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

[keepitgoing]

I wonder how many people saying it shouldn't be available on the NHS have experienced the pain and heartbreak of infertility?

If we are just about saving lives there's a hell of a lot the NHS shouldn't be doing.

The NHS is amazing. And life is not just about quantity of life, but quality of life. Thus NICE is there to guide us on choices like, for example, this cancer drug will extend life by three weeks at £x 000. Or ivf has a good chance of success for x,y,z groups of people.

[99problems]

Agree with EuroShaggleton. I've had a tonsillectomy after getting tonsillitis every single month last year, to the point I had to take long term leave because I was so ill pretty much constantly. I've had an op on my foot which was causing me great physical pain and I couldn't walk on it for 6 months.

I'd rather have continued to suffer and that money have been allocated to our IVF fund because the prospect of DP never having his own biological child is far, far more painful.

[FrankellyMyDearIDontGiveADamn]

crashdoll, of course I think joint replacement operations are essential. My point is that the "don't fund fertility treatment because its not life threatening" argument could equally be applied to lots of other treatments on the NHS.

A quick straw poll: how many of the posters advocating removing IVF funding have actually gone through the pain of infertility?

[sashh]

One of my friends who already had 2 children had trouble conceiving her third was offered IVF and turned it down.

She was willing to take drugs to help her conceive but not IVF. The PCT's reasoning was that they already knew she could carry a baby to term so it was simply IVF and not IVF plus very delicate pregnancy.

She works for the NHS.

Part of me thinks that IVF should not be on the NHS, because the world is overcrowded, and successful IVF leads to another child who will need the NHS / education etc.

But then I think that if you are going to put your body and relationship through the IVF process you are going to be a good parent of a much wanted child.

I also think that all tests and examinations to identify the cause of the infertility should be done on the NHS because some people will have a close to nil chance of a baby even with IVF.

If you knew the chances were slim would you still go ahead?

There also seems to be a lot of babies conceived naturally with older IVF siblings. Did these people really need IVF?

[99problems]

And why is an emotional pain deemed less worthy than a physical one? I just don't understand that.

I heard about a woman who committed suicide due to infertility.

The point is it's very painful to live with, and can lead to mental health problems as well as physical. I went to my GP recently as I have developed IBS. He thinks it's down to the stress of TTC.

[flatpackhamster]

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

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.

That's one cycle of IVF, that's the bottom end of the estimate. The total cost of NHS-funded IVF to the taxpayer is £400 million a year according to the only figure I can easily find online. Given that the cost of the whole NHS is £120Billion a year, that's not a huge proportion but it is a hefty expense.

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.

You 'look forward' to it?

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

I think that the problem here is that we're trying to debate this in a grown-up way and you're throwing your toys out of the pram. It's not exactly advancing your position much, is it?

[expatinscotland]

YANBU in the case you mention. Life isn't fair. If you get with someone who already has kids you shouldn't have NHS funding for IVF, IMO.

[Pigsmummy]

99 have you looked into IUI? It cost a few hundred quid versus thousands and might be an option? As you are both fairly young then you have time on your side to save up?

[CloudsAndTrees]

IVF is often recommended to couples where no actual reason for infertility can be found. Therefore it cannot, in many cases, be said that this treatment is correcting a medical problem.

[tilder]

Would be nice if fertility treatment was the same wherever you lived, but its not.

The point with the NHS is that its about health and not just life or death. Infertility is a health issue, often unexplained, but is still a health issue. May have side effects (for want of a better term) especially mental health aspects. IVF is one potential treatment for it.

There are lots of conditions treated by the NHS that some would view as non essential, others as life changing. It's not as simple as saying its IVF or cancer treatment.

FWIW in the ops case, am sure they would love a child and that child would improve their life. But can see the argument against treatment in this case am afraid.

[FrankellyMyDearIDontGiveADamn]

flatpackhamster I was being sarcastic in much of that post, which you would understand if you read my later posts.

This is a highly emotive issue and I don't take kindly to strangers on the Internet (not you, just in general) implying that I don't deserve assistance in conceiving a much wanted child and that I should just get over it.

[crashdoll]

But hip replacements are IVF are not comparable. That said, I support IVF on the NHS but definitley not in the case where both have children, albeit not together.

[tilder]

Btw a 50% success rate would be a huge improvement for many treatments. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it though.

