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?

Oh right! I think I understand your point now too. You mean fertile people have the option to have kids by conceiving naturally, or adopting. Obviously most choose to conceive. Those who can't conceive naturally can do assisted conception or adopt. Either way, there's a choice of two options as you say. No-one criticises people for conceiving naturally, even if they have four kids! Yet, fertile people too could save the NHS money by adopting instead. I'm being facetious now of course!!

Oh and IVF is just one of the assisted conception means methods open to those struggling to conceive. Others are cheaper - IUI, Clomid etc - and others more expensive - ICSI, TESA, PGD.

I thought the op was saying she took issue with the idea she'd be choosing adoption instead of ivf. But she would be because if the dr tells her she can't conceive but could with ivf but she says no I don't want to do that I'm going to adopt then that would be instead. But I might have totally misunderstood the point she was making.

No one ever asks why a fertile person chose to conceive rather than adopt. Double standards.

I've just been reading back through the thread (waiting for DH to go out so I can watch Sewing Bee in peace) and for some reason I thought you were posting in response to a news article, but I've just seen that you started this thread in response to another thread where the OP had won a case to get fertility treatment on the NHS - my apologies for asking you which news article you'd seen about cancer treatment being cut.

You say in your post of 15.41 on 8 Feb that if you needed fertility treatment, you wouldn't expect the NHS to fund it, and if you couldn't afford it, you'd adopt. But a few minutes later you ask why adoption is always a 'last resort', and later than same day you say you're certain that if you couldn't conceive naturally your next preference would be to adopt. You make another comment about whether 40 years ago adoption would have been better for more people - so I think this is where people are getting the idea that you think everyone should adopt instead go choosing fertility treatment.

Naty1 made an interesting point about bring unaware of the costs of medical treatment. It would be interesting to have a website where you could input what NHS treatment you've had and it would give you the costs - GP visit, blood tests, smear test, trip to A&E. I think that would be really interesting!

That would be interesting. Especially as even say a vaccination at a few mths old costs money. (As per CP thread where OP cant find £150 for CP jab x2, for pre-schoolers)
When i looked the individual mmr jabs so mumps, rubella, measles do add up a bit.
I think the comparison of different illnesses can highlight the shortsightedness of treatment/lack of treatment.
So my thyroid was up causing infertility, maybe, coldness, constipation, so making piles worse, affecting periods, tiredness, depression maybe but they wont treat till it is well outside range of average person- oh and can cause weight gain. By the time most women are treated when it reaches 10 they are likely to be pretty overweight and being blamed for that, and i guess have complications to do with that. The costs then of t2 diabetes, heart issues etc are relevant against the saving of not treating the thyroid condition when it started going wrong.
The same with pcos, excess hair, irregular periods, infertility, leading to t2 diabetes and heart problems against treatment with metformin. It seems to vary as most women arent treated.
New menigitis vaccine, against treatment for severe disability, limb loss costs.
Harmony downs testing vs costs of some of those tested being affected. Vs costs of amnio and loss of 1% of potentially healthy babies.
A lot of illnesses cause other issues so costs are interrelated.
Im not sure what nhs pays as they dont tell you, so use figures for what we paid privately. Overall i do think they must be able to do it cheaper than you pay privately. I saw a consultant once per cycle, scans are all done by nurses. Its the meds and operation/lab that is so expensive. I hope they make great strides in the field in the next few yrs as its truly awful when you fail as there is no knowledge how to improve chances. So many theories but no conclusive proof. Investment to make the process more successful would save a lot of money in the end for nhs and privately. I guess the nature of not being able to prove if the egg/sperm/protocol is the issue. A huge problem for couples as, aside from womens eggs aging you cant tell the cause to enable you to fix it. As ive seen people move to say donor eggs and have a worse cycle. They couldnt tell me why my fertilisation rate was only 25-40%, or why some embryos grow too slow/some too fast. If once put back they stopped growing or were unable to implant. You can give up alcohol/smoking etc and try to eat healthily but then you hear maybe protein will make better embryos, but your clinic dont believe, or you might do better on a different protocol, but your clinic dont want you to change what worked before. Though having said that my DDad seemed to have to make a lot of choices about his cancer treatment, so a lot of medicine is not black and white.

