaw]

Ah well, you're right. I'm wrong.


What I have noticed though, is that those who say IVF shouldn't ever be available on the NHS are generally those who have reproduced successfully.

I'm going to hide this thread now.

[crashdoll]

YANBU. I don't disagree with IVF on the NHS but they both have children. It is not an infinite pot.

It also pisses me off on these threads when people say shit stuff like "well bad hips don't kill you" because the NHS is not just about preventing death and IMO priority should be given to hip replacements over IVF to a couple who both have children, albeit not together.

[EuroShaggleton]

I'm wondering how many of those on this thread saying IVF shouldn't be funded by the NHS at all have children themselves.

Infertility is the hardest thing I have gone through in life. Harder than getting a bad smear result and worrying about having cervical cancer. Harder than bereavement. Harder than having both parents diagnosed with cancer. And I'm not one of those people who has always wanted to be a mummy since my teens and has focussed on nothing else. I didn't want children at all until I hit my 30s. But the pain of not being able to conceive is completely life-dominating.

I'm in the fortunate position of being able to fund IVF privately and I fully realise how lucky that makes me. But not everyone is, and I think the NHS - into which most people have paid their whole lives - should fund treatment for a medical problem that just happens to their genitals rather than an ear or a hand or whatever.

[2rebecca]

In this case IVF isn't going to your sister as she has previous kids so I don't see why you are asking AIBU if what you want to happen is already happening here.
I think the idea some folk have that they are entitled to NHS funds to have kids with every new partner no matter how many kids they both have already is greedy. The planet is overpopulated. 3 kids between 2 of them will be plenty to support when they get to university age anyway.
I think IVF should be very limited on the NHS. We don't need more people we need to improve the health of those we have, especially the elderly.

[FrankellyMyDearIDontGiveADamn]

Damn those infertile couples eating up all the NHS money eh?!

IVF funding does not cost the NHS millions. It costs around £3,000 per cycle of IVF, that won't actually make much difference to cancer treatments.

If we're taking all non-essential treatment out of the NHS I look forward to seeing all plastic surgery, knee/hip operations, in-growing toe nail operations, etc being cancelled shortly.

In fact, while we're at it lets stop gastric band surgery and treatment for smokers, after all that's self inflicted.

[crashdoll]

FFS I'm fed up of people labelling joint replacements as non-essential. Better hope your joints never fuck up, eh?!

[CloudsAndTrees]

I agree that IVF shouldn't be funded at all on the NHS. I also think couples should have to pay a flat fee to give birth on the NHS, but then I believe having children is not a right.

It would be great if as a country we could afford to pay for this procedure, but there are so many vitally important things that are drastically underfunded, it just makes no sense that we spend limited money on fertility treatment.