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

[icklemssunshine1]

Saski have you ever has trouble TTC? Or had a MC? The emotional pain is unbearable :(

[EasilyBored]

No one is sneering at adoption. But, if you were denied IVF on the NHS, and couldn't afford to self fund, it's not likely that you would be able to afford to adopt either, is it?

[Startail]

YANBU as both partners have biological children.

Marrying some one with DCs should not be a bar to IVF if one off you has no biological DCs.

The situation where a woman is denied IVF because her partner has teen DCs living with their mum is particularly cruel.

Had she not being able to concieve DSIL would have spent, 4 weeks a year for 4 years being a lovely mum to her DSSs before they went to collage, that's not parenthood!

[skratta]

Can I ask (because I really don't know) could a single woman have IVF (using sperm donation)?

My friend did it privately and it was heartbreaking. She was infertile anyway,mbut using sperm donation and IVF it ended in twins.

It was heartbreaking. I think you should fund IVF (but not if BOTH partners have children each) because infertility is heartbreaking, cruel, damages your mental health in unimaginable ways. I am fortunate to nt be infertile as such, but I had try for 3yrs10mnths for my first child, resulting in a very early miscarriage, and a further 3yrs5mnths to have my DTDs. I am very lucky to ave them, and have had a total of two rounds of IVF only, resulting in two pregnancies with one failing. I am ver lucky, but for e years I couldn't have children it was heartbreaking.

[crashdoll]

I think for those who say "no IVF on the NHS" see it is the NHS 'giving the couple a child' rather than supporting a couple to overcome their medical issues to conceive.

[Saski]

No, I haven't. Note, I said I disagree with the NHS providing IVF for those who have children.

This doesn't mean I don't empathize. It's just a matter of prioritization. I find it shocking that there's a woman on this thread, living in the UK, who can't get her daughter a hearing aid. This is normal for the NHS.

[CheeseandPickledOnion]

The system is unfair in many ways. I am not able to have IVF because my partner has a child. That doesn't make me a mother though does it? So hence we have no children.

[Tortington]

this shouldn't be an either or situation. there isn't an endless pot of money - agreed, but the privatisation of the NHS is really not helpful - and people should thnk of this in terms of

should a childless woman who desperatley wants a child but is married to a man who had a child in a previous relationship - get funding to have a child

or

should an old woman aged 70 get a hip replacement ( i mean she might die in 5 years anyway what a waste of money )

this shouldn't be the conversation - the NHS is what it is. it should be funded properly. NI should be raised specifically to do this.




there is a thread 'would you be alive without medical intervention'

you know, the tories want this country to have a healthcare system privatised like the american system. thats ok if you have money

but i would be dead without the nhs many many times over. my children would be dead without the nhs.

i'm just thinking about the amount of times during the summer holidays one year i thought i lived at casualty - i couldn't afford that

my daughter couldn't afford hearing aids, a cat scan, anything.

the conversation is bullshit - what you should be saying is this
THE NHS is not fit for purpose, the government are deliberatley svcaling down NHS and your grandchildren will not get what you got

my children do not get what i got.

I got great teeth - thanks mum and NHS. My grown up children cannot afford the dentist.

I got great eyesight - had them tested last week at specsavers - thanks mum - thanks WORK for paying for my eye test. But my grown daughter can't afford that, she can't afford glasses.

again this is another thing that cannot be taken in isolation, pay for new specs - even at a reduced rate - or feed your kids for most people.

the situation is disgusting

[99problems]

Couldn't not agree more, Custardo. Very well said!

[PinkParsnips]

In our pct you don't get funding if the couple already has children or if either partner has a child with a different partner.

The latter does seem a little unfair in some respects but I suppose there is only a limited pot of money to go around.

I think the variation across pct's meaning that depending on where you live you get more funded ivf cycles than others is more unfair tbh.

[DIYapprentice]

Wouldn't it be better if the person suffering from medical infertility was the one that gained the entitlement to the treatment?

That means if it was a gay couple, the female could get IVF and sperm from donation due to medical infertily (not situational infertility). In a heterosexual couple, if the person who was suffering from medical infertility had already had children, then they wouldn't be entitled to treatment, if they didn't have children, then they would.