The post was in response to that thread, yes, EllieQ, but I was aware that it was in the media about cancer treatments being cut a week/two weeks earlier.

I think a lot of what I've said has been misunderstood, or twisted. Someone actually said something like ...using my logic, babies would be left to die in the womb, and there'd be no miscarriage care, or something like that.

Apparently it's ok for someone to effectively imply that that's what I think [puzzled]. Nobody commented on it, if I remember rightly, and MNHQ didn't have a problem with it at all .

There were people who agreed with my early post in the beginning of the thread, but they've long since gone. In RL, I have discussed this whole topic with people, and more agreed than disagreed with my earlier sentiments.

I think the response on here is disproportionate, understandably, because most people who have responded have had fertility issues, and so have a vested interest in it being NHS funded.

Fortunately we don't live in a world where pub chat opinions dictate NHS funding policy, or most others (capital punishment anyone?!) but evidence does instead. Hence Nice's recommendation that qualifying infertile people should receive three NHS funded IVF cycles. Hardly any health trusts and boards provide that though. Keep in mind, even if us infertiles get lucky and get our first child free, anymore will cost dearly!

Misfit- if you think of the people you know though, with children they are also likely to be parents?
Also if you voice it like on here even people having had ivf may not 'own up to it' fearing criticsism for wasting money etc. i only ever told people who wouldnt criticise. (Dnan never knew 4-6 of her gc are from fertility treatment.)
I think people who had kids easily are likely to agree with you. Due to newspapers etc, they probably imagine most is self inflicted - obesity, alcohol, age, smoking, drugs, utis. Though ive not met anyone who has been told this, though a few overweight told to lose it to get treatment, its not really put down as a cause, they would have unexplained.
It would be like me saying, i think nhs should only fund 2 births and antenatal care. Statistically most people might agree as they only have 2 kids. Esp if you raise it with people would have 0-2 kids.
Not all the people disagreeing had had nhs treatment, waiting lists, other ineligibilities. Others have already had their treatment so may not have cared what others were entitled to.
I think when people have an opinion on this sort of forum its difficult to judge the weight of it.

Against ivf
Do they have lots of children naturally
Were they not entitled anyway (say child with previous partner), too heavy, or old
Single and resent others (any others) having kids
Think we are already overpopulated (but have kids themselves)

Pro nhs ivf
Had their round
Believe it is worth cost as depression more expensive
Have had gc through ivf
Believe every couple should be abke to experience 1 child

Thing is 90% of population are fertile, dont need to worry about it or have empathy for others. When theyve had kids they know it wont happen to them - so its a pointless service right. Compared to cancer, which could strike our parent/gp/ children and yes kill them.
You can see why the argument goes as it does. But really there are reasons people here are saying - you cant understand because, you had the choice. Anyone criticising shoukd imaging themselves without their amazing child (or maybe it dying and you losing that potential).
Every one of the ivf parents i know dote on their child/children. Its sad to think without science they would have been childless.
Maybe in the future most kids will be ivf :)
After all
sex selection
Avoiding illnesses
Picking the best embryo
Higher inteligence?
Only having kids when you want to (50% are unplanned)

Might actually save money due to reduction in illnesses.

I think it's natural that people surround themselves with those who agree with them. On here you're getting more of a cross section. I'm glad we live in a country where policy isn't decided by a group of people with no medical knowledge but rather by experts. These experts (Nice) have concluded after weighing up the evidence that ivf should be funded. Op - your responses show that you're fairly ignorant when it comes to the issue of infertility, so whilst you can have an opinion it's not surprising that many on here (who have first hand experience) disagree with you.

The total cost breakdown per treatment do exist but I don't know if they are publicly available. I think most of us would be surprised how much even a low risk pregnancy, birth and post natal care costs.

What it boils down to basically is that some people are incapable of empathy and because they don't need something they will therefore class it as unnecessary.

People know that cancer, stroke, heart attacks can affect them. But because infertility doesn't they can't understand it.