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?

Yes that's the thing OP, four sets of nhs pregnancy & birth costs & child benefit & education & health needs is so much more expensive than three rounds of ivf. Respect for admitting you have changed your mind though.

I am very surprised that you didn't think that starting a thread about infertility vs cancer funding wouldn't be hurtful to many people OP. But I do appreciate your honesty in admitting your thoughts have changed and you acknowledge that since childless people pay taxes towards things they won't use (schools etc), denying them fertility treatment on the NHS is unfair.

You are right to say that the issue of NHS funding is still there, which is why NICE have to make decisions on whether or not a drug is cost-effective. I feel as though the 'cancer vs infertility' argument is an oversimplification, because it's much more likely to be a decision between, for example, a drug that could prolong life for three months for some cancer patients and a drug that could prolong life for two years for a larger number of cancer patients.

OP in response to your post saying that posters haven't shown any thought for people who need treatment for anything other than fertility issues - of course we have! We just haven't put it in a post because it's obvious, isn't it? We were simply reacting to the bit of your post that was unreasonable ie picking on people who need fertility treatment to have a baby.

My dad just went through open heart surgery and had a pacemaker put in. He needed it due to an arrhythmia caused by the malaria he contracted in Africa 13 years ago. It was his own fault, he didn't take anti malarials. But I'd never begrudge him that treatment because his quality of life has been so horrendous the past five years and now he's got another chance.

I would never weigh up whether my dad deserves treatment any more or less than my friends baby who had to have a tumour removed at 14 months old. She's thankfully in remission but her parents live with the worry of the cancer coming back every day.

Or whether either of them are more or less important to the nhs than my friends mum who's suffering with dementia, a terrible disease that means she's slowly disappearing in front of my friends eyes. She needs daily help at home which would cost the nhs thousands a year.

All of these people deserve help and I would never like to be the person who has to decide who is more 'deserving' of help.

Good on you OP for admitting you've had your eyes opened, but you're still taking a dig at people who have posted due to the upset you've caused them with this insensitive thread.

Hideous thread. OP, if I were you I'd be ashamed of myself! But then, I have empathy, self-awareness and understanding.

Also, if we're going to start doling out NHS treatment on the grounds of who 'deserves' it, rather than medical need: can I just point out OP, all the time you've been sitting at home playing earth mother to your huge squad of kids, women who are childless and infertile will overwhelmingly have been going out to work and paying tax. They will have been paying for your maternity allowance (through tax or work), your pre and post natal care, as well as your birth, your child benefit, your tax credits, your children's healthcare and education. In fact, if they weren't paying a comparatively higher tax burden to support families like yours, it would be a hell of a lot easier for them to save up for IVF!

Yet despite the fact you feel perfectly justified in knocking out quite a number of kids who will have their healthcare and education funded by the state you would begrudge a comparatively tiny amount to another family to have one child. Bloody hypocritical. You also chose to have your children because you wanted them, not because you needed them. I could quite equally view your decision to bung four such expensive unnecessary little burdens on the state as selfish, perhaps I might suggest you take the youngest 3 who are uneccessary out of school and the NHS. It doesn't matter if they get sick and die after all, you don't NEED them after all.

You might find that offensive. Perhaps that might make you think how people who've had state funded fertility treatment feel when it's suggested to us our children shouldn't exist at all.

Morning.

Just wanted to say, that even if I'd only had one DC, Naty's argument would've swayed it, because it's logical and fair and makes sense. I've always been fully aware that having 4 DCs is using up more resources than the right number of 2. I am taking 2 times more out of the system than someone with 2 DCS, and obviously 4 times more than someone with no DCs.

They will, of course hopefully go on to be productive members of society and pay taxes; even so, by creating them I've used up more than someone with 2 DCs conceived either with or without^ IVF hopefully ever would, assuming, and hoping that all the children in the equation have equally long and healthy lives. The

The using up resources is a life long situation, obviously. I suppose in terms of resources, it's a legacy spanning generations. If each of my DCs has 2 DCs, then I'm using up 4 times more resources even long after I'm dead iyswim.

This might sound like all I care about is money, it isn't, I'm just using Naty's argument to show how it's changed my thinking re NHS resources being funded to treat infertility.

I was aware it would be contentious, I was hoping that someone would be able to make me understand it, because I couldn't understand how it was just to use funds to fund fertility treatment that only had a 30% (I think it is) chance of being successful, when other life enhancing/saving drugs are being cut for people who are alive.

Just to reiterate, it's not because I've got 4DCs that I've changed my mind. It's people unable to have children paying for schools, and child health that makes me see, not the number of children I, or anyone else has.

The pain caused by infertility, which I can never understand, and will never claim to, isn't in itself a justification, imho, though. That doesn't mean I'm denying that it exists and that I pretend it isn't utterly soul destroying.

OP, I think that you are doing something really, really dangerous, which is to present the NHS as making a 'choice' between one group of patients and another, as if the budget were something fixed by God and not politicians. It's morally reprehensible and irresponsible as a way of thinking and arguing.

The real question to ask is: how much more money do we need to put into the NHS to ensure that BOTH cancer treatments and IVF are funded? And how do we get people to accept a very small tax rise to pay for this?

