To wonder how, with all the funding cuts in the NHS, fertility treatment is still funded?

[Misfitless]

I know I will be flamed.

I considered name-changing, but it's cowardly, so I will take the flack.

Maybe infertility treatment has been cut, and I just haven't heard about it, but I have certainly heard that some cancer treatments have been cut.

I know it's easy for me to say, I have not had fertility issues, but I genuinely think that if I did, I wouldn't go down the route of expecting the NHS to fund it.

I am the only person on MN who feels this way/the only one who will admit it?

OK - happy to charge for missed appointments.

But if you're going to say that we shouldn't get NHS treatment for things that aren't life threatening and are "only" painful then you include IVF in that!

There, done. Let's get in touch with Jeremy Hunt and let him know we've fixed it for him

Yes exactly - thats my point. Why single out one non-life saving treatment. Presumably because OP has no understanding of it. Either NHS treats all illnesss it things are worthwhile (using NICE guidelines) or it treats only life threatening conditions.

No need to single out IVF on the basis of spurious nonsense about it not being guaranteed - like every other treatment works 100%.

You don't have to respond to me, you know! But I do appreciate you answering the questions.

A lot of people don't know that IVF is already rationed, so I think it's a fair point to ask if you're aware of that.

If you're going to post something quite controversial in AIBU, it would be nice if you could back up said opinions with a few facts. Such as, fertility treatment costs £X per year for X number of people which is x% of the NHS budget, while cancer treatments cost £X per year for X number of people, is this cost-effective? That kind of thing.

And I believe that the essence of the NHS means fertility treatment and cancer treatment and mole removal and treatment for my arthritis and my mum's Parkinson's and stuff like ingrowing toenails should all be funded.

I think having a child is a right, yes. A more speculative thought for everyone - if having children isn't a right, as the OP says, should you be able to get pregnant without getting 'permission'? This often crops up in science-fiction - the idea that you need a license to have a child (though there is always 100% effective contraception with no side-effects whatsoever to go with this idea, which we don't have).

What about fertility treatment for couples that have a very high chance of working? Not all couples have the same success rates, depending on health factors some will have a much higher rate of success than others.

You keep saying that we should treat the people who are already here. Would you deny NHS treatment (for anything) to immigrants, then? If so, would it be reassessed once they'd been here for a few years? I'm just curious how your logic works...

You're just dying for me to say "send them all back and don't waste our resources on them pesky scroungy immigrants" aren't you EllieQ?

I can just picture you rubbing your hands together in glee at the anticipation of it all.

Sadly no, sorry to disappoint. I'm making sure I go through the correct procedures here, EllieQ bare with and all that.....

Here goes....

Would you deny NHS treatment (for anything) to immigrants, then?
No EllieQ I would not deny NHS treatment (for anything) to immigrants. Except very expensive fertility treatment, at least until there is enough money in the pot to give the population as a whole, the treatments that it needs.

Now, I'm thinking that the above answer cancels out the need to answer the second part of your question, but I ain't takin' no risks here, EllieQ so...

Would it be reassessed once they'd been here for a few years?
No, EllieQ I do not see the need for any such reassessment, regardless of how long said immigrants had been here.

Just reading back and checking that all parts of the question have been addressed....yep, good to go and post!

Why does everything have to be cost effective? This cropped up earlier in the form of drugs for people with cancer. I know that this happens in practice, that trusts decide not to pursue courses of treatments because it would offer too little for too few. I find it really disheartening that people talk so easily about creating new lives but the life of my partner is not as important because he is sick and he is not a baby.

This thread is turning me into a sarcastic bitch. I never normally post with this tone, and I'm sorry that I have.

A lot of people do say that about immigrants though, in reference to NHS resources/ schools/ infrastructure, so I thought it was worth asking. I suspected that as you were very clear about treating people already here, you wouldn't deny immigrants the right to access the NHS. And I was right

And well you should be flamed for it !
Until you have experienced infertility you need to shut up !

I've reported this, by the way, LePetitMarseillais, ....

By your logic babies should be left to die when problems occur in the womb and there should be no miscarriage treatments.

truffle I really feel for you and your partner, the "cost effective" thing is horrible, who decided the value of a day/week/month of someone's life. It's priceless.

I've only skimmed this thread, but I find a lot of what I've read quite offensive, tbh.

OP, you really shouldn't spout off about infertility treatments unless you've actually been there. You will never understand what it is like otherwise. You're speaking from a very fortunate, and also very ignorant, position.

I had 2 NHS-funded IVF cycles (well, ICSI - more expensive, sorry). I only got pregnant on the third (self-funded) cycle.

Was that a waste of NHS money? I don't think so. Our consultant said that very often the first couple of cycles are about finding out about how you respond, and what works for you.

Oh, and Annadina - your post was deeply offensive. We had IVF because my husband's sperm count is zero and he had to have two operations to retrieve some sperm. The reason this happened was because an operation to fix undescended testicles as a child (quite common, and easily fixed) was done too late and this damaged his reproductive system.

So, yeah, of course he would have passed that to our daughter.

Kbbeanie that's a load of rubbish. I'm allowed an opinion. I've never experienced racism (actually I have, once) to the extent that many people have experienced it, that doesn't automatically mean I'm not allowed to have opinions on the topic.

I've never been raped, but I have pretty strong thoughts on that too.

Never have I worked in politics, but again, I have opinions on politicians and their policies and parties. I know it's not the same thing, but I hope my point is self explanatory, but in case it isn't...

