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?

Thank you F&F

Misfit I don't feel I'm any more entitled to get treatment for my condition than a cancer patient. You can't make a direct comparison. I do not in any way feel guilty in taking the treatment available to me.

Your previous posts came across as you thinking people should adopt before taking IVF. I was merely pointing out that the two are separate.

Oh and I hope it is successful too. I'd hate for my one chance to treat my medical condition to be "money down the drain"

EllieQ I don't see it as a contradiction.

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!

To me that isn't a logical step. It's all a matter of opinion, and the people who do agree with me have long since left the thread.

My logic which is at odds with yours, is that funds shouldn't be used for assisting the creation of more lives at the point of conception, when there isn't enough money to go round to treat the people who already exist.

If you are lucky enough to be able to conceive without assistance, then strictly speaking you haven't used up NHS funds to create that life. Now I know that being pregnant does use up funds, but that life has already been created by the time that you need ante-natal services.

There is no logic in suggesting that ante natal care shouldn't be funded, as that life has already been created at no cost to the NHS.

I know that sounds crass, but EllieQ you do keep pressing that question, which I'd forgotten to answer earlier.

incidentally, is there anything you think should not be funded by the NHS?

How many cycles of assisted contraception do you think people should be entitled to?

Sn00p hope your LO is OK. I think I've missed some pages on the thread. Will go back and read.

You have made the best case.

I meant assisted conception, not contraception, obviously!

I think it is harsh to pick on the minority of people who experience infertility, vs the vast majority who have many children naturally. Infertility is not a major drain on NHS resources. I am shocked by the lack of education and compassion shown by many posters and I worry about those who advocate that only the "deserving" should benefit from any NHS treatment. Slippery slope...

Thank you for answering. So you are basically saying that if you can conceive naturally, it's fine to create that extra demand on the NHS. But if you can't conceive, through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to NHS help to conceive.

Things I wouldn't fund on the NHS: unnecessary cosmetic surgery, gastric band type operations - I'd prefer adequate therapy to address overeating issues.

I'd fund three cycles of IVF on the NHS, plus all associated testing and other treatments.

What else wouldn't you fund on the NHS? And could you answer my question about funding fertility treatment for people who were made infertile by cancer treatment?

Sapat do you know how much is spent on fertility treatment per year or more usefully, perhaps, what percentage of the NHS budget is spent on it? I'd be interested to know.

Educate us! You sound like you know what you're talking about, please can you elaborate?

I'm shocked about successful treatments and medications being cut in other areas of the NHS, while money seems to be ring fenced for fertility treatments.

There's an irony that IVF, for example, is more likely to work if you have a minimum of 3 cycles, how then, can NICE justify the millions of pounds being put aside to fund one cycle, when the odds are so against a successful pregnancy under these conditions?

Please tell us your expertise.

Things I wouldn't fund on the NHS: unnecessary cosmetic surgery, gastric band type operations - I'd prefer adequate therapy to address overeating issues.

I agree with the things you wouldn't fund, EllieQ.

I honestly don't know where I stand on infertility due to cancer treatments. I want to say it should be funded, but then that blasts everything I've said out of the water.

Reported shrek? What on earth for?

It's how the world works, it's how we came to be here, it's something to ponder. Giant Panda's aren't very fertile, there's not many of them, it happens.

How do we know we're not storing up problems for further generations?

This article gives an indicator on costs to the NHS. Bear in mind that the costs quoted are those if all PCT's follow NICE guidelines, but we already know that many do not.

So you are basically saying that if you can conceive naturally, it's fine to create that extra demand on the NHS. But if you can't conceive, through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to NHS help to conceive.

Yes this is what I'm saying, EllieQ.

Because the NHS is strapped enough already providing care and treatment for the population as it stands. I'm not saying it's fair, I know it isn't, but when there isn't enough to go around, logically, how can assisting the creation of new lives be justified when treatments and medication for people who already exist can't be funded.

I know it's really shit that some people can't conceive, and I know that adoption isn't for everyone, but to me, that doesn't mean that millions of pounds should be spent on creating new lives when there are not enough funds to treat people who are already here or are about to be born. Just because it's unfair, doesn't mean millions of pounds should be thrown at it, most of which will amount to nothing but heartache, even more despair and dashed dreams.

Is my opinion really so wrong and difficult to understand?

Yes, that would rather contradict your previous statements.

Annadina, if infertility was inherited, surely people couldn't be born with these inherited traits as their parents couldn't conceive?

£65.2m!!!!!!!!

So it seems that in 2013, it was estimated that £65.2m would be spent on fertility treatments per year.

Wow!

I'm seriously lost for words. And who said that fertility treatment is not a drain on resources?

