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

[monkeysbignuts]

But having of spring is what makes us human if that makes sense?
It's what we are biologically and mentally designed to do. Just because someone can't do it without help does it mean they should be denied the chance? Or stump up the cash? It's so harsh.

My local area allows 2 rounds of free ivf for totally childless people, then you have to pay.

[99problems]

EuroShaggleton no stranger to stress here either! But dealing with infertility is a whole other ball game, and a completely different level. And as a poster mentioned earlier, the cost of counselling and CBT will be incurred due to our fertility issues.

To everyone saying it is not a 'right', as I said earlier, maybe everybody should fund their own pregnancies and childbirths? Or even better, maybe we should adopt a 1 child policy like China?!

[crashdoll]

Hester I think it's less about questioning the 'right' to have a child and more about how we spend the limited funds. Just to reiterate, I do support IVF on the NHS. However, it's galling for those of us who are denied medical treatment due to costs to hear people saying the criteria should be widened when the money is just not there. That said, the postcode lottery is ridiculous and unfair. The criteria should be the same nationwide.

[flatpackhamster]

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?

Yes, it does. They worked for the money that the government's taken from them and given to someone else. Why shouldn't they express their view?

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.

Doubtless. But this is MN, after all, which is basically a lean-to on the side of the Guardian website.

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".

There is a huge amount of complaining about it. Just not here, because people get shouted down and called names when they complain about it.

I note a proposition from a group of MPs today to limit child benefit to the first two children (with due process for multiple births) only. Doubtless someone on MN will be along to accuse those MPs of ripping bread from starving babies' mouths.

[eminemmerdale]

Of couse it's essential but she has slight hearing in one ear so her frustration, tears, inability to cope with directional sounds, and terror of noisy situations still means she is 'able to hear'. I shold know, I have the same conditon. The NHS should be there for everone wherever they live.

[HesterShaw]

Oh I agree with you. And I agree with the OP about people with children having to pay (though the clause which states you can't have treatment if one of the couple has a child is very harsh and a grey area)

But I think a lot of the NHS's problems are down to crap management rather than people having the "wrong" ailments.

And no one on this thread has "thrown their toys out of the pram" as far as I was aware

[HesterShaw]

flatpack, your tone is very hostile.

If we're talking about tax payers, then I have paid 20% tax since I was 23 with no break. Fortunately for me, until now, I have had no reason to use the NHS. I have no children. I claim no benefits.

And yet I do not go round shouting about whether I think certain groups "deserve" money spent on them because I don't know enough about the issues. Just because someone pays tax, it does not make them an expert on everything.

[TremoloGreen]

YANBU. At least in their situation, it seems fair enough.

We were looking at having IVF shortly before I got pregnant naturally - a complete surprise. It was going to cost about £3000. I'm willing to be corrected, but when I was planning financially to have a child, I projected it being pretty expensive - housing space, childcare, education etc. If you can't raise £3000, how financially equipped are you to have a child?

Genuine question. I do live in London where everything's expensive so maybe I have a skewed perspective.

[HesterShaw]

This question always crops up, and I'm surprised people don't have the intelligence imagination to answer it on their own.

The answer is the same: you very rarely need to outlay £3000 in one go when bringing up a child.

[TheSeventhHorcrux]

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.

^this^

Whilst I don't think you should have NHS treatment for MORE children that is my opinion regarding the amount of children people should have anyway, with or without IVF.

If everyone paid what they do to the NHS into private medical insurance then IVF would be more available, as would other important procedures and it would ensure the system was more streamlined, organised and caring.

(There would be a pot for those who couldn't afford insurance in my imaginary world)

I can't stand the NHS system, it's too big to work. Privatisation would sort it out - if you had to claim on your insurance you'd think twice about calling an ambulance for a broken kettle or going into A&E drunk but healthy.

IMO people should get the medical treatment they've been paying for

[Flixy102]

But raising a child doesn't cost you £3000 in one huge lump sum, does it?

