Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

434 replies

Misfitless · 08/02/2015 14:21

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?

OP posts:
Naty1 · 11/02/2015 11:39

We are encouraged to be unaware of the cost of so many services.
So unless you do private ivf or have private insurance where you pay towards or have a limit. Most are unaware of the costs of their health/choices.
I think kids are meant to pay through taxes to cover their education and healthcare up to that point, but with all the unemployment, and zero hours contracts, low wages there is no guarantee that would be covered. So i would categorise it as cost of the parents.
So i would say the tv family with 17 and counting etc even if they dont have benefits technically, the costs of CB, labours, school, health of all those children i would be interested to see calculated. Not to say - you cant have that many kids but as an acknowledgement that its a bit disingenuous to say im ok as i dont live off benefits so its my choice as im covering the cost.
I think it isnt wrong to compare costs of illnesses, lifestyle choices etc but it needs to be through knowledge.
Its fair to say if everyone took a bit more responsibility for themselves and their health and lifestyle the nhs and country would be in a lot better state.
In reality its strange we give people money when they have kids and not tax them higher for consuming more services. Im not convinced that a financial incentive to take on the hardest job there is when done properly is a wise idea. Along with throwing lots of money at bad parents to make them better.

MoanCollins · 11/02/2015 11:52

My mother has had cancer twice. She has been successfully treated for cancer twice by the NHS. She also has a grandson who was born because of NHS fertility treatment. I think if you asked her if she would exchange the years with her beloved grandson for a drug which gave her an extra 3-6 months of not very good quality life next time she had cancer she would give you a resounding no. Also it's not like for like, cancer treatments that aren't approved are often because of a massive expense whereas fertility treatment is comparatively cheap.

So I think it's a red herring to say that the results of the cancer drugs are somehow better or more worthwhile, or even that they would be affordable if all IVF was abolished.

Naty1 · 11/02/2015 12:35

I forgot to say OP the reason it seemed you werent fussed, is you didnt think it would be devastating, depressing and that emotionally for you it would be easy to move on to adoption, not experience pregnancy etc (though personally i could leave the labour bit)
Also not all couples easily agree so while say you may be fine with adoption say partner may not be.
I would have agreed to donor sperm if necessary but OH didnt want to. Not everyone wants to/ or knows how to deal with telling a child they are not biologically theirs. Not knowing the medical history. An adoptive child or donor one could be high risk for depression or say even BRAC gene and you wouldnt nevessarily know. Then issues with them wanting to trace parents/donor.
I did think about adoption, but not after watching a tv program about it saying all children waiting have been abused, neglected or difficult to place with SEN etc. though i have now met a lovely adopted cheild who on the face of it (only about 2) seems lovely (better than DD) . And was only about a yr when adopted so its not all doom and gloom. And my natural baby may still be disabled or have SEN. Either way its a lot of luck.

I did say on another thread maybe they could give info on adoption to patients being referred for treatment but as you can see here people dont like that. I would have been interested to read it at least. As aside from anything else how devastating to think well we can always adopt if ivf fails only to find the reality as described on this thread of not enough babies /children and possibly strict criteria. I wouldnt want my backup dashed like that as i might not have been able to take another knock.
My Dad also has/had cancer. Luckily treated privately and the care seems to have been really good. When 1/3 people get cancer its fair to say lots of infertile people will sadly have 1st or 2nd hand experience of both.

BathtimeFunkster · 11/02/2015 13:51

shovetheholly for President! :)

shovetheholly · 11/02/2015 14:01

Grin I have been wondering whether I should get more involved in movements to make these things happen in real life, but I fear I would be a liability - no-one in their right mind would vote for me! But thanks Flowers.

Original poster
Misfitless · 11/02/2015 16:57

MrsD Flowers

OP posts:
trufflesnout · 11/02/2015 18:20

I think it isnt wrong to compare costs of illnesses

Why?

Naty1 · 11/02/2015 18:40

Clearly GPs NICE etc need to make decisions unfortunately on whether a vaccine is worthwhile for say cervical cancer (cant remember name of virus) well if noone was to suffer from it, it could /can be avoided by lifestyle changes and choices, easily treated and non fatal they might choose to spend funds on something different (made up example).
People are not valuing treatment they consider free. Cant really estimate how much they are putting in vs taking out.

trufflesnout · 11/02/2015 18:43

Sorry but I don't follow. Could you maybe use a real example to explain what you mean instead?

maggiethemagpie · 11/02/2015 20:53

I was told after having my first child that it may not be safe for me to have a second child, due to a pre existing medical condition. So I looked in to adoption. I soon realised that it was very very different to having a birth child, and after reading up on it all, I was quite put off to be honest. Decided it was not for me.