It seems a lot fairer to me.

[Viviennemary]

I don't think this is unreasonable from a National Health Service. I think the help should be concentrated on people who have no children.

[RedToothBrush]

YABU.

For lots of reasons.

If its about a pot of money and it not being endless then are plenty of good effective ways to cut that back without affecting patient care.

Unfortunately the NHS is run by a bunch of morons who don't understand the concept of cost effectiveness being a long term thing and something that is spread over various departments and budgets and that sometimes spending a bit more at first is better than getting the thing that looks cheapest.

Then we could talk about a whole load of crap that Ben Goldacre talks about in Bad Pharma. Or how people are being made into patients by media and marketing (Have a nice read of The Patient Paradox by Margaret McCartney).

And then we could talk about the tools who work in the NHS are just waste money because they don't do their jobs in purchasing properly. The examples I know of first hand are appalling and still going on despite all the drives to make cuts.

So yeah, lets put it back on the patient and say they are being demanding, rather than looking at whats REALLY going on in the NHS and exactly why we 'can't afford' things which actually we can but for poor management.

The NHS is not badly funded. It is not 'broke'. Its just 'broken'

BIG BIG difference.

[MomaP]

I am sorry not really but I absolutely agree with you OP.

I have just one DMiracle who is in the form of my gorgeous 5 year old son.

DH and I have been TTC baby #2 for well over 3 years now, with no luck. I wouldn't dream of prioritising myself over a family with no children.

As heartbreaking as it is to think we may never have a second miracle, I am truly thankful I've had the chance to be a mother to my darling boy.

Rather than fight the NHS for free IVF, i'd rather a non child family get the chance.

[eminemmerdale]

Custardo, I agree. As a child I had over 30 completely unecessary operations on my ear because a) they were 'experimenting b) the NHS was 'there' Now, my 7 year old cannot get basic hearing because the NHS is not properly there. They have done enough research to know that things can be done, and be succesfully done that they can virtually pick and choose who is 'allowed' the treatment. Sorry to keep banging on about ears but I think it's relevant.

[CruCru]

I have had IVF (pregnant with second child). I have never actually met anyone who has manged to get IVF on the NHS. I wonder whether this debate is a bit academic as so few people are able to get free treatment.

[McNewPants2013]

I am on the fence with this one.

I can see both side of the debate. For me I don't know why a couple can't pay 1/2 and the nhs the other half.

I ttc dd for 8 months and those 8 months was hell on earth, the emotions I felt I could not describe.

[HappyMummyOfOne]

"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."

I totally agree. The majority of MN believe you should have as many as you like though as its your right

i'd rather the money was spent on ill people. If having a child is what you want and you cant do it naturally then you can save and be treated privately or you can adopt one of the thousands of children in the country that dont have homes.

[MrsBW]

Presumably, everyone who disagrees with IVF on the NHS, but has children, paid to have antenatal care and the delivery of those children at a private hospital?

After all, having children isn't a right, right?

People saying 'just adopt' need to take a look at what that involves.

And I say all the above as someone who can't have children, and chose to adopt rather than have IVF.

[FrankellyMyDearIDontGiveADamn]

HappyMummyofOne,I presume you will be adopting then, rather than having a second child "naturally"? After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

It's been said already, and I'll say it again. Adoption is not an alternative to infertility. You adopt because you want to adopt, not to replace children that you have not been able to give birth to yourself. To suggest otherwise is offensive to children that have been adopted, somehow suggesting they are second-best.

[monkeysbignuts]

I am so lucky to have been able to have children myself. It's cruel to deny help to those who can't because of funding.
You should have at least 1 round of ivf on the nhs if you don't have children imo

[Flixy102]

Presumably, happymummyofone is happy because she fulfilled her need to be a mother. Kinda says it all really, doesn't it?

[MrsBW]

Frankelly

Indeed. Children that have a plan for adoption invariably also have issues of varying degrees. Not everyone is capable of parenting an adopting child.

I get so at the countless 'just adopt' comments I see, as though it were as simple as picking a child out of a catalogue.