Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
Sparkletastic · 08/02/2015 19:12

The CCG I work with is ceasing to fund it in the next financial year - too much money going to acute

maggiethemagpie · 08/02/2015 19:12

I think british (private) IVF clinics should start to adopt the model used in some American clinics where you pay for a set number of IVFs in advance, eg 3, and if it works you pay a certain amount and if it fails you pay a much smaller amount. So the cost is weighted more heavily for those who are successful. They are in effect subsidising the ones for whom it does not work.

expatinscotland · 08/02/2015 19:16

It was a study, Hamlet. One among many.

expatinscotland · 08/02/2015 19:18

Kelly, if you are in the US, IIRC Walgreen's health insurance covers IVF, but only one round. Most of the time, though, it's something that has to be paid for privately, true that.

People turn to crowdfunding and some clinics offer it in return for embryo donation.

Original poster
Misfitless · 08/02/2015 19:22

EllieQ I used cancer as an example, but I should have explained myself better.

I generally mean that when there is not sufficient money to treat the people who are already alive, it seems Confused that infertile couples are offered IVF treatment, when the effectiveness is so unreliable, with such low success rates; especially when cost effectiveness is used as a rationale for cutting eg cancer drugs (though this is not exclusive to cancer treatments).

I don't feel that it is anyone's right to have a child, even if the mother and/or father might be depressed as a result of not being able to conceive. Parkinson sufferers should get all the help that is out there.

There is so much waste in the NHS as someone upthread said. The agency staff situation is beyond belief. I used to work in the NHS in a job that could easily have been done by another person in the office - there was no justification for my salary at all. I shouldn't even get myself started on the wasted money in the NHS Angry.

OP posts:
Original poster
Misfitless · 08/02/2015 19:25

Thanks younggirl and Amummy for the stats.

OP posts:
sticklebrickstickle · 08/02/2015 19:27

*I know this sounds harsh, but these drugs that extend life by 6 months...seriously how can it be just to say that a life is not important enough to be extended by 6 months, but a couple/woman's right/need to have a baby is so valid and important that it's worth the risk of spending thousands of pounds, even if it doesn't work?^

Well by that logic should the NHS only spend money on treatment with an 100% success rate? A large number of treatments for cancer (and indeed other diseases/conditions) have low success rates as well but they will still be offered because even if the success rate is only 30% it is better than a 0% success rate without treatment.

Part of the NHS's remit is to treat people with medical conditions. There is no disclaimer which says treatment has to have a very high success rate in order to be considered. Infertility is a genuine medical condition for which there are medical treatments available and it therefore seems reasonable treatment be available for those that need it.

Ineedacleaningfairy · 08/02/2015 19:31

Do you think the nhs should find treatments for eczema, anxiety, acne and other non life threatening but miserable ailments? I have suffered from all the above and infertility, the pain of infertility is by far the worst pain I have ever experienced.

I don't think you can fully understand the pain of infertility if you haven't experienced it.

Britbird · 08/02/2015 19:34

Success rates vary massively depending on many factors. HFEA publish the stats for UK clinics. A couple in their twenties with a single cause for their infertility, e.g low sperm count or non ovulation will have a very good chance of it working with one round. It's often a numbers game, more rounds gives a higher chance which is why NICE recommend three cycles. So, you might have a 30% chance of one round working but 90% over three rounds. My doctor told me that I should think of it as a three round treatment rather than one ( I'm self funding).

2468Motorway · 08/02/2015 19:35

This is what they want you to think, that anything not life saving is a luxury. Our NHS has always paid for treatment that is about quality of life not just life saving. Dermatology, corrective ligament surgery, incontinence, some types of depression, hearing aids, eye surgery, varacose viens the list is massive. Infertility is just one.

In fact I heard the head the head of the trust in Surrey interviewed on the radio once and said in his budget 80-90 % of all the money spent was in end of life care . This he defined as the last 4-6 weeks of life. He said you can cancel the if and any cosmetic procedures and it will make almost no difference to the available pot. It's divide and rule, don't get sackedIin.

2468Motorway · 08/02/2015 19:37

Sorry for all the typos ! Don't get sucked in!

Original poster
Misfitless · 08/02/2015 19:37

Ineedacleaningfairy No I can't imagine it and I don't claim to be able to understand how distressing it must be. But, as someone who hasn't had the misfortune to suffer from infertility, I'm as certain as I could be that if I didn't fall pregnant naturally, my next preference would be to try and adopt above and before going through any IVF type treatment.

