To think IVF is not a basic human right?

[itsmeitscathy]

I may have been reading the Newspaper which shall not be named (forgive me) and there's a story about a woman not being allowed IVF on the NHS because her husband has a child already. I think it's an unfair rule actually and don't think that his children should impact on her access to treatment.

However, her argument is that "having children is a basic human right". I disagree - I think it's a privilege, not a right and that her argument is actually that "access to IVF is a human right", again I disagree.

What do you think? I should add that I don't have children and IVF is not an option for me so I do understand to an extent.

I think it's fair that if one of you has a child already you have to pay for IVF privately.

Well, in China I grant you, it's not a basic human right. You have to get a licence in order to have children.

Here though?

(And I say this as someone who decided against IVF and adopted 2 children instead).

I dont think it is a "basic human right", nor do I think it is a privilege, simply that there are folk out there lucky enough to be able to conceive and birth a child, and those who are unlucky and cant.

However, in this country we do have a right to free healthcare, and if the overies, uterus, testicles etc are not functioning correctly then, it stands to reason they should ve able to access medical treatment (in much the same way as if your ears, eyes, lungs werent fully functioning).

However there is not enough funding to cover everyone with fertility issues and thus, the current ruling in my local area of 3x rounds seems fair.

I do (sorry if this seems sexist), think that it should be the women who the living child rule applies to, so if a woman hasnt been pregnant then she should get the turn.

Nope I don't think it is a basic human right to have a child or access to IVF, but I don't think lots of things are so might not be the right person to answer.
I do not understand the rules re partners children though, I know things have to be stopped somewhere but always found that one a little odd.

However not being able to conceive and/or carry to term is a horrible situation so can understand someone having emotive feelings around it which may be different to others.

'I do (sorry if this seems sexist), think that it should be the women who the living child rule applies to, so if a woman hasnt been pregnant then she should get the turn.'

Yeah, that's sexist. 'she should get a turn'. If either one of you has a child it seems entirely fair you pay for IVF yourselves.

It's probably not a basic human right no, but while people like me get pregnant left, right and centre by being too pissed to remember to use contraception I won't begrudge decent people the chance at parenthood even if it's taxpayer funded.

Have had 6 Ivy's myself all self funded the first 2 due to the waiting times and the second 4 as we were no longer eligible due to having a child from our 2nd cycle.

Our inability to conceive is due to a medical reason and yes I do feel people in this situation should be able to access Ivf on the nhs. I don't believe it should be a post code lottery though and that all eligible couples throughout the uk should be given the same amount of attempts. It's bloody heartbreaking I can tell you that.

I don't think it's a basic human right for the state to pay for IVF but if you weigh up the other costs not having a chance of having children can bring such as the effect it can have on mental health and/or marriage breakdowns to name a few, then it is is worth funding.
Most people who need ivf do so through no fault of their own. I needed it as I was born with one ovary, half a womb and one Fallopian tube which got blocked during my caesarean. We paid for it ourselves. If I had not already had one child then I would have expected to at least have one round funded. Humans are programmed to want to reproduce and unless you've experienced that raw pain that being unable to reproduce brings then you can't really understand.
I can only describe it as a physical pain which made me depressed, anxious and a nightmare to live with. My marriage nearly broke down over it.

Turquoise, I do understand as I have no options thanks to cancer - I understand the pain it causes.

That why I'm asking, I wondered whether I feel it's not a basic human right because of my own experience making me harsh!

No you're right it's a privilege which only fully fertile people are entitled too. What a fucking shitty view too hold, plenty of nhs treatments are not a human right but something as a civilised society we are able to access.

I think you've missed the point Glitter.

The only thing wrong with nhs ivf is that the qualifying criteria is a postcode lottery. It should be standardised nationwide. Me and dh don't qualify because he has a dd from his first marriage - she's 22. If we lived 12 miles down the road it wouldn't be an issue. Shit like that breeds resentment.

No it is not a basic human right but personally I feel the rule is unfair. If they both already had a child, then yeah I agree but just because one does that rules them out? not fair.