You don't have to experience something personally to have a right to have an opinion on it, and to express that opinion. I will never fully understand, obviously, how soul destroying infertility can be, nor will I ever claim to, but that does not mean I have no right to discuss it, and it doesn't mean I have to agree with people who have been through it.

Sometimes Misfitless just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should.

I too have a strong opinion on rape despite never having been raped but I can't imagine being prepared to say to a rape victim how I would behave in their shoes and being so totally sure about it and even suggesting what access they should have the services after being raped.

Why does everything have to be cost effective? This cropped up earlier in the form of drugs for people with cancer. I know that this happens in practice, that trusts decide not to pursue courses of treatments because it would offer too little for too few. I find it really disheartening that people talk so easily about creating new lives but the life of my partner is not as important because he is sick and he is not a baby.

I agree, Truffle this is what I was meaning. I have mentioned the cost effectiveness of IVF because it's how they discuss cancer treatments and they use it to try and justify cuts to much needed treatment. And yet, the same set of criteria doesn't seem to apply to people who are here and suffering. I genuinely don't understand it.

Sorry if the flowers are offensive, as if a picture of flowers could ever help, but the sentiment is there. You've put it much better than I could, and I've been trying for post after post after post, for hours!

Wasn't really aimed at you Mistfit, and thank you for the flowers.

I don't know what I think really. I've been watching this thread all day and chipping in with bits which probably contradict each post previous.

Kewcumber that is a very good point, to be fair.

As someone who had several family members taken by cancer... I think IVF should be funded, and more than they currently do now.

It would be a weird world where we only care about the people who might be dying and not the ones who can be the future of mankind.

I know nothing. How effective is IVF on average. How much does it cost the NHS per baby successfully conceived? By the way this isn't the start of an argument against offering it, I am just curious.

What the actual fuck? I honestly thought I could not feel worse about infertility but this thread has done it. It's made angry actually.

For the avoidance of doubt:

Things that are lifestyle choices and can very often leave you in need of NHS services

• driving
• horse riding
• smoking
• skiing
• deliberately getting pregnant
• drug abuse
• alcohol abuse

Things that are definitely not lifestyle choices

• having reproductive organs that do not function

I do nothing from the first list so I do hope my taxes are not being spent on those that choose to do them and get injured or ill as a result? What with only life-threatening cancer being worthy of treatment on the nhs apparently...

I'm going to hide this thread and all of the ignorant fuckers on it because my infertile life is shitty enough as it is. I don't need any help from you lot to completely lose the will to live.

I've only skim read but one of the things that may be apparent us that humans as individuals often look at the individual case and often emotionally whereas people who set budgets are more likely to be 'facts and figures' based. Not saying this is right or wrong but if you look at the bigger picture I bet things like knock on costs/ potential knock on costs and 'benefit to society as a whole' will be taken into account. I don't know what effect this would have on funding for fertility treatments (as the given example) in particular as I've not personally had any involvement with it but it may well have an effect. Same with cancer treatment, same with plastic surgery etc etc etc

From my own personal experience I also find that people are very quick to generalise. I have been type 1 diabetic since childhood. I am a fit young person now who has represented this country in my chosen sport. I am not horrendously overweight with a terrible diet. Type 1 diabetes is not the same as type 2 diabetes brought on by increased weight and poor diet causing insulin resistance, yet even on this thread the phrase is 'diabetes' in relation to funding being cut because it's caused by eating to much. I feel very judged and am unwilling to disclose my condition where I am not legally required to do so because of the questioning and belief of the uninitiated public that I must live off pizza and chips. Because of this I sympathise greatly with similar topical judgements. It must be horrid to be judged for IVF funding (true) because it's clearly based on your lifestyle choice (clearly involving sarcasm)

If there was enough money for everyone to have everything, there wouldn't be this thread, and I really wish it was a non-issue.

I've been slated (no surprise) for claiming to know what I would do if I had fertility issues. I have said time and time again that I have no concept of the despair it causes. I have been told I have no right to say half of what I've said, blah blah. I've been told that I lack compassion for people with fertility issues, but what I have noticed is this...

My OP was asking if it's unreasonable to wonder how fertility treatment can still be funded when certain treatments, such as cancer treatments, have been deemed so cost ineffective that they have been withdrawn from use.

Hardly anyone on here has shown any compassion for anyone other than themselves/fellow fertility patients.

There has been very little consideration, thought or compassion shown towards those people, who are now unable to access treatments and medications due to cuts in the NHS, including, but not exclusively, cancer patients.

So I might be misinformed, arrogant, ignorant etc, but I have at least tried to see both sides.

Incidentally, I haven't got first hand experience of either infertility or cancer to date, but I know what I would do if I had a pot of money which could either pay to enhance and prolong a cancer sufferer's life, for say 12 months and hence the lives of his/her family, or pay for a cycle of fertility treatment, for a childless couple/single woman/gay couple, or whoever.

I know that having children would enhance the lives not just of the parents, but any grandparents, aunts, cousins etc, but there are people out there whose lives are effectively being cut even shorter because treatments are being withdrawn.

I can remember in my twenties arguing that IVF was a waste of NHS resources and that infertile couples should adopt. In my thirties DH and I experienced years of infertility and heartache. Adoption turned out not to be right for us. We were fortunate in that we were able to afford private fertility treatments costing many thousands which were successful. I do not think that such treatments should only be available to those lucky enough to afford them.

My opinions have changed vastly as a result of personal experience, perhaps yours would too OP? Hopefully, you'll never have to find out.