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:
crackerjack00 · 08/02/2015 20:17

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.

That's a bit like the people who said 'I'd adopt them all ' after watching 15,000 kids and counting...

expatinscotland · 08/02/2015 20:22

Some close friends have just experienced another failed round. They could well afford another for every time someone has told them, 'Just adopt,' or 'If it were me (it never is) I would adopt . . . '

Mrsstarlord · 08/02/2015 20:26

I would never perceive suggestions that someone could adopt as inferring it's a consolation prize, because in order to make that association it implies that someone thinks that adopted kids are somehow second best which is absolutely untrue.

Perhaps some people would adopt, perhaps some people like the idea of it but understand the potential challenges, perhaps some people think they are being helpful by suggesting the option. Ultimately the suggestion being taken as meaning that adoption is second best implies that the receiver thinks it is even though it is quite likely not intended that way.

Thats why it is insulting and ignorant.

annadina · 08/02/2015 20:28

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

expatinscotland · 08/02/2015 20:29

'I would never perceive suggestions that someone could adopt as inferring it's a consolation prize, because in order to make that association it implies that someone thinks that adopted kids are somehow second best which is absolutely untrue.'

I agree, and thankfully, the process and criterion weeds out such people.

It is always bandied about on these threads, though, by people who have not adopted or who have not experienced fertility problems - 'Just adopt', 'I would adopt', 'There are so many kids out there who need homes,' etc etc.

Original poster
Misfitless · 08/02/2015 20:39

*'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.*

Ok, but you're not me. I do know myself better than anyone else on here. I would not want IVF. One of the reasons I would not want it is, because having read about it so much on here, I'm sure it's a price (not monetary) I would not be brave enough to pay.

I know people who've been through it.

There have been periods in my life where I've barely managed to cope with my hormones in their natural state, there's no way I would cope/want to cope with the turmoil of certain fertility treatments.

Scoff and scorn at that, but I know how I feel. Just because people on here might have had the despair of fertility issues does not qualify them to know how I would feel more than I do!

You feel that because you have been in that situation, and have chosen IVF, or someone you know chose it, that that means I would want it. Your logic is no more sound that mine.

Expat have you adopted?

OP posts:
Britbird · 08/02/2015 20:41

Op, do you think adoption is easier than ivf?

Mrsstarlord · 08/02/2015 20:42

But people say these things because they are trying to identify with people, to support them and be helpful. Sometimes it's misguided but in no way does it imply that adoption is second best or a consolation prize.

If the person with the fertility issues doesn't want to adopt all they need to say is, actually I really feel that I want to carry our biological child, that is really important to me.

Tholeonagain · 08/02/2015 20:43

Annadinna: quite right, natural selection is the way forward. The idea was quite popular with the Eugenics movement in the last century, who applied it in particular to the disabled and those they termed 'mentally defective.' The Nazis were keen on it too.

For clarity, ivf has been around for approximately 40 years now and many ivf babies have had children. My 'artificially produced offspring' (who have made my life) are as likely to have their own children as any other.

Shrekandprincessfiona · 08/02/2015 20:44

Quite agree ex pat you put it more eloquently than I said previously.

Original poster
Misfitless · 08/02/2015 20:44

annadina ...I can't believe that no one has responded to your post. That really is something that had never occurred to me.

OP posts:
Mrsstarlord · 08/02/2015 20:47

Annadina - where on earth is the science behind your post?

Britbird · 08/02/2015 20:49

Annadina, with that logic then no one with any family history of any disease that may have a genetic link should conceive. Cancer, diabetes, heart disease etc, etc.

Bodicea · 08/02/2015 20:49

Personally I think the nhs should be used as an all round service for everything. It we start chucking all of the money into cancer services at the detriment of everything else then it isn't what I thought it was. It is not just about saving lives but improving quality of lives.
I had some moles removed on the nhs - not life threatening - should I not have that done. Varicose veins that will eventually lead to painful ulcers and eczema are not life threatening but should we stop that service?
Yes we chuck every last ounce of money at some eyewateringly expensive drugs that might extend the lives of a small number of people at the expense of all the "what some might say" luxuries that is not what I pay my ni for.

Original poster
Misfitless · 08/02/2015 20:53

God no, I have friends who have adopted and are going through hell currently.

I don't think it's easy, but as everyone keeps telling me, what do I know as I've never had these issues to deal with.