No I don't think I have missed the point, every few weeks there's a thread about how Ivf shouldn't be funded by the nhs or how having children is a privilege not a right.

You stated that you disagree that IVF is a human right, I stated that I believe most nhs treatments are not a human right but are funded nonetheless so which point have I missed? Your situation sounds terrible and obviously gives you an insight but that doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

I think with the burdens on the NHS funding for IVF will have to be reconsidered. I certainly don't think IVF is a basic human right at the present time.

Human rights cannot be material.

It's a privilege, of course, and those of us who've been through infertility treatment would be the first to say so.
We would also be the first to point out that while rationing services may be necessary in the NHS, it would be obvious to start with problems that are:

1. inevitable and universal, eg old age, dental problems, eye problems, birth control, giving birth, inability to conceive from a same-sex partner -- all of which are covered under the NHS
2. self-inflicted, perhaps smoking-related cancer, legs broken skiiing, knees knackered running marathons, even some heart disease -- all of which are covered
3. expensive to treat usually things that require long hospital stays, eg heart disease, cancer which are covered. A single round of IVF costs about £800 to the NHS and involves no hospital overnights; breaking your leg will cost them at least £2,000.
4. frivolous or not caused by a failure of the normal healthy human body, eg I wish my nose were smaller or my breasts were bigger -- not covered (unless you have it done badly and have to have the NHS undo it, in which case it's covered). The NHS was set up to treat illness and symptoms of illness. Infertility qualifies. I think it's disgraceful that so many local trusts are blatantly ignoring NICE's instruction to cover three cycles of IVF per couple. But then it's disgraceful, too, that the NHS is so continually under attack.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm interested in opinions and not looking for anger.

I think IVF should be funded by the NHS and I was quite clear in my OP that I think the lady in question should be funded.

What I disagree with is that IVF or having children is a basic human right. That was my question.

Infertility causes a lot of pain and unhappiness. I am glad that my taxes help those who need Ivf to have one child. I am optimistic that the costs of Ivf will fall so that it is less of an issue.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27814124

I don't agee with people who think that the entire nhs budget should be devoted to curing cancer. I feel that having a happy life is important as well. My children (who were conceived naturally) have given me immense happiness. I feel that infertile couples should be given at least one cycle on the nhs.

Okay, OP, and no, I'm not mad either. But still a bit baffled about how to express my view. Is anything about the NHS a basic human right? In that case the USA must be one of the world's biggest human rights violators (oops, let's not go there).

I do think that it is a basic human right to be treated with equality and fairness. Thus, you don't have to give any of your children an ice lolly, but if you give one of them an ice lolly, you should give all of them ice lollies equally unless they are being punished specifically for something they had been forewarned about or have agreed to forego the treat in return for something else.

That's why I think IVF (and other infertility treatment, most of which costs the NHS pennies, BTW) isn't a human right if you aren't covering medical problems at all. But if you are, it IS a medical problem and it OUGHT to qualify.

Having a child is a wonderful privilege but it is not on a par with having a nose job.

a bit of basic psychology - Maslow his Hierarchy of needs

Of course to survive we need just food, water and sleep but if we want to be active, full and successful participants in society we need more than that. For most, that includes having children. For those who are not able to have children the psychological impact can be huge.

Personally I'm happy for the NHS to fund IVF, but then if truth be told I'd be happy to pay more NI so that the NHS is properly funded.

Such a shame that our current government and political climate has us fighting for rights and benefits that we are willing to pay to help those in need for whatever reason. This individualistic approach to society really doesn't do anyone any good. Sad really

CHJR - really interesting replies (both of them). I didn't think you were mad :)

No IMO it's not a basic human right. Basic human rights include food, warmth, shelter , freedom from pain and persecution etc.

Should the nhs fund ivf? Definitely. It would be wrong to have a country where fertility treatment is limited to the rich. And that's not to mention the other cost/ health implications of infertility.

I don't think a woman should be denied the chance to have a child just because her partner has one.

In an ideal world all childless women should be entitled to IVF. Having a child isn't a basic right but I do truly believe women should be given every chance possible to conceive if she and her partner want a child but can't have one naturally.