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.

Having IVF on the NHS is no more a basic human right than the right to have free healthcare on the NHS. Is that a basic human right? Well, most countries in the world do not have state funded healthcare. I don't think anyone would say their basic human rights were being infringed.

For what it's worth I am happy to pay taxes that go towards helping infertile couples have children. They are probably paying a disproportionate amount of tax towards the schooling of those of us who do have children. I once worked for a council, and the majority of council tax goes towards schooling.

I always find it slightly strange when people say they can't afford IVF though, as the costs of childcare before school age (or one person leaving work to be a SAHP) far outweigh the cost of IVF - around £12k per year for one child full time. So if the IVF is unsuccessful it will more than pay for itself in terms of the extra money that can be earned by two people working over five years.

Maggie - I think it's the fact you have to pay for ivf upfront. Not many people have a spare 5 grand or so that isn't allocated to anything else. Childcare you pay for weekly or monthly, not one large sum at once.

It's not a basic human right.

But lots of things are funded by the nhs which enhance people's quality of life ether than save it: boob jobs come to mind...gastric bands...help to quit smoking which you shouldn't have started doing in the first place....hmm.

The desire to reproduce is one of the most basic instincts. Of course it's a right to have a child (so long as you care for that child properly).

I strongly disagree that one partner having a child, should prevent the other partner from also having one. The nhs should fund a couple of ivf rounds. The government should stop wasting money on crap we don't want, in order to finance it.

Maggie- not everyone uses or plans to use child care. I live in a very old fashioned and deprived area where parents and grandparents tend to look after children- my children are looked after by their grannies while I work- where this isn't possible one parent works nights and the other days. This is easily arranged as low paid jobs like cleaning, take away delivery, bar staff are evening/ early morning while the other parent is home.

I strongly believe that women should have the right to choose IVF if they need it. And that it shouldn't be dependent on a partners previous children, nor whereabouts they live.

Having seen just a tiny, tiny part of what my adoptive Mother (who was unable to conceive naturally so chose adoption) went through I think all women should have access to IVF if they are unable to conceive naturally.

Having children isn't a biological necessity like food or water. You won't die from not having children. But it's no less a need, wanting a child, feeling ready and desperately praying to become a parent. It really is a need for some people. And they deserve a chance, however they feel they want to try, be it adoption, fostering, IVF or surrogacy.

Sorry to drop out but it's time to put several happy results of IVF and adoption to bed! I'll bookmark and come back to all your very interesting comments tomorrow.

The man in this story...he is young, able-bodied and unemployed. I think they would be better off focussing on getting him a job instead of starting a family they cannot provide for.

Do you think my daughter should have the right to ezcema treatment on the nhs. She is unlikely to die from an ezcema flare up, but treatment improves the quality of life. IVF improves people's quality of life as well.

I'm currently very newly pregnant after my first cycle of ivf. I have low fertility but last year tried three cycles of Iui none of which worked. In my CCG you have to be 35 or under to be eligible and I was already 35 when I started investigating treatment.

So far we've spent £15 000 on treatments, drugs alone for the ivf cycle cost £1500 and counting as will need to be on Cyclogest until 12 weeks.

I wish that the treatment was more fairly spread I know people who've had treatment at 40, some who get six IUIs and then ivf.

And yes I know children are expensive however what we've spent on treatment means we are already behind, I hope this pregnancy does stay because then thought of having to save another £8000 distresses me. Time is not on my side.

As for it been a human right, well I guess not as I could live without a baby however if would be a totally different life to what I ever imagined. I also don't think I'd ever be the same, one of my friends had three cycles that failed and has now stopped treatment, she has had a breakdown and can't work and is in hospital. I'm scared to end up in the same position.

yanbu, it is not a basic human right to have a child.

I read this story too and putting on my judgy pants for a moment I would have to say they didn't exactly seem like an ideal couple to be bringing a child into the world anyway - Both quite young, he was unemployed and she works as a barmaid and they have been a couple for all of 5 minutes.

I also HATE the fact that she said if is a " basic human right for a woman ", as if somehow a man's desire to have children is less important.

They should save up and pay for the IVF. Alternatively she could shack up with another childless bloke and be entitled to the treatment.

Human rights, where does this stop! We accommodate terrorists and their families on this basis, scrap it all, total bullshit! Worst thing that has ever come out of Brussels - mostly down to Cherie Blair and her overpaid cronies! Don't even get me started on 'vulnerable' - most overused word of the naughties!!

Wouldn't want poor people having babies...

congratulations wishywashy

Wouldn't want poor people having babies...

Nothing to do with being poor. It's to do with being very young (ie time is not of the essence) and unemployed. Hardly controversial to think now night not be the best time to start a family.

It might not be the time you or I would choose to have a baby but if there are fertility issues, the younger you are when you address them, the higher the chance of having a baby.

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of making value judgements about who deserves treatment. Wealthy people aren't subjected to this because they can just afford to pay for what they need. Being unemployed doesn't imo remove a person's right to medical treatment which will help them have a baby.