Risked another pregnancy, as I really wanted a second child, and just about made it through the pregnancy before getting very ill myself at 36w....delivered at 38w and recovered after the birth. I definitely can't have any more. But I do now realise how different adoption is from having your own baby and whilst I have the utmost admiration for those who do adopt it's not something I could do.

inconceivableme · 12/02/2015 00:43

Britbird - well said! And I hear you and share lots of the experience you detailed in your post.

inconceivableme · 12/02/2015 00:45

MoanCollins - I too have a mum who survived cancer (and has other long-term health conditions) and a son from NHS IVF. Your post is spot on!

inconceivableme · 12/02/2015 00:48

Hear hear shovetheholly!

Oh, and let's ask the government to properly tackle inexcusable tax avoidance by HSBC, PwC, Amazon etc and we'll have enough money for everything I reckon?!

inconceivableme · 12/02/2015 00:51

I've just seen that the OP has four kids and hasn't experienced infertility personally. How fortunate!!

Treat the infertility or treat the clinical depression that follows for many? Or the fallout of relationship breakdown?

Original poster
Misfitless · 12/02/2015 17:17

inconceivable well said.

I haven't said that adoption could be used instead of IVF. A lot of people have said that I've said this, I haven't.

I know that I know nothing about it, but me saying that if I couldn't conceive, that I would not want IVF, but would want to try and adopt, is in no way saying that I think adoption could be used instead of IVF.

Why should it be assumed that IVF is the default decision for people who can't conceive their own DCs, &Britbird*? If I couldn't conceive I think (I know I don't know what I'd actually do anymore than any of you know what I'd do) I'd want to try and adopt. I might get down the line and think 'it's not for me,' or the adoption teams might decide that for me, who knows - neither you lot, nor me know

SO how can that be me saying that I'd use adoption instead of IVF. I have only made assumptions about what I would do under these circumstances, but you lot think you've got the right, time and time again, to twist my words and make assumptions about me, on my behalf. I'm not allowed to do that about myself, but it seems that very many people on here think that they're allowed to do that because they've been through it.

You might have been, as you, but you haven't been through as me, and i haven't been through it at all. The point is you're no more qualified to know what i'd do than I am!

There have been people who've kindly posted who've said that they categorically knew that IVF wasn't for them, so they didn't pursue it, I suspect I'd be one of those people, but who knows! Can you see how me (albeit hypothetically opting to explore adoption as my next step, is not saying that I'd use adoption instead of IVF. Some people can't get their heads around not wanting to use IVF, apart from the people who have posted saying they didn't want to try it. It seem that those people who have opted for IVF, can't grasp that there are some people for whom adoption, rather than IVF is the next step.

Then by saying that I'm somehow patronising Confused the people who opted for IVF, but then ended up adopting instead. Confused.

Again, I haven't been through it, so it's all hypothetical, and none of you are me, so you don't know what I'd do, or what I wouldn't do. None of us know!

Now, I know that you all think I'm ridiculous, I'm taking that on the chin, but I'm sick of having my words twisted again.

OP posts:
inconceivableme · 12/02/2015 17:26

MissFit, the OP, which of my posts are 'well said'? I'm confused, as I wasn't agreeing with you in any of them....

inconceivableme · 12/02/2015 17:30

Oh and it should be pointed out that the actual cost of IVF is way less than the prices that private clinics charge or even that the NHS charges self-funding patients. So when doing nasty little sums, bear that in mind? Source: Professor Robert Winston, and I reckon he'd know!

Original poster
Misfitless · 12/02/2015 17:54

I was quoting someone upthread, incon, for the costs.

I haven't done any sums, nasty or otherwise! The only one who's done sums, I think, is Naty1 and I'm sure none of you would think her sums were nasty, not if you read them, anyway.

Grin at you being horrified that I might agree with you, or I might think you'd agreed with me!

OP posts:
Original poster
Misfitless · 12/02/2015 17:57

Also, inconceivableme I did actually state and acknowledge in that post (where I quoted the costs) that I was aware that the costs could be less on the NHS.

OP posts:
inconceivableme · 12/02/2015 18:04

The actual costs are less than the NHS charges too.

Show me where we agree?

patienceisvirtuous · 12/02/2015 18:05

That wasn't the thrust of your OP though. You were pitching IVF funding against cancer funding and saying 'if you hadn't been able to conceive your FOUR children naturally' you wouldn't have sponged off the NHS. Naive, insensitive or nasty? A mix of all three!

inconceivableme · 12/02/2015 18:12

Completely agree patience!

There but for the grace of God and all that Misfit...?

Be glad you don't have to have to deal with the soul-destroying world of infertility and assisted conception and the prospect of never having biological children. Adoption is far from an easy or guaranteed alternative either.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/ivf-clinics-are-ripping-off-desperate-couples-6281515.html

Maidmarigold · 12/02/2015 18:15

You would be choosing adoption instead of ivf though, wouldn't you? In the same way you chose to conceive rather than adopt. Two choices to have children and you choose one over the other. Sorry I might be confused and have missed the point you were making.

inconceivableme · 12/02/2015 18:17

Are you asking me that question Maid? If so, I don't follow I'm afraid....?

Maidmarigold · 12/02/2015 18:27

No, sorry I was referring to the op's post above where she said it wasn't instead of. I didn't understand it.