Do you know what: all those people who say they would adopt, maybe 50% would, who knows. Just because adoption wasn't right for all the people on here who chose IVF, doesn't mean it wouldn't be right for every single person who says they would do it.

OP posts:
FrankelandFilly · 08/02/2015 20:53

Wow annadina, just wow. Has it ever occurred to you that there are very many causes of infertility and therefore fertility treatments?

Bodicea · 08/02/2015 20:54

Anadina I am sure a small amount of infertility problems are inherited ie. irregular cycles maybe, the tendency to produce killer cells possibly, blocked Fallopian tube ( maybe not that one) but I think the main cause of infertility is we are not all trying for babies in our teens as nature intends us to.
So I don't think fertility treatment is too much on issue from that perspective.

makingdoo · 08/02/2015 20:54

I've avoided this thread all day but felt compelled to look.
I'm so sad to see some of the views on here.

We are currently waiting to find out if our first and only NHS funded ICSI Cycle has worked. We have waited 3 years on a list to get to this point. If we self fund then we are looking at around 8k for what we need. We have saved 2k so far and this has taken a long time. We simply cannot afford to self fund. Our clinic has a 30% success rate for the category that we fall in to. If this doesn't work we will have to wait years to afford another cycle. We are both 35 and time is not on our side.

We are infertile due to no fault of our own. It's a medical condition that requires treatment. Why are we any less entitled to treatment than anyone else? You have no idea of the effect this has had on us both.

And as for adoption - it's not the same thing AT ALL!!!! It's not for us, I applaud anyone who has adopted.

Shrekandprincessfiona · 08/02/2015 20:54

Annadina. Out of order!

Reported.

makingdoo · 08/02/2015 20:56

Oh and annadina please do f**k off

Original poster
Misfitless · 08/02/2015 20:57

Bodicea for wiw, I don't think all the money should be chucked at any one area of the nhs.

But someone on here stated that the success rate of one round of IVF and it was shockingly low. Some other treatments/procedures would not or have not survived the NHS cuts on similarly low odds.

OP posts:
FrankelandFilly · 08/02/2015 21:05

Hope your treatment is successful makingdoo Flowers

When looking at the success rate of IVF you have to bear in mind that they are averages. The statistics are skewed by the low success rate of couples with severe problems. If you look at natural conception the odds are pretty low too - something like 30% on any given cycle.

EllieQ · 08/02/2015 21:07

I assumed Annadina was being ironic.

OP, can you not see that your comments about 'no-one has the right to have children' and the pressures on the NHS contradict your earlier answer to my question about paying for antenatal care - your answer was that you wouldn't expect people to pay for antenatal care 'because we have the NHS' but people were 'entitled' for wanting IVF on the NHS.

If you truly believe that having a child isn't a right, and that the NHS is under pressure, surely the next logical step is that antenatal care shouldn't be funded? Quite frankly, Annadina's comment is more logical than yours!

A few people have said 'why is it always cancer vs infertility'. Are there any other things that you think the NHS shouldn't fund?

Original poster
Misfitless · 08/02/2015 21:19

makingdoo I really hope it's successful.

In answer to your question, I would just ask why are you more entitled to fertility treatment than someone on that cancer drug that has been cut is entitled to their treatment? Sorry to keep harping on about cancer patients, but it's only recently been in the news.

I'm pretty sure that most cancer patients haven't caused their own cancer, and wonder why they are less entitled to treatment than say, someone having one NHS funded cycle of fertility treatment. They almost certainly won't be able to self fund their own cancer treatment, and might not have years to wait, because they might die. Even if they could wait, it would be at a greatly reduced quality of life.

At least you've been given one funded cycle at a cost of £8000 (maybe it costs the NHS less than that.)

I'm sorry that you can't afford to self fund.

I agree that adoption is not the same thing AT ALL. I don't think anyone on here has suggested that it is.

OP posts:
Sn00p4d · 08/02/2015 21:24

Slight tangent but, the latest Ivf "3parent" development is said to significantly reduce the chances of passing on certain genetic "abnormalities". As I mentioned my child has a birth defect that wasn't picked up until 36 weeks, 50/50 chance of survival but if she does some babies have been known to spend up to a year in NICU being treated, at £500 a day she could potentially cost the nhs £184000 in her first year of life. The Ivf which could prevent this costs £6000. So those who said ivf doesn't save the nhs money, well.

Swipe left for the next trending thread