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?

I have a rare neurological condition. I first heard of it when they diagnosed it. Sufferers enjoy minimal mobility -most cannot walk unaided, many are in wheelchairs, need round the clock care, etc.

I won the postcode lottery and got enrolled in a treatment plan that is only offered by 3 trusts in the whole country. As a result, I have a completely normal life.

Due to NHS cuts, less than 10% off the people with my condition will have access to this :(

misfitless you should get flamed....with statements like 'it's all so entitled' .....because IVF/infertility is funded by the NHS. Who the hell are you to say that? Personally, you appear to have a very black and white view of things..'Oh, if I couldn't afford to have IVF then I would adopt'. How do you even know if you would be deemed suitable to adopt? Many prospective adopters are not approved. Ever.

I think you'll find ivf on the nhs has already been cut back, in my area it's 1 cycle only, must be right age, healthy weight, non smoker etc.

Fertility treatments cover much more than ivf though, most people are prescribed ovulation drugs etc, ivf is the extreme end.

You are a hypocrite OP. You don't think people should pay for antenatal care 'because we have an NHS', though they have made the choice to have a child. But IVF shouldn't be funded on the NHS because 'it's so entitled'. That's a really convincing argument - can you explain more?

And you're not saying other non-life threatening treatment shouldn't be funded by the NHS, just IVF. Or is there anything else you don't approve of?

Ptolemy - I'm able to save for my maternity leave, but not IVF and maternity leave. We're back to holeinthehearts comment about only the rich being able to have IVF. Does everyone think that's fair?

Interesting point about paying a set amount for maternity care though - that wouldn't penalise anyone with pre-existing health conditions or unexpected emergencies, which would be fair.

PtolemysNeedle - you might not think infertility is an illness, but the World Health Organisation, NICE and the NHS do. If you have more medical expertise than those bodies then fair enough. If a couple cannot conceive within normal timescales despite regular sex then their reproductive system is not working as it should. My husband had an illness and operation as a child which left him unable to produce enough sperm for natural conception. Ivf is a way to help my egg and his sperm to come into contact. We are not entitled any more than any user of the nhs is. we pay tax and national insurance. Infertility aside, we have so far been very light users of nhs services.

It would not be fair for women to have to pay for antenatal care.

It would be massively discriminatory.

Sometimes I can't believe the shit I read on here.

Women - stop agreeing that shit we need isn't important.

We're back to holeinthehearts comment about only the rich being able to have IVF. Does everyone think that's fair?

No. But nor do I think it's fair for the treatment of any disease to be left to the preserve of the rich (see Keletubbies comment).

I agree with you OP and say that as someone who was unable to have children.

There are plenty of things that are essential for a decent quality of life that only the rich can afford because the pot that pays for the NHS and social services is not bottomless.

There are people living in wheelchairs that cause actual physical harm because they are not suitable and don't meet the persons needs and the state won't pay for better, there are prosthetic limbs that could have a drastic impact on quality of life, and ability to care for ones self that are only available to the rich. Things like long term physiotherapy that could prevent people with neurological conditions becoming completely immobile and living in severe pain are only available to the rich. I could probably think of a lot more.

Those things are not fair. Once those unfairnesses have been addressed and people are no longer living with terrible suffering that could be prevented with more funding, then I will agree that something as distressing as infertility should be treated. Until then, infertility should not be a priority for the cash strapped NHS.

To those who asked about funding in other European countries this study showed the UK is one of the lowest. www.bionews.org.uk/page_156654.asp
It's a couple of years old and I think the nhs is funding less now than it did then.
Another point to note is that the cost to the nhs of one round is about half of what it costs privately. One round costs the nhs 3k. Very few people will have more than one round funded.

I also posted on the thread last week. I have had cancer treatment which compromised my fertility and was offered PIGD on the NHS. I turned it down because I agree with the OP.

The cost of my treatment (including the genetic testing and mapping) would have been well in excess of £30k. As a PP said, it's lazy to compare cancer and infertility because (rightly imo) cancer treatment should take priority, at least where the drugs are proven and effective. I could not, in good conscience, take that amount of money from a health service which apparently can't afford to treat my DGD's macular degeneration. Result: blindness. Does his right to sight not take priority?

Equally, my DSis is bipolar and the mental health care is non-existent. Several of my immediate family members have experienced shambolic antenatal care that should shame us as a nation (including a family left without a mother, and a baby deprived of oxygen at birth who is still unable to speak at age 5). All anecdotal, of course, but not that unusual.

If everything in the garden is rosy and the NHS is doing the basics well for everyone and has a surplus, by all means offer the pricier fertility treatments (like IVF). Until then, I think it's selfish to demand a bigger slice of the pie because you "need" a baby.

For so, so many reasons:

-It can be a way to stop a baby having a health condition that would cost the NHS loads to treat.

-Because why should it only be the rich who can afford to have babies of the are medical issues there?

-It can save the NHS the cost of mental health problems for two people for life.

-At £5k it's cheap.

-The NHS pays for antenatal treatment, scans, and labour/CS and treatment needed afterwards, which can cost £XXXX. If someone can have a healthy pregnancy but just need help with the first bit, why shouldn't they get it? It's cheaper.

-Because women often also get corrective treatment after a birth injury has been repaired so they can have a normal sex life and ergo more children.

-Because for some people infertility is a side effect of previous medical treatment they have had to have.

-Because it treats health problems that people have been completely brought themselves. Eg from smoking, drinking and falling down stairs, overeating, having unprotected sex and getting STDs, driving too fast and crashing, doing dangerous sports, taking drugs, fighting &c.

-Because nobody died of a broken arm, so why treat that?

