A child is not a 'basic human right'

[aibuyes]

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2982669/Young-woman-children-denied-IVF-NHS-s-taking-case-Strasbourg-having-child-basic-human-right.html

Warning; DAILYFAIL LINK

But really, would anyone think a child is a basic human right? I sympathise for the woman that she is unable to have a baby, but I really disagree her that she wants NHS funding to have a child, even though her partner has a daughter that by their own admission, never stays over (so, I tend to think he is not being an active father role in her life, but that is reading between the lines).

She is a barmaid, he left his job as a supermarket manager (currently unemployed) so are unable to afford private treatment.

I can think of so many other things the NHS can better spend their money on!

[Naty1]

I think same sex can have ivf (though most wouldnt need ivf as its donor sperm i would think but maybe surrogacy, which is going to be more complex anyway for men.
For a 23 and 24 yo with 1 issue (which doesnt even need ivf) i would ecpect success rates to be pretty good.
Its approx 40% per cycle up to 35. Thats pretty good, considering its around 5% at 40 something. The reason it seems low is because of the way its reported i think. Because people who are successful stop and unsuccessful continue several times. The 'less fertile' couple have sqewed the stats.
1 couple 3 goes all unsuccessful
3 couples all successful
average 50%
I wonder what it would be based on 1st go only.
Ive done 3 full cycles and 2 pg so thats pretty successful.
Its just some things arent easily fixed with ivf as they dont know cause, some get chemical pg or embryos that dont fertilise or grow to blast.
Some people get twins or lots of babies from one batch of blasts.
It seems likely that the article is missing info like how long they aleady ttc.
Whether she tried with a previous partner
If theyve already had other treatments. Like metformin/clomid.
Why she thinks they need to rush before something affects her eggs.

I think if people were more encouraged to read the criteria for treatment then they wouldnt get so annoyed. Imagine being told at initial gp apt for fertility there are criteria currently which are... Or you can look them up,so you can take action on weight/smoking etc or understand why you may not meet criteria and move straight to private. I would be annoyed to find out after waiting yrs/months.
Ivf may not be a human right but gov/areas are making it a joke by the postcode lottery, how can anyone agree with some getting 3 goes and exactly identical couple few miles away 0. That cant be decided locally if they wont be reasonable.

[holeinmyheart]

Wasn't it Beethovens Parents who were a drunk and a Mother who died young? In some persons eyes, his Parents wouldn't have been deemed suitable for IVF. If the NHS is only going to offer help to middle class educated people then IVF is the preserve of the rich.
It is more or less that already. It costs a lot for IVF treatment now. You only get so many goes free on the NHS and you have to wait.
Of course having a baby isn't a right but if you want a baby and you can't have one because you have no money, that is not what the NHS was meant for.
Nye would turn in his grave, to think that middle class people were dictating who should be allowed fertility treatment on the NHS.
I talk as someone who can afford private care and I have had lots of DCs naturally, but I know that the ability to pay should not be part of the NHS. It is immoral.
I think IVF should be fully funded.

[Ponche]

Whilst having a baby may not be a human right, it must be devastating to be told that you are unable to conceive naturally. And then even more upsetting to be told that at some point she will be entitled to 2 free IVF cycles and then finding out that actually she is not. Had she lived in a different area of England, she may very well have got her IVF fully funded. So this raises the question of how fair is the postcode lottery of NHS treatment? Be it IVF, novel cancer therapy etc? Another point to consider is if she is unable to raise £5000 to privately fund her IVF treatment then how will she be able to cope with the costs of raising a child which far surpass this amount? By relying on help from the state? Will free IVF in this case just create further dependency and sense of entitlement? It's a difficult situation and I feel for her, but do not necessarily agree with her.

[Ponche]

Forgot to add, in some areas of England IVF treatment is not NHS funded at all, regardless of whether either partner has a previous child or not. It's all up to the local CCG.

[Lilymaid]

To