By the way, I haven't said at any point that NHS funds should only be used to treat life-threatening illnesses/conditions, but several posters seem to think that that is my POV. It isn't.

OP posts:
grannytomine · 08/02/2015 19:38

Thanks eurochick. I guess it is a small price to pay if you go home with a baby, not so good if you have several goes and still no baby.

expatinscotland · 08/02/2015 19:41

'I'm as certain as I could be that if I didn't fall pregnant naturally, my next preference would be to try and adopt above and before going through any IVF type treatment.'

But you're not, because you did fall pregnant naturally. Hmm Stating things like this is the same as, 'If it were me . . . ' with regards to any situation when it's not and never has been. Same load of insulting, patronising bunkum.

Adoption is not the sole domain of the infertile, those with children are as eligible as any one else to adopt, if they meet the criteria, because human beings are not a consolation prize for those who are infertile.

specialsubject · 08/02/2015 19:43

given that all treatment fails eventually (because we all die) it is very difficult to work out what should be funded.

eye surgery is funded but past a certain age, glasses are not; short or long sight is a chargeable disability. As are hearing aids.

IVF as mentioned can be about ensuring a baby that doesn't have a genetic disability; so you get a healthy one that is much less likely to need treatment and much more likely to live a long and productive life. (and look after its parents!)

beyond cosmetic surgery (excluding plastic surgery and breast reduction), I can't think of anything that should be a definite 'not on the NHS'.

we need more efficiency, less waste, no management consultants and higher taxes.

crackerjack00 · 08/02/2015 19:44

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.

Because parenting adopted children is nothing... NOTHING like parenting birth children and not everyone has the skills or desire to do it.

roozocheeks · 08/02/2015 19:50

Misfitless, at what point do you consider cutting fertility treatment?
At IVF? At IUI? At prescribing drugs to stimulate ovulation? The list goes on...
You do not consider it to be an illness, yet what of those suffering from PCOS? (I realise there are far more conditions out there, just picking one). You say you are not against NHS funds only being used for life threatening illnesses so I am wondering just where you draw the line at cutting treatment?

EllieQ · 08/02/2015 19:53

Truffle that was my point - we should have enough money to fund both.

OP, you think there isn't sufficient money to treat people who are already alive, but there is enough money to fund antenatal care, which 'technically' is for people who aren't alive yet (I could argue that as abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, perhaps we should only fund antenatal care after that point?).

And since you've been using cancer as an example, do you think someone who needs IVF because they had NHS-funded cancer treatment earlier in life should also have to pay for it? Or would they be exempt?

Mrsstarlord · 08/02/2015 19:54

because human beings are not a consolation prize for those who are infertile.

My kids aren't a consolation prize, they are the most important things in my life and they are my family. The very use of that phrase in association with adoption is insulting and ignorant.

I never thought about fertility treatment for more than a minute when dealing with our infertility. I couldn't conceive a reason why, when there are kids in desperate need of a loving family I would go through the uncertainty of infertility treatment before giving a home to some of those kids.

I understand that some people feel the need to be pregnant, I didn't. Personally I wouldn't question it if fertility treatment was restricted more through the NHS but I know a few friends who have had it and it is incredibly important to them so wouldn't 'want' it to be more restricted.

Original poster
Misfitless · 08/02/2015 19:54

I know that expat that is not what I was saying, at all.

Why would you think that I would think that adoption is the sole domain of the infertile, or that I would think adoption is a consolation prize. And I do know that I wouldn't have IVF, and I do know that I would want to adopt.

OP posts:
ghostyslovesheep · 08/02/2015 20:01

so why did you not adopt - why did you try for a baby?

Shrekandprincessfiona · 08/02/2015 20:06

exactly EllieQ

expatinscotland · 08/02/2015 20:11

'The very use of that phrase in association with adoption is insulting and ignorant. '

How so? I wrote that in response to the oft-trotted out line to people who are infertile to 'just' adopt, the suggestion that this option is some sort of consolation prize to them, something infertile people should do if they don't have treatment or that treatment is unsuccessful, something inferior somehow.

'just' adopt, or 'I would adopt' from people who have not had to have fertility treatment is beyond ridiculous.

expatinscotland · 08/02/2015 20:15

'And I do know that I wouldn't have IVF, and I do know that I would want to adopt.'

You don't, because you have never had to make that decision.

crackerjack00 · 08/02/2015 20:16

expat

I'm an adoptive parent and understood what you meant.