-Or acne.
-Or wanting bigger boobs.
-Or erectile disfunction
-Or incontinence.
-Or arthritis
&c
BECAUSE THE NHS DOESN'T ONLY TREAT LIFE-THREATENING CONDITIONS.

-Because cancer drugs can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and only prolong life by months. If it was a cure, they'd do it.

-Because infertility is an illness of the reproductive system, and the World Health Organisation confirms this.

-Because if "having a child is not a right", then why does it pay for people whose pregnancies aren't going well? Just let nature take its course, eh? If it was meant to be...

-In fact, why try and save pre-term babies? Costs £1200 a day. Natural selection, innit.

-And if someone gets cancer/had a heart attack/has kidneys that pack-in/gets hit by a bus then they obviously just weren't meant to live to old age. Just let it be.

I think your OP is a pile of shite, basically.

So the NHS should fund the 'lifestyle choice' of those who choose to have children, as long as they don't have any medical conditions which affect their reproductive system?

If you were born in the UK and your mother had NHS care, then the NHS funded your parents' lifestyle choice. If you've had children with any NHS care- GP, midwife,consultant, hospital delivery, scans- then the NHS has already funded your lifestyle choice to have children.

All UK citizens are - or should be - entitled to NHS care, even if their medical condition affects their reproductive system.

Once those unfairnesses have been addressed and people are no longer living with terrible suffering that could be prevented with more funding, then I will agree that something as distressing as infertility should be treated

You are a fool.

Conceding that serious health issues that relate to quality of life can be cut because they "can't be afforded" accepts the idea that we allow the government to allocate a politically motivate "pot of money" and force the people who rely on this collective benefit to eat each other deciding who gets what.

The NHS is our. The public money that pays for it is ours.

We have a government that is deliberately choosing austerity to destroy our entitlements, at a time when they could borrow money for negative interest.

There is "no money" because powerful people have chosen that.

We can, and must, choose otherwise.

There can be no decent society where disabled people don't have the equipment they need, where mentally ill teenagers are being put onto adult wards (or prison), where people are being forced out of affordable accommodation because they have a spare room, where couples who struggle to conceive are condemned to childlessness unnecessarily.

Once you join the people squabbling over the slim pickings you have lost t the argument that we are all entitled, by birth, by residence, by tax paid, by being part of this society, to be treated for free when we are sick and not be bankrupted by illness.

My PCT has recently cut down the funded cycles from 3 to 1, so YABU if you think there are no cuts to fertility services. (Fortunately I had my treatment under the old rules, conceived DD on 2nd attempt, and am no longer spiralling down into a pit of depression from which I might never recover.)

This thread hits very close to home so I'm finding it very hard to articulate how I feel. I feel like I agree with aspects of both BathtimeFunkster and PtolemysNeedle which is odd because they seem to be at either end of the spectrum.

I feel like disabled people are not getting a good deal at the moment, not even in terms of their care or access to care through the NHS. I find it upsetting that able-bodied people are more able to fight their corner for the treatments they need whilst things are worsening for those who have long-term (and not necessarily life threatening) illnesses.

Most of all I really despise the attitudes to cancer on these threads. My OH has cancer and I am caring for him. I don't care if another 6 months would cost £50k, to see people so freely bandy that around coupled with the words "not cost efficient" whilst calling for the right to have assistance with creating new lives is really distressing.

I am not a fool simply for disagreeing with you. I have a different POV, which is allowed oddly enough.

Yes, it is our NHS. Yours as much as mine, and vice versa. I don't think treating infertility is a priority, you do.

The WHO is just a bunch of people with personal opinions making informed choices, they are not guaranteed to always make the right choices. And even if they did have that amazing super power, we are allowed to disagree with them. Just like it's normal to disagree with the informed choices that governments make.

no longer spiralling down into a pit of depression

In my experience, infertility is just one (very disappointing) facet of my otherwise full life. I prefer to count my blessings (many, despite getting cancer at 30!) than wonder what might have been. I will never be a mother, or a fighter pilot, or an astronaut....but I am lucky enough to be healthy, have lovely friends, nieces, nephews, travel a lot and have an amazing DH.

It's wrong to assume that treatment should be available because all women feel bereft without a baby. The lowest point of my life was being told that I had a fucking massive tumour. I accept that we are all the products of our own experience, of course.

I've had two rounds of ivf on the nhs and numerous infertility tests.

Say 10-12k worth of costs. I'm now having a baby. My dh and I pay high rate tax. We receive no benefits and likely never will.

I do feel guilt at receiving this treatment for free as we can afford it. But, what about people who naturally have children who can't afford it. They get housing benefits, sure start grants, free fruit and veg, tax credits etc.

If you question why ivf is funded out of the government's limited pot you should also apply the rationale to scroungers.

Also my child will hopefully follow in the footsteps of dh and I and become a contributor so society so will be paying tax and NI his whole life. Probably unlike a lot of the scroungers offspring.

you should also apply the rationale to scroungers.

Who are they, exactly?

PtolemysNeedle I agree, and those making decisions at a policy level (eg defining infertility as an illness) are not the same people at the sharp end making difficult decisions about budget allocation.

In theory, of course IVF etc should be available, but the reality of what can be funded is different.

Also, children conceived via IVF are statically more likely to end up paying lots more on taxes that the average naturally conceived child.

So not only do they more than pay for the treatment costs of their own conception, but they pay more into the put so all the feckless folk can have children they can't afford.

Win win, really.

*Statistically
*in
*pot

I paid for all my treatment.Frankly after a lifetime of living healthily it galls me that our taxes go on those who choose to smoke,drink and eat too much alongside not getting enough exercise. All the time we can fund picking up the pieces caused by the former we can fund treatment for fertility patients who do nothing to bring on themselves.