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?

ellieq yep, I saved money (11k to date) to cover my maternity leave and would have been happy to fund my antenatal and postnatal care with some or all of this if necessary. I also don't agree fertility treatment should be cut. As it happens I'm being induced next week and the baby has a 50/50 chance of survival due to a birth defect that was undiagnosed at all previous scans and tests and whatnot. Shit happens. The same shit would have happened had I paid for scans which I did on a few occasions I would now fall into the category mentioned by a pp where for future pregnancies i would be considered for genetic screening and whatnot, as the defect my daughter has is as prevalent as CF but not as well known/funded. In issues like this which are designed to be emotive most people can't see past their own circumstances. If I had cancer I'd want all the money going into Cancer research, if I was infertile I'd want to money going there, if I had an nhs funded gastric band I'd be defending that. Human nature.

Infertility is a disease according to the World Health Organisation. It is a disease of the reproductive system because the system is not working as it should.nThe NHS does not just fund life saving treatment. My father has nhs hearing aids, should these have been funded when they don't save his life?

I don't understand why infertility is always picked on rather than other treatments. I cannot begin to tell you how much pain infertility has caused me and my husband. Until infertility investigations, neither of us had visited the GP in ten years.

Treatment is rationed. There are very strict criteria to meet before treatment is approved and long waiting lists. Jackshit - I'm very, very surprised that you know someone with 3 kids who is being funded. I don't know of any area that does this so I'm intrigued to know where it is.

If funding wasn't available then IVf treatment would be only easily available for the rich.
Imagine not being able to have a baby and having no money to pay for treatment. It is an already severely rationed service anyway.
I think it is essential.
Infertility is as much of an illness as any other.

The whole NHS needs a massive rethink and overhaul. It's trying to be too many things to too many people. I'd like to know how the rest of Europe funds infertility and cosmetic procedures.

Thanks for answering Hamilton and Snoop (and I'm very sorry to hear about the birth defect - I can barely imagine how you must feel). You are right to say that what we're experiencing/ have experienced very much affects how we feel about this issue.

Hamilton, you raise an interesting point about pregnancy and birth causing a life-threatening situation which should be funded on the NHS. Just like doing anything else risky - we wouldn't tell someone who'd been in a car accident that it was their fault because cars can crash!

Britbird, I know how you feel and how hurtful it is to hear these kinds of comments. And you're right that the NHS funds loads of stuff that isn't 'life-saving' as such.

Holeinmyheart, I very much agree with your comments about only rich people being able to afford IVF. We were 'lucky' in that PIL had recently had a small inheritance so had cash in the bank to lend us if required.

The waits for nhs funded treatment are so long (can be 5years on top of the initial 1 -2 years) that most people who can self fund do so anyway.

Yep, definitely agree Viv.

Does it want to save lifes and prevent early death by treating disease and illness, or does it want to improve the quality of life too?

I'm ok with either but think we need to be realistic if we want everyone to have everything and make cuts/ raise taxes as appropriate to fund it.

Aw it's ok not mentioned for sympathy more that if I could "buy" her health I would, and I'm far from wealthy. It sort of comes under the infertility banner, I concieved no bother and from then on I have been a drain on the nhs. Irony is that my daughter and her varying health problems and operations will cost a LOT more than a round of IVF

it isn't funded if you already have children - some of the hear say 'evidence' is not true

I have no issue with it's funding - infertility is horrible

also cosmetic surgery on the NHS ...not so much (see my first point)

Cancer treatment has to be weighed up carefully - awful though it is spending say £50,000 on drugs that may allow an extra 6mths ...might not be the most effective use of funds

It's not an either or thing - money from cancer drugs isn't being given to IVF treatment directly is it

Sorry - I've forgotten all the names of who posted what, but will answer some questions.

I am singling out fertility because this treatment will produce another human being if treatment is successful, and if it fails, it is money down the drain, and I don't know the success rate of IVF

It is treatment to create another life, rather than treating the life of someone who is already here, needing treatment. That's if you focus on the unborn child, of course, not the would-be parents.

I don't want everyone to tell me their troubles, no, not at all.

I have missed the thread that someone referred to last week, and don't think I've commented on one of these threads before, though I am quite forgetful.

*One of the frequent comments on the last thread is that IVF shouldn't be available because 'having children is a lifestyle choice' and 'If you can't afford IVF you shouldn't have children'. So, OP, would you be prepared to pay for all your antenatal care, the birth, and postnatal care, because having children is a lifestyle choice and the money saved could be used to improve cancer treatment?

Or, did you have £5k in the bank before you got pregnant to prove you could afford to have a child?

If the answer to both of these is 'no', then you're a hypocrite to query why IVF is funded by the NHS.*

I don't think people who have had DCs should pay for all antenatal care, birth etc etc, because we have an NHS. My point is that funding for IVF shouldn't come from the NHS. That doesn't mean that people with children should have to pay for all their pregnancy care .

It's all so entitled! If i needed fertility treatment, I wouldn't expect the NHS to fund it. If I couldn't afford it I would adopt if I wanted a family.