To go back to the cancer analogy, if you were desperate would you take a painful, difficult option that had a 20% or less success rate over no treatment?

[CrapBag]

I haven't read the thread but when me and DH were having our fertility investigated and put on the IVF waiting list, one of the criteria was that I had never even been pregnant and DH had never fathered a child (we met both and were lucky enough to get pregnant naturally whilst on the waiting list).

[flatpackhamster]

FrankellyMyDearIDontGiveADamn

flatpackhamster I was being sarcastic in much of that post, which you would understand if you read my later posts.

Mmm, and I don't think it's helpful because it just encourages me to be sarcastic, and then spiteful and vicious as it escalates in to a War Of Crankiness.

This is a highly emotive issue and I don't take kindly to strangers on the Internet (not you, just in general) implying that I don't deserve assistance in conceiving a much wanted child and that I should just get over it.

I think the problem is that it is a highly emotive issue, but it needs to be discussed in a rational way. There is not an unlimited pot of money.
Is it your 'right' to have the taxpayers pay for you to have a child? I think that an awful lot of people would come down in the negative on that. I know it's painful and there are few feelings stronger than the wish to have a child, but it's other people's money at the end of the day. If the NHS is covering IVF treatment while closing wards down, that isn't going to be popular.

[eminemmerdale]

It would be lovely if all NHS treatment was the same - the hearing aid my little girl needs ( not wants needs) is available in many many pcts but not ours, this is completely unfair - as are many cases of treatment.

[EuroShaggleton]

99 problems, I've developed eczema for the first time in my life since ttc. I believe it's due to the stress (and I work in a very stressful job so I am not exactly new to stress, but infertility seems to have pushed my body over the edge).

frankel's post was well-reasoned. I don't see anyone throwing toys out the pram.

clouds just because the very limited tests on the NHS do not uncover the reason for infertility in all cases does not mean there wasn't one. We have "unexplained" infertility. IVF worked first time for us. There obviously was a reason why I was not conceiving that was not discovered by the perfunctory NHS tests. There are more tests available, but they are very expensive. It is probably more economical for the NHS to offer IVF as a treatment without discovering the exact cause of the problem than to carry out many investigations, find the cause and then prescribe IVF anyway.

[BruthasTortoise]

If I hadn't been able to conceive a child naturally and we had been refused IVF as my DH has DC from a previous relationship, I don't think our marriage would have survived. It's one thing for both members of a couple to be in the same position i.e. desperately wanting their first child and not being able to have one and for one member of the couple to already be a parent. Does anyone know if single people can access IVF on the NHS and use a sperm doner? Because if they can I don't see how the NHS can rule out a couple because one partner already has children.

[monkeysbignuts]

I would be devastated if I couldn't have children. It's a difficult one really and I can't say either way because I have 3 of my own children with my husband.
If I couldn't get pregnant naturally with no children I would be gutted.

[marriedinwhiteagain]

I don't think the OP is being unreasonable and I don't think IVF should be a right for anybody on the NHS; sad though infertility is. What should be a right is excellent nursing care, and access to life saving treatment and that should never have to be forfeited for elective treatment of any kind.

[99problems]

Pigsmummy unfortuntely we need IVF with ICSI as DP's sperm have never 'gotten out' it means they can't swim, making it more complicated.

We are saving now, age is on our side (although getting married and getting a house will never happen now). We are looking into IVF abroad as the cost in the UK is disgusting, private clinics are taking advantage of vulnerable people.

The discrimination here is the guidelines saying if 1 partner has a child, the couple cannot have IVF. That is discriminating against the childless partner.

[HesterShaw]

I know I said I'd hidden this thread, but because someone pays taxes, does that give them the right to vocally judge every way in which those taxes are spent? Certainly if you did the same on many threads on MN e.g. those about housing benefit or child benefit after three children etc, then you would be soundly taken to task.

As for the question "Is it your 'right' to have the taxpayers pay for you to have a child?", well I don't notice so much complaining about supporting the needs of the parents with six children and their child benefit, or the parent with their three children regularly in the doctors' surgery, all of which costs tax payers' money. Someone who has IVF on the NHS is likely to have just the one child. If it comes down to cost, as so many of you say it is, then a single child is "cheaper" than the family with five children who had them "naturally".

[DontSHOUTTTTTT]

eminemmerdale. That is awful that your DD can't get a hearing aid. I would have thought that would be essential.