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

Capable is probably the wrong word. (Or maybe not)

But it takes a different kind of parent, I think.

The NHS funds a lot of things that aren't strictly necessary. For example epidurals on demand for childbirth perhaps these should be self funded, Caesarean sections where there is no medical indication for them, birth centres with pools rather than large open wards for birthing in. As a society we need to make choices as to what matters to us.

I don't know if IVF should be funded on the NHS but I don't think it is the only procedure that needs to be evaluated. I know adoption isn't a solution to infertility. It is a solution to the need to parent but the infertility will always be there.

I am smiling at eight months being considered a long time to TTC. I have been TTC for nearly 10 years now. I haven't looked into NHS funding for IVF and I don't know if I want to do it at all but I certainly don't begrudge my taxes being spent on IVF nor do I begrudge them being spent on that elective caeserean, waterbirth or epidural for women fortunate enough to conceive.

Looking back, no it wasn't a long time but at the time it felt longer.

I really do sympathise with women who have tried longer

DH and I are likely to need IVF if we are to conceive - I have an operation in a couple of weeks to confirm this one way or the other. We are 'lucky' in that so far the NHS has funded our treatment, and in my trust area we would get three cycles of IVF on the NHS.

But, be in no doubt happymummyofone I AM ill. There is something physically wrong with me, which is preventing my body from working as it should.

Granted it's not life limiting, but it is fecking painful (always emotionally, and often physically). Why wouldn't the NHS treat this?

Being able to do it 'naturally' doesn't actually mean that childbirth and the care of children doesn't cost the NHS a lot of money. If children are not a right, and I could always adopt, then why should the NHS cover any aspect of maternity care, beyond making sure people don't die? Certainly not for any children until those waiting for adoption are all homed.

DH and I are both higher rate tax payers. I have never, not once, resented the NHS treatment of other 'non-essential' treatments, which after all improve the quality of life which is as important as quantity of life.

Nor do I resent DLA, JSA or any of the other tax funded services of this kind. They are the price we pay to live in a society that cares for those who need it, and are very much in the 'there but for the grace of God go I' pot of public spending as far as I am concerned.

For all those who have never experienced the pain of IF - perhaps you could think of IVF treatment in the same way...

Crumbs.

That was long. And therapeutic.

Sorry.

Thanks sinister. My first MN compliment

Chair that post was perfect.

Thankyou for putting so succinctly what the rest of us wanted to say!

Thanks flixy. I know it didn't answer the question posed by the OP, which to be fair was different, but I just get so sick of the relentless barrage, most of which seems to be based upon a total lack of empathy and some pretty shoddy information to start with.

There should be equality across the PCTs. Everyone should have the same amount of access regardless of where you live firstly.

No actually you shouldn't. There should be a lean towards the population the PCT is serving.

Eg the Outer Hebrides has a population of what 20000, 25000? Some of the islands have a population of 20 people.

If I am living on an island with 19 other people I do not expect there to be a hospital on the island, I would expect to travel.

An island with a larger population may well have a hospital but I do not expect it to have specialist Cardiac surgery or IVF clinics, I would expect it to deal with the general health of the inhabitants and visitors. If I needed heart surgery I would expect to be sent to a truest that had facilities and staff for that.

OK that's extreme but it happens to a smaller scale elsewhere, PCTs have to provide the best treatment for most people.

Excellent post, Chair. That's pretty much both my situation and my feelings, too.

Crumbs, you guys, you're making me all faced

That's what you get for being intelligent and articulate! Infertility is so wearing, and when people say things like infertility isn't a real health problem, that adoption is the same thing as giving birth to a baby, and that we should all just suck it up, it hurts. So it's nice to see a well-reasoned post from my side of the fence :)

Let's not forget that IVF is not an infallible process, either. DH and I are eligible for three cycles on the NHS, and have savings to fund another one, maybe two. However, with the cynicism of a three-year barren, I'm not really expecting it to work, and so am looking into the adoption process as well. As much as I would like to take home looked-after children, they wouldn't ever be a combination of DH's and my genes, they wouldn't inherit any of our traits (excluding the nurture side of things). I am distressingly aware that grieving for this idea of a birth child delays the already lengthy adoption process, too, and it could well be another three years before DH and I are parents. I'm not sure if I have the strength for it.

I agree - good post chair. I also agree with what frankel and MrsBW have said about adoption.

Cru I was eligible for NHS IVF (one cycle). I know quite a few folks who are, including my two closest friends. Unfortunately I reacted badly to the first set of drugs, dropped out of the cycle before I even started the egg stimulating phase and decided to privately fund natural IVF (without the vast majority of the drugs) instead. In fact, all three of us have ended up paying privately despite being eligible for an NHS cycle (the other two because the waiting list of the NHS cycle was so long).

