Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that IVF funding should only got to people who have never had children

275 replies

Mrsdavidcaruso · 04/04/2013 09:07

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

OP posts:
flatpackhamster · 05/04/2013 12:28

It's a good question. I think much of this debate revolves around a key issue - how intrusive do people want their healthcare service to be? Just how much of your life, and everyone's lives, do you want to be governed by a state run healthcare system?

It's not a question I'm trying to answer, but it is the overarching one in this discussion. The question of the colossal cost of the system is another one which is as much ideological as anything.

FormerlyKnownAsPrincessChick · 05/04/2013 12:32

I'm really saddened to see that so many people on here are of the opinion, sorry your medical situation isn't as serious as others, you want a baby and that's a lifestyle choice, accept it, move on and save up or adopt etc etc tough shit essentially.

I'm glad that we have a more compassionate health care set up in this country.

I personally think that we have some other very serious health problems in this country, which could be avoided by improvements to lifestyle and better education, which could save much more significant amounts of money. 10% of the health budget is now spent on treating diabetes; a huge number of these patients are type 2, largely caused by poor diet and over consumption. We could reduce this number and we could reduce health care spending loads. In fact, there are loads of areas where health care could be more efficient. IVF is not the downfall of the NHS, it's not the 'drain' that so many of you imply that it is.

And no, I don't think their medication should be withdrawn I'm just saying that we don't not treat people because we don't agree with their lifestyles or their choices or their particular problem!

For all those tough shitters... I can think of so many examples of how this could touch your life in the future and how you may come to regret how harsh you are being!

IVF isn't readily funded; there are some big old hoops and long old waits and years of heartbreak before you can even be considered for IVF. This sort of treatment isn't on a par with antibiotics and isn't an emergency treatment (generally) so you don't rushed through - you wait the long game if you are eligible. I know, because I was in that system.

I struggled to conceive for a very long time (including 2 pretty horrific miscarriages) and had to wait a year after the second miscarriage before my GP was even able to start doing blood tests to see if there was anything wrong with me. This was almost 3 years of trying and not being able to seek any help. Luckily (said with a big hollow laugh) for me the stress of long term TTC and absolute devastation of 2 miscarriages ruined my cycles for a couple of months and started to reek havoc with my mental health too. I then had a suspected chemical pregnancy - that's a third miscarriage to those not in the know. So, fertility investigations started. Along the way, I had invasive scans, blood tests, appointments with consultants (who do not generally have a compassionate and consoling tone) etc etc... Last August I was very close to being put onto a programme of fertility treatment but luckily fell pregnant in September and this time the baby decided to stay inside me. So, I won't be costing the NHS £££s in fertility treatment. However, I lost 3.5 years of my life (the end of my 20s) to TTC and it has taken a huge emotional toll on me. I'm glad I got there naturally and I hope that in some small way you can see that the system stops people like me from accessing IVF after a small amount of time, because there can be natural successes. There are some people out there with problems which mean they will never conceive naturally and will never have the funds to do a round of IVF naturally. And they will have to live with this for the rest of their lives. Because of a genuine medical problem that could have been gotten around.

In the case of the OP, both have children, so no they wouldn't qualify for funding. If you read the NICE guidelines this is very clear. I very much doubt that any PCTs would fund their round for them. As for those who have a partner with children from their past but don't have children themselves, I do think they should have the same access to funding as a couple without children.

I feel very passionately about this topic and how off hand people can be. You have no idea how awful you are already making vulnerable women feel. TTC and infertility brings with it depression / anxiety / sense of failure / isolation from friends and family because they can't have children easily like you can in a way you cannot possibly begin to understand. If you don't believe me, there are plenty of boards over on the TTC section of MN where you can read just how much pain and anguish these "undeserveds" actually are.

I see a lot of people on MN who are completely anti-benefits bashing because, you know, these people are needy, these children need feeding, you wouldn't want to be in their shoes, how can you be so unfeeling yet, don't carers deserve a holiday or isn't that old man who has no other pleasures entitled to use state money to buy fags and a sky subscription YET they can come on here and make very short comments about how we don't have enough to go around for IVF?! It really isn't that much to give a couple one round of IVF against some of the other costs the state has foot.

It's interesting that almost none of the people with the tough shit attitude have commented upon how long it took them to conceive and how many DCs they have etc etc. I know it's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes but I think a bit more compassion would go a long way. Imagine your life without your children, your biological clock ticking, no money to foot huge private medical bills (because once you go private IVF does not cost £3,000 - it's much more like £6,000 - the NHS benefits from economies of scale) and a primal need to have a child. Then imagine going through a year of not conceiving, a year of invasive tests, another year of hormone treatment, more tests, more consultants time and then getting to the end of that time and being told that after 3 years of trying, IVF is your only answer but sorry, we don't do IVF on the NHS because well, it's too expensive. Go home and save up or think about your childfree future.

Ladies, I urge you to think about it hard before coming on here and just saying "sorry, there isn't enough to go around. Other people's medical problems are more important than yours." Or "couldn't you adopt?".