I'm also a step mother with genetic fertility and endocrine issues. I will not conceive a child without medical help. Luckily, in my area I will receive one ivf cycle on the nhs. I don't think I am any less worthy of nhs help than anyone else who comes through the doors of the hospital. Am I?

[jeanmiguelfangio]

There should be equality across the PCTs. Everyone should have the same amount of access regardless of where you live firstly. On the IVF- well I do think that if you are not a parent, you should be able to have the chance to be one. That would mean if either the woman or her partner don't have children you get a shot. If you both have children then no.

Easy for me to say, I conceived naturally. Infertility is an awful and proper medical condition that deserves treatment. However, as a pp said, just because you really want a child and go through assisted conception, you are not automatically a good parent.

[flatpackhamster]

HesterShaw
flatpack, your tone is very hostile.



If we're talking about tax payers, then I have paid 20% tax since I was 23 with no break. Fortunately for me, until now, I have had no reason to use the NHS. I have no children. I claim no benefits.

Good for you. I'm much the same, been working for 20 years, and having had perhaps 2 visits to the doctor in that time. But as you're probably aware, your level of contribution to the public coffers makes no difference to the way the state treats you. It doesn't give you a 'right' to treatment, or privileged access. You get the same as everyone else. We're all treated equally whether we've leeched off the state or handed it a million pound a year.

And yet I do not go round shouting about whether I think certain groups "deserve" money spent on them because I don't know enough about the issues. Just because someone pays tax, it does not make them an expert on everything.

If one had to be an expert to pass judgement, how on earth would journalists ever write a word or MPs ever debate in parliament?

[99problems]

If one had to be an expert to pass judgement, how on earth would journalists ever write a word or MPs ever debate in parliament?

But people who haven't been through IF cannot comprehend the emotional impact. Therefore how can you say it's not as important as physical illness?

I'll ask what I asked before - why is emotional pain deemed less important than physical?

[TremoloGreen]

Well it's not like you find out you need IVF then have to rush out and have it the next day either.

Childcare costs about £1000 a month.

I also had to save up a pretty large nest egg so I could afford to go on maternity leave.

For something I really, really wanted - so badly that I was prepared to have a fairly invasive medical procedure and pump my body full of hormones - I would just put that same money aside and wait until I had enough.

You do get some indication that you might need IVF somewhere during the years of ttc you would have to go through to get it on the NHS.

[HesterShaw]

Why the hmm face? Your tone is hostile!

I think you are getting confused. I mentioned that my tax paying history, the implication being how irrelevant it is to the argument. It is others who seem obsessed by money and cost.

I've said it before: there are problems in the NHS because of gross mismanagement.

And again, I would not go onto the special needs boards and say this child or that didn't "deserve" help because of factors I blatantly knew nothing about.

[Tailtwister]

Here we go again...

Wonder how long it will take for some bright spark to suggest adoption.

[HesterShaw]

If you've not been in that situation, I don't think you know enough to comment, Tremelo.

Your situation is as you described. You need to find £1000 a month in childcare. You would be able to put the money aside and wait.




Back to the OP, YANBU.

[HesterShaw]

Oh yes adoption. You know, infertile people could always adopt! There are loads of children needing loving homes! There are too many people in the world already! (this was a gem from a certain poster beginning with X on the last IVF thread - yes, that poster with five children)

[99problems]

TremoloGreen, luckily me and dp are in a position to do this, how many can't!

Many people don't have time on their side - maybe they have found their DP in their late 30s, perhaps they develop an illness, lets say cancer, aged 35 and this effects their fertility?

The private clinics massively overcharge, and what if the first couple of rounds aren't successful?

Do you honestly think it's that simple?

[99problems]

HesterShaw . If I didn't laugh I would cry I swear!

[HesterShaw]

Thank goodness. Someone sane and nice. Hello 99 :)

[Owllady]

I don't understand why you are asking as she has been turned down by the PCT anyway

[99problems]

Hello Hester. I think it's time. I was going to hide the thread too because it makes me so mad to hear people with no experience of IF commenting on it, sometimes I'm my own worst enemy!

[Maggie111]

Yanbu OP.