Basically, I would ask you to stop being so completely selfish.

Well said shovetheholly

The real question to ask is: how much more money do we need to put into the NHS to ensure that BOTH cancer treatments and IVF are funded? And how do we get people to accept a very small tax rise to pay for this?

But it's about priorities. Some people on this thread-particularly those who have suffered infertility-feel that should be funded. Others feel that isn't a good use of NHS funding. Another group would like funded gastric surgery for obesity.

Others want to raise taxes to ensure schools can afford books, to sort public transport or immigration.

We can't afford to raise taxes to cover every single thing people want-it just isn't practical.

I personally would rather give schools more money to give the children we have, smaller class sizes and adequate books/teachers than fund gastric surgery or IVF.

Where do we draw the line?

Okay letseat well maybe a parent tax would be an idea in order to plough that money into schools?

"We can't afford to raise taxes to cover every single thing people want-it just isn't practical"

Actually, we can sort out all of the problems you mention. It means the wealthier among us (and my own household is very much included in this) paying a deal more in taxation, in full recognition of the fact that we're not 'losing' the money, but really 'paying ourselves' on a collective basis by investing in proper systems that benefit all. We HAVE to stop thinking only about what we personally feel that we use, and taken on proper responsibility for the whole of society.

I can't have kids, but I absolutely think I should pay for yours to have the best education money can buy.

Absolutely right shovetheholly!

By your logic regarding funding, OP, why should we fund a cancer treatment that 'only' extends life by three months when the money could be spent on, say, heart treatments that would extend life for three years? That's the kind of comparisons you end up making if you follow that path to its logical conclusion. And that's probably what NICE have to do.

Incidentally, was the news article that started this debate about NICE saying the drugs shouldn't be funded, or individual hospitals/ trusts saying they shouldn't be funded?

Obviously you're not obliged to answer my question OP - I know you've objected to that before.

I agree MrsDeVere it's used as an unimpeachable stick to beat people with.

As if it didn't do enough damage already.

That's true, why is it always cancer and never, say, 'heart conditions vs fertility treatment'? That affects a lot of people, has different levels of severity/ impact on life expectancy - I would expect it needs a similar level of funding to cancer treatment.

Mrs deVere

MrsDV - I wasn't going to use your situation to point out to OP the total ridiculousness of her statement about anyone who has argued against her not having empathy for anyone except those who've had IVF as it really wasn't for me to use your lovely DD some kind of point scoring exercise, but it really does demonstrate quite effectively that it is possible to have horrible things happen to you and your loved ones and still believe that others deserve a fair crack of the whip and that empathy like love is not a finite thing which has to be divided up in some kind of misery way. In my experience the more loss you have suffered the more empathetic (in a true meaningful way, rather than a "yes that's very sad but... kind of way) you tend to be able to be.

Was my mothers diagnosis or terminal cancer any more painful than the realisation that I may never have children, may be facing the loss of my mother and the loss of the life I thought I would have in one go? I have no idea - at the time they were both as painful as fuck and I wasn't much bothered with trying to rank them. I'm not even sure I was rational enough to be thinking that way.

I am however certain that if I ever have cancer I will be fighting for the best treatment I can possibly get but I'll still believe that I would rather have given up my own mole removal (x3) than take away the chance of some other couple to have the joy I've had from DS to date.

You've had plenty of here's some birthday

Just musing... if you marry your DH after several boyfriends... does that make him a last resort?

OP, I do take offense at you suggesting those of us suffering infertility want to see cancer funding cut. Nowhere have I ever said anything of the sort. My dad has cancer and I will fight tooth and nail to see he gets whatever treatment his doctors think will benefit him. Stopping ivf funding will not solve funding problems in the nhs. It's a drop in the ocean.

It's clear that you started this thread without really understanding what infertility is. I think I'm correct in saying you don't consider it an illness. That shows your ignorance because medical experts are in no doubt that it is a disease that should be treated. I also suspect that you didn't realise that it is already heavily rationed, that there are very strict criteria for eligibility and long investigations and waiting periods before starting.

You also didn't seem to know anything about the realities of adoption or the ridiculousness of suggesting it should be used instead of ivf. I don't doubt that you wouldn't want to do ivf. I always said I wouldn't either. You simply cannot predict how you would feel in that situation of being told your only hope of a biological child is ivf.

I suspect there are many people who have read this thread and not commented because it's too upsetting for them. Infertility is a cruel disease, often hidden away and not talked about. You can never escape it because babies and children and pregnant women are everywhere. Our society expects us to reproduce. There have been (thankfully short lived) times when I've thought I can't carry on, that the bleakness of our situation has left me unable to leave my bed, avoiding contact with anyone, wondering what is the point of my existence if I can't have children. I don't expect anyone to understand why infertility is so awful, but I do wish people wouldn't try to kick us when we are feeling so vulnerable.

I have no problem with paying my share of tax and knowing that some of it will be spent on things I will likely never use. Maternity, education etc. that's how society should work in my opinion. It upsets me so much to think someone would begrudge me and my husband one ivf round (3k in our case) when we contribute so much ourselves.