Just think about it a bit more, please. Oh and arm yourself with the facts that as said above, IVF is not a default and is not a given and isn't available to everyone who snaps their fingers and says, shagging isn't working - I want a free baby on the NHS please.

ChairOfTheBored · 05/04/2013 12:33

But flatpack I don't feel that it is intrusive to offer treatment for a medical problem.

If the NHS is to move away form treating things that are non-emergency, non-life limiting, then that is one thing. Presumably there would be structural changes which would see a reduction in central spending/taxation to enable people to fund insurance to cover other treatment of things such as sports related injuries, fertility treatment, anything other than basic care in maternity, obesity, or any of the other 'life-style' issues the NHS treats currently.

But to draw an arbitrary line round some aspects of medical treatment and not others simply based on some people's prejudices about a service they have (mostly) no need for (lucky them) seems very odd.

StephaniePowers · 05/04/2013 12:34

I dont object to IVF, chairoftheboard (just want to make that clear, as I know some people who think it should not occur at all, even funded privately).

I think that ivf treatment does not bring enough success to make it a good use of very scarce funds. If success rates were higher, obviously it would be a different discussion. At the moment, couples can by and large expect their one free cycle, or whatever they get in their area, to fail. I cannot see how it's a prudent use of resources as things stand.

NB not all treatment has a great success rate, I realise that, but the NHS has the job often of attempting to prolong life, or ameliorate lives which already exist by lessening pain and suffering. I completely sympathise with people suffering infertility, or secondary infertility, but because it is treatment which has such a low success rate, it's my opinion that it's more appropriate that it's funded privately.

ChairOfTheBored · 05/04/2013 12:41

Stephanie - thanks for coming back and clarifying your views- this is a subject that gets some of us a little heated. (it's the fecking hormones Grin )

You do though object to it being funded, and are therefore denying people a chance to have a medial issue treated that is preventing them having children.

I understand your reasoning, but these are all issues which NICE has considered. It's not easy having a treatment approved for NHS funding, yet despite this NICE recommend three cycles of IVF be offered, so must have assessed it's benefits and efficacy as outweighing the cost.

Even with an NHS region which offers the three cycles, DH and I know we may have to self fund at some point, simply because three cycles is like telling a fertile couple they can only TTC for three months. Ever.

I don't like those odds, but I sure as hell will give it everything I've got to try and beat them. Just knowing that we've done everything we could, whatever the eventual outcome, is so key to me in lessening the suffering of IF, which I hope you never have to experience, but I can tell you is no less painful than some other kinds of suffering.

StephaniePowers · 05/04/2013 12:54

Smile chairofthebored

I do understand (more than it's prudent to say on a very public forum!). And I wish you all the very best.

I have other concerns too, about the honesty and efficiency of the whole ivf clinic scene. NHS clinics treat self-funding people too and I am not 100% convinced that they treat them to the best of their capabilities. I have wondered if repeat business is used to subsidise the cycles which have been approved by NICE - this would make it a much less financially onerous proposition for the NHS (though still expensive), whilst allowing the service to stay up to date in preparation for NHS privatisation.

evilgiraffe · 05/04/2013 12:58

IVF is a three-cycle game, Stephanie. One cycle is not likely to get you pregnant, but after three cycles the probability is that pregnancy will occur (for my age group, anyway). This is why NICE recommends funding three cycles. It's like taking the full course of antibiotics to get the benefit.

Of course, there's no guarantee that a successful round of IVF will result in a live birth. IVF isn't about having a baby, it's about having the opportunity to try to have one. Like Chair says, it's like a fertile couple who TTC for just three months. It's really not asking much, especially as normal couples take around six months to get pregnant.

The desire to have children is a basic biological urge, it's not a rational thought process. It's more like hunger - and imagine yourself starving while all around you people are eating bread. Dismissing it as a lifestyle "choice" or no big deal is heartless at best and downright cruel at worst.

givemeaclue · 05/04/2013 13:01

We had no funding despite having no children , it was at the time just a few years ago when post Code Lottery.

Yanbu, resources are scarce in the nhs and happily for them they already have children.

givemeaclue · 05/04/2013 13:04

Also, they can still have treatment just have to pay for it themselves. If its really important to them they will raise the money.

We spent £17k on treatment. Best investment I ever made.

Madamecastafiore · 05/04/2013 17:03

YANBU if your sister already has a child she should not get funding for treatment.

I work in the nhs and the shocking lack of funds is scarey and is only going to get worse. My boss sits on a continuing care panel for the elderly and is often visibly upset when returning from these meetings after having to make decisions about what to fund and what to reject.

As for you guys saying hip replacements are as important as ivf well I hope your parents have to come and live with you when their joints go. Having to dress their bed sores and wipe their arses won't be much fun for you when you have to go precisely that because they are bed bound.

StephaniePowers · 05/04/2013 17:35

Evilgiraffe, it isn't at all like taking a course of antibiotics. You take antibiotics for the full course because you need to keep up the titre of the drug in your bloodstream for long enough, consistently enough, to see off the bacterium. However each cycle of ivf stands more or less independently in terms of probability. It's like buying three lottery tickets instead of one (with significantly better odds than the lottery, happily). You don't derive any benefit from previous 'doses' as you do with antibiotics.