My DD was diagnosed with PCOS at 14, she is now 17 and at unless things change will need IVF to conceive. My mother is 84 and has Lung Cancer and other problems, she has just been given radiation treatment, she is still smoking and should have changed her lifestyle long ago, in terms of spending my DD should be a priority imo. However it isn't that simple as many treatments saves money in the long term, in painkillers, physiotherapy, AD's. Sorry this won't be popular but many cancers can be prevented, as can other conditions, my DD's cannot. It is rare that a Step Mum gets to co-parent in the same way as a Step Dad that lives with the mother does and it might be a selfish POV, but Step Nans even less so. If the infertility is medical from an early age then I don't think that a woman with a step child should always be ruled out. I say that as someone who works within Social Services and has worked in the health service, you would be shocked at the waste of budgets in both.

This is an interesting thread. Some people's stories are very sad though .

I was speaking to a Mum, via IVF, who was attending a clinic that same time as my DD and she was telling me that she has now started to ovulate which can happen after having one pregnancy. She will now not need hormone treatment (which my DD needs) to prevent female cancers, or pain killers, which will in part way take off the whole cost of IVF to the NHS. So its not as simple as IVF costs x amount.

I think about adoption a lot, but I've been quite surprised at how strong my instinct is to have our own child. Adoption is an incredible decision to make, but so many children in need of adoption have such complex issues and backgrounds, it's not something that should ever be suggested as a flippant response to infertility.

These children need special care and nurturing, their parents need support to deal with any health or emotional issues and it is insulting to all concerned to suggest that adoption is just a second prize in the great fertility raffle.

It's something we'll consider, but I feel for my own sanity I need to exhaust the option of getting pregnant myself first.

birds so sorry to hear about your daughter. Part of the 'grief' I have felt is related to being an only child, and knowing I am my parents' only opportunity for the joy of grandchildren. I know it's daft, but it's almost more painful than the loss I feel for myself. Your DD has time on her side (am sure it's not a thing she's thinking about now?) and a diagnosis (which I'm still waiting for) so I do hope it has a happy outcome for her.

I've recently had my one funded go at IVF and I did raise the issue about funding and it being 'non essential' treatment with my GP. His response was 'ski-ing isn't essential either and yet we treat people who are injured doing that'

I don't think IVF should be available on the NHS.
There is not enough money to go around. I am truly truly sorry for people who cant conceive without intervention, but there isn't enough money for this.

Interesting Stephanie. I take the point about the limited pot of funds, but would like to know more about your reasoning for excluding IVF specifically.

What other things you think the NHS shouldn't fund (braces - no one needs straight teeth do they? pain relief in labour perhaps?)

Or is it just IVF you object to?

Birds I was diagnosed with PCOS as a teenager. I had irregular periods and various other symptoms through my teens and 20s. In my 30s it settled down, and I have regular ovulatory cycles. My ovaries still looked a little polycycstic though, until my mid 30s. Now they look completely normal. Whatever my fertility issue is, it is not PCOS. People's PCOS status can change.

The PCOS Handbook by Colette Harris taught me an awful lot about the condition. I'd recommend your daughter picks it up.

Friends of ours chose to adopt a child rather than having another one through birth - I say chose because they were not suffering any infertility at all so the could have easily had another biological child without the need for IVF.

They adopted from China, they are Australian. It cost them a FUCKING FORTUNE!!!!! They could have paid for about 3 cycles of IVF for what they ended up paying in flights (numerous visits), government fees, 'donations' to the orphanage (last minute ones, they didn't realise this sort of thing would be happening). Also, there was absolutely no guarantee that the adoption would be successful, the money could all have been wasted as governments can change policies at any point, they could turn around and say they were not suitable parents, etc.

So for all of those saying 'adopt' - it's highly unrealistic that a lot of people could even afford to.

The more you think about this the more complicated it seems.

Smoking, weight, alcohol, drugs, dangerous sports, sedentary lifestyles, etc etc - all possible 'preventable' causes of illness or injury.

I glad I don't have to make these type of desicions

to wade in a bit late on the taxpayer/cost issue. flatpack mentioned a figure of NHS IVF costing the taxpayer £400million

From what I can see online, the taxpayer spent £112million on abortions in 2010. And there is also the cost of the morning after pill

I assume those not wanting IVF funded, would also be against these things being funded? (I know there are all sorts of reasons people have abortions, the same as there being all sorts of reasons why people are infertile)