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

[Hulababy]

A question

Those saying no to all Nhs IVF
...

1. Have up been able to have children naturally?

1. Have you suffered from any form of infertility?

[HesterShaw]

I would join you with the wine but I'm currently bleeding the NHS dry with my free fertility treatment

[EuroShaggleton]

tremelo how many people falling pregnant naturally could have found a spare £3000 (and that is the bare minimum for private IVF) the month they fell? I'd wager not many. It is a cost in addition to all the other costs of having a child, which has hester says are not paid all at once but rather spread out.

I am incredibly grateful that amongst all other stressses of infertility, how I am going to pay for IVF is not one of mine. I have seen on the conception boards how much pain that additional stress can cause. It also causes delay and as success rates are linked to the woman's age, delay can lessen the chances of success.

On the subject of taxpayers, etc, wasn't the princple behind the NHS that one pays in according to means and receives according to need? Like Hest I have paid in for years and year, taking little out. Now is my time of need and "luckily" my PCT would fund me one round of IVF.

[EuroShaggleton]

Hula I asked a similar question upthread. No one has answered yet.

[Owllady]

I don't understand the taxpayer argument tbh. As part of a progressive society the social health care bill and nhs provides healthcare to those in need and a lot of those in need will unfortunately never be able to pay tax (terminally ill children, those with severe learning disabilities, those with very complex learning and medical needs, those with chronic illness onset in childhood) Do we really want to live in a society where because they don't pay tax we don't provide them with healthcare?

[99problems]

Oh yes us too, although our IVF won't get funded - DP's TESA op (to retrieve his sperm) will be funded by the taxpayers. As have all our blood tests, MRIs and ultrasound scans, semen sample analysis' and doctors appointments. We should be ashamed of ourselves, eh?

[HesterShaw]

Dying of shame here....

[TremoloGreen]

I'm currently pregnant, I conceived naturally by something just short of a miracle. I was trying to conceive for nearly two years; I had to call the fertility clinic and cancel my appointment to begin treatment. We were planning to pay anyway because we were sick of waiting. I know the desperation and I really sympathise. I really hope that you are successful in conceiving too.

I didn't think at any point that I was necessarily entitled to free treatment, but in general I'm amazed with how the NHS in its current form is still standing. I don't understand how it's sustainable.

[HesterShaw]

I don't think it is either. A radical management style is needed.

And I don't necessarily think the concept of the NHS works in today's society. I think perhaps a system like France's is the way forward.

However, while it exists, I am grateful for my one round of NHS funded IVF and do not begrudge others the same.

[flatpackhamster]

99problems

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?

It's a consequence of the structure of the NHS. Doctors know how to treat physical pain. Emotional and mental pain, and the methods to treat and resolve it, are largely ignored. I think that will change over time as doctors recognise that psychological elements of illness/disease/etc are as important but for now it's physical illnesses and physical intervention.

[HesterShaw]

PS congratulations on your pregnancy. I hope it goes well :)

[TheCraicDealer]

Good point Owllady. Often on threads like these (not just IVF- benefits, private education, any public service really) people start suggesting that they'd like to be able to choose what to spend their taxes on. What would that lead to? "I'm reducing my tax bill by 0.06p because I don't want my money to be spent on abortions", "We send our kids private so I want a rebate of £3,000 please", etc.

FWIW I'm not against NHS funded IVF, but there are other things which to me have more priority. If there's enough in the "pot" to pay for it, great. But if wards are understaffed, kids can't get hearing aids due to funds, people aren't getting lifesaving drugs as the trust can't afford it....something has to give.

[Simontowers1]

People should get one free round and that should be it. There are plenty of children that need adopting.

[HesterShaw]

Someone said it!!!

[99problems]

HAHAHAHAH, oh my god!

[EuroShaggleton]

BINGO!

[Fleecyslippers]

I think that there should be no NHS treatment.

I have conceived through self funded IVF.

And I don't understand the sneering attitudes towards adoption. Adoption would have been my next step. And my amazing friends who haven't been successful through IVF have just adopted an amazing little girl.

It is emotive but I don't think that the self absorbed attitudes of some posters on this thread are doing anything to convince anyone that IVF should be funded.

[HesterShaw]

It isn't sneering in the slightest. Not in the slightest. Good grief!

Adoption is an amazing thing. But when you are pining to conceive yourself, is it fair to pin all those hopes and dreams on a child who may well be troubled and formerly abused/neglected? Of course not! Adoption should be for couples who want to ADOPT, not to conceive. Which is why if you are still actively TTC, you will be turned down for adoption.

And of course wanting to conceive is "self absorbed" as you put it! I can't think of a more ultimately selfish act that wanting to procreate. Luckily for most people, they are able to do it with no trouble, heartache, disappointment, invasive tests, pain, more disappointment. Let's be realistic here and stop assuming the moral high ground because you paid for your treatment yourself.

[evilgiraffe]

Bingo indeed! Someone hand Simon the millionth-poster prize.

Fleecy - no-one is sneering at adoption. It's just not the same thing as having a birth child, and should not be touted about as a get-of-jail-free card for the infertile.

[icklemssunshine1]

Logically no. NHS is severely under resourced & in the greater scheme of things is IVF a priority?

Emotionally however it is a contentious issue. I have just had a MC & am afraid I'll never conceive again. I already have a DD so IVF would be out if the question for me. I know saving lives is the priority but that doesn't stop me longing for another child & I don't think anyone can appreciate that emptiness til you struggle TTC or suffer a MC - I never did.

[EuroShaggleton]

You seem to be misunderstanding. I haven't seen anyone on this thread sneering at adoption. What people have commented on is the way that some people who have conceived easily themselves seem to see adoption as some sort of easy solution to infertility. It most certainly is not. And it is ALWAYS suggested on these threads.

You were lucky enough to be able to self-fund IVF. I am too. What about those that cannot?

[applepieinthesky]

YANBU. The NHS doesn't have unlimited resources and tough decisions need to be made unfortunately.

I have one DS conceived naturally after a year of trying. If I hadn't have fallen pregnant naturally or if for some reason it doesn't happen when we are ready for DC2 then I won't go through IVF. I would adopt instead.

[applepieinthesky]

I don't think adoption is an easy route by any means but personally I would prefer to do that than go through IVF.

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

I really don't understand the arguments on "there should be no NHS funded IVF".

NHS treatments have never been decided on purely economic grounds (we don't allow economically unviable people to just stay sick and/or die) so the cost should not be an argument. It's about prioritising health outcomes, and infertility causes significant, recognised health problems which can be successfully treated.

Some infertility is a result of other conditions. I would see sperm retrieval, storage and IVF as a natural part of cancer treatment in boys/young men.

Yes there has to be some restrictions to hopefully ensure the largest number of people have the chance to receive treatment, but it absolutely belongs in the NHS.

Restricting it to rich people just creates yet more health inequalities. Or maybe some people think that only rich people have a greater right to medical treatment than poor people?

As I said up thread, I paid for IVF because of this previous child rule. I was more than happy to, but crucially, I was able to. I am aware how fortunate that makes me in comparison to many people.

[Saski]

I totally disagree with the NHS funding any IVF to people with children. Any consideration of whether the child is biologically the offspring of both partners seems counter to the idea of a family unit.