I take the point that you have more chance with three cycles than with one, but it's simply because you're doing it more often.

StephaniePowers · 05/04/2013 17:38

Incidentally I have never said that trying for a baby is a lifestyle choice. I know precisely what you mean. I just dispute that - in these days of an NHS which is being run into the ground by a combination of politicians who are waiting to line their own pockets, and an ageing population (to name but two issues) - this is something for the NHS to deal with. I'm sorry but as everyone on this thread who works in the NHS is saying, there is no money Sad

givemeaclue · 05/04/2013 17:44

Its a valid point Stephanie, I don't disagree

StickEmUpPunk · 05/04/2013 17:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KC225 · 05/04/2013 22:23

We had no children and missed the old NHS cut off so had to pay for IVF. I'm ok with this as I there has to be a cut off. But what really grates were rip off private clinics. I was lied to by one Harley Street Clinic, sold treatment with a 0% chance of working and when I complained to the HEFA they were ineffectual and useless. IVF clinics are money making machines.

There should be some way of managing a fair priced self funding (like student loans) IVF which operates along side but within NHS guidelines. This could also include drugs on prescription - having to pay full price (non prescription) for needed injections (drugs/needles and wipes) WHEN pregnant did hurt. When I complained to my GP she said 'you had private treatment and it's a lifestyle choice'. The same clinic offers a free needle exchange for drug addicts - but that is not a lifestyle choice apparently.

Just to say that I did have twins - so all in all, they are priceless but still ..........

pigletmania · 05/04/2013 22:38

Yanbu at all

LurkingBeagle · 06/04/2013 09:42

OP YANBU.

Someone upthread asked whether anyone opposed to IVF being available on the NHS had suffered from infertility. I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. I have severely compromised fertility due to cancer treatment and am only likely to conceive through IVF. Despite this I am emphatically against any form of IVF being state-funded until the NHS is in surplus (which will be never!)

This is because I have seen how strapped the health service is when treating things like cancer, its side effects and the elderly generally (who are most likely to get cancer). It's not just about access to drugs, its about beds, facilities and nurses, all of which are paid for out of the same pot. Despite having an 80% risk of a recurrence of my cancer, the NHS will not pay for my follow-up scans. It won't provide hysteroscopy with a general anaesthetic for cost reasons. When I was having chemo, it was touch and go whether they even had a portable device for my chemo treatment (which meant I could go home.) I had to go private for all these (and this was in 2006 when they were supposedly hosing money at the NHS!) Really, if the NHS is letting people go blind because they can't afford to treat macular degeneration and is unable to pay for children to have hearing aids (as the other poster commented above), do people really think their infertility should take priority? I certainly don't think my infertility should - it's painful, yes, but there are many, many worse things that are far more deserving of scarce funds.

givemeaclue · 06/04/2013 20:20

I have suffered infertility and spent £17k on treatment ( post code lottery when nhs treatment first introduced, not available in our area). I would oppose it being available on nhs for people who already have childrenwhich is the issue being discussed on this thread.. Its an added extra that the nhs can't afford. They can still have treatment but just need to pay for it themselves.

foreverondiet · 06/04/2013 21:17

Whilst I agree with the op I think that the nhs should offer subsidised / non profit making ivf for those who don't necessary meet the criteria, because ivf is so expensive and I bet it could he done cheaper by a non profit making organisation.

SquinkiesRule · 06/04/2013 21:42

Seeing that IVF isn't life saving treatment What about charging everyone on a sliding scale for it, the more you earn the more you contribute to the treatment.

BornInACrossFireHurricane · 06/04/2013 21:48

I am not at all opposed to people without children having funded fertility treatment- I can only imagine the pain of infertility.

However, when a child is being refused a hearing aid due to lack of funding (as eariler in this thread), the priorities are clearly wrong in my opinion

MidniteScribbler · 07/04/2013 05:36

I think it takes a special kind of heartless to look a woman struggling with infertility in the eyes and tell her she isn't worthy of becoming a parent. It should be funded/subsidised for all (as should hearing aids, and other required medical treatments and equipment).

Lolapink · 07/04/2013 05:58

I have just gone through NHS funded IVF in our PCT you get one go, which I am very grateful for. However if I lived in another pct I could get 3 goes which I think is unfair it should be the same amount for every one. I also think the people saying it should not be funded by NHS have obviously never suffered the pain of infertility. I had to wait 7 years for my funding.
So in answer to your question no they shouldn't get funding they have already had children, priority should be given to couples who have never had a child.

Dervel · 07/04/2013 07:30

I'm afraid as things stand, with limited resources the NHS does need to spend them carefully. As such I would be in the no IVF at all camp.

However I would be more than happy to pay more tax, see funding diverted from military spending/ MP expenses, a slimmer and more efficient civil service if it meant that we had a Health Service that no matter the need it was there to sort you out when you needed it!

Dervel · 07/04/2013 07:32

Sorry I should add that for some people IVF is clearly a need.