Thanks for the link FF

EllieQ do you mean I have contradicted myself, or Annadina has?

The chance of success given to us on our cycle of IVF was 50%. I'm not sure that follows your shockingly low odds that you talk about.
And NICE don't need to justify only one cycle being funded seeing as they offer guidelines that recommend 3 funded cycles. It is the local PCT that decide on one cycle.

Also, annadinna, we had IVF due to an operation my DH had as a child causing a shockingly low sperm count. I doubt there's a high chance of that being inherited by our 'artificially conceived' daughter.

If you're saying I have, please explain how.

I think a key problem is that IVF is actually a quality of life issue, not necessarily a medical issue. By treating it as a medical issue then spending on this needs to be justified against spending on things like cancer. However, there is millions of pounds of public money spent on other things but no-one seems to pit these against spending on cancer (surely people will concede that there is only one total pot of public money no matter how that might be divided up). So for those who are saying that cancer should take priority over IVF, should other public spending take priority over IVF too, for example, subsidising leisure services, subsidising public transport for those who choose to live in the countryside, paying winter fuel allowance to millionaire pensioners, paying child benefit to those who chose to have a family. running public health campaigns to stop people smoking or drinking too much etc. I'm not sure why people having IVF should uniquely have to make the case as to why their need should be prioritised over every other area of public spending.

Sorry EllieQ ignore that. I realise what you mean now - about cancer patients being infertile. Sorry.

Yes, it is wrong to me because you are showing such a lack of compassion (on a parenting site too!) for the pain infertility causes. You have refused to consider the unfairness of only allowing rich people to have IVF, you don't seem to see that IVF is already rationed, and you contradict yourself in saying having children isn't a right but once you've got pregnant you have the right to free treatment.

You're saying people have the right to treatment for self-inflicted illnesses eg: liver disease from alcoholism, but not treatment for infertility, which is unlikely to have been self-inflicted.

And you haven't even bothered to do some research to find facts and figures to support your comments!

Just to put that £65 million into context, the total budget for the NHS last year was over £115 billion

That 65 million isn't just IVF,it will be for many things such as endo,PCOS,fibroids etc that will need to be treated anyway,it will include things like Chlomid and investigations which will often need to be done to rule out other things.IVF is the last resort and something most couples don't want to do anyway.

I have personally known someone who fell into such a severe depression due to her infertility that she took her own life. And I'm sure she probably isn't the only woman ever to feel so distressed by infertility. So to me it has the potential to be a life threatening condition, and as such I dont see anything morally wrong with treating it.

I had cancer, and needed IVF as a result. Wonderfully for me both treatments worked first time. So should I have been given these treatments? My chance of IVF success was incredibly low but it worked, but for many of my cancer friends it hasn't. They don't get another chance.

To make it more complex I had HPV related cervical cancer, so in theory a lifestyle cancer as I must have picked it up in my 20s from a poorly chosen partner. I guess if somehow we'd all been tested it would have been avoided as cervical cancer is basically an STD. So perhaps that shouldn't have been funded?

Where do we draw the line?

I just think infertility should be treated like what it is, which is a medical disorder. If both parties were 100% well then they could have a child. Therefore the inability to conceive is in itself evidence of a condition that deserves to be treated. Not in an unlimited way, but in a proportionate way - as out lined by NICE. Who are we to decide who is deserving of treatment of their condition? Plus I've paid into the national health INSURANCE just like everyone else. I don't see why me making a claim on my insurance is such a bad thing.

As I've used my one go, even though I still can't conceive naturally, I can't have another NHS cycle. Despite the need being caused largely by cancer. I can pay, but it's very hard on those that can't.

I know I'm just one case, so I don't pretend to know the answers, but I just wish the moral judgement of those suffering the incredible pain of infertility wasn't such a fun tabloid topic.

Ectopic pregnancies,flushing out tubes,ovarian drilling to relieve PCOS,laparoscopies........

Well, as I keep saying david, because the very crux of IVF is to create another life.

It costs between £3000 - £8000 per cycle of IVF, so creating that life is using up resources, when there is simply not enough money to go around for the people who already exist, or who are about to be born, hence the cutting of treatments and services that I dare not mention again.

should other public spending take priority over IVF too, for example, subsidising leisure services, subsidising public transport for those who choose to live in the countryside, paying winter fuel allowance to millionaire pensioners, paying child benefit to those who chose to have a family. running public health campaigns to stop people smoking or drinking too much etc.

Yes, spending on people who are already here, or who are about to be born, should, in my opinion, take priority over spending to create new lives.

There simply isn't enough to go around. People who are alive are having their treatments, medications and services cut left right and centre.

My PCT doesn't (or at least it never used to) fund fertility treatment. It won't even fund metformin for PCOS sufferers.