Re hearing aids - my position on this is NHS funds shouldn't pay for fertility treatment. That does not go hand in hand with thinking hearing aid services, NHS glasses for children or anything else should not be NHS funded.

I'm so pleased that it does.'

The principle that infertility is a disease and that people who suffer it deserve it deserve to be treated on our wonderful NHS is an important one.

Having children isn't a "lifestyle choice" or a luxury.

It's a basic biological function, and if it's not working I'm proud to pay into a system that will help try to overcome that.

Nobody on MN has the luxury of being ignorant of the devastating pain infertility can cause (unless they choose to close their eyes).

Keep up the good work, NHS.

Just read post back - not very eloquently put, sorry. Half of it doesn't make sense.

I really don't agree that gastric bands and IVF treatment is comparable. Comparing IVF to endometrial ablation would be more sensible. The obesity operations have proved to directly save the NHS money, IVF certainly does not. That's not to say it shouldn't be NHS funded, by the way. But some people on these threads make barmy comparisons.

This old chesnut comes up every week or so.

It's all so entitled!

Yes! :)

That's what's so great about it.

No begging or pleading. No charity.

Just people who need medical care getting it because we have a system that says they have a right to that.

We must a protect our entitlements from people who want us to have none.

I will never avail of NHS fertility treatment. But I'm so glad it was there had I needed it and I'm delighted it has given me cousins to live, and proud that couples all over the country can rely on it.

I have posted this in response to a thread I read earlier where everyone was congratulating an OP because her solicitor had won a case that enabled her to have NHS funding for fertility treatment, which she had originally been denied.

Why does adoption almost always have to be the last resort? I know it isn't always, but the only people I know who adopted did so after several unsuccessful NHS (and then privately) funded IVF cycles. I don't understand it.

EllieQ, a lot of people save before having children so that they can afford to pay for baby things and cover maternity leave, saving before having children is not a huge thing to expect of prospective parents.

I'd be in favour of a system where we all pay a set amount for maternity care, but everyone would pay the same amount regardless of the amount of care or treatment they need. It is a choice to be pregnant and have children, it's fine to expect parents to pay towards ante natal care IMO.

I completely disagree that infertility is an illness as much as any other. It can be as traumatic as any life altering thing that requires the mental effects to be treated, much the same as the depression that can result when a partner or child dies, but that doesn't make it an lines like any other. Living a completely healthy life but without conceiving your own children is nothing like having MS that can leave you paralysed, or cancer that will kill you, or like diabetes that can leave you blind or an amputee. It's just not.

Cancer treatment has to be weighed up carefully - awful though it is spending say £50,000 on drugs that may allow an extra 6mths ...might not be the most effective use of funds

I understand the point you're making but it's a very hard one to swallow, especially on a thread talking about the validity of the role of the NHS in creating new lives.

but "fertility treatment" doesn't necessarily equal IVF/similar. I had "fertility treatment" as part of my treatment for PCOS (a course of clomid to try and kickstart my cycle), and as a lucky side effect of that, DD2 is here. But I'd have had the same treatment regardless of whether I was ttc or not.

You could have had cousins had your aunts & uncles chosen adoption. I have an adopted cousin .

In answer to the point that hearing aids, glasses and so on directly improve the quality of life of an existing person - so can/does IVF (in my opinion). And everything BathtimeFunkster said.

You could have had cousins had your aunts & uncles chosen adoption. I have an adopted cousin.

I have adopted cousins too, thanks.

Why should only people who struggle to conceive turn to adoption?

Did you choose adopt before getting pregnant?

If not, why the fuck not if it's no hassle, and just the same as any other way of becoming a parent?

Maybe nobody should get funded ante-natal care unless they have adopted a child already?

God I loathe the "why not adopt?" crew.

As if that has ever been an easy option since they stopped forcing teenage mothers to give up their babies out of shame.

And their even more repulsive counterparts "why not just ridk your health and wellbeing to carry a baby you don't want and give it to a holy woman!"

I think you are seeing adoption as some consolation prize for infertile couples whereas I see it as something that takes a fairly committed person/couple who want to adopt, not those who have run out of other choices. Most of the people I know who have adopted have not done so because they were infertile. It is always people who have not experienced infertility who say 'why don't they adopt?'

I took a lot of ivf treatment to get pregnant, but adoption would not have been an option for me and DH for valid reasons, personal choices, that I have no wish to share.

I have two lovely children now because I happened to buy a house in London in my 20's and could tap into the equity to fund treatment. It breaks my heart to imagine the couples who simply have no chance of affording to even try treatment. How unfair is that? Do we really just want to make ivf only accessible to the rich? Seems morally wrong to me.

OP I thought like that when I was a foolish young man: now I am at least no longer young.

I know how my poor niece has suffered by not being able to have a baby, which is all she has ever really wanted out of life. Now 40 and it's probably not going to happen. And it has not helped that my nephew who lives nearbu and to whom she is close has a gorgeous DS.

So no: I don't resent the funding of fertility treatment on the NHS.

Oh, and I am a survivor of cancer too - so I could readily agree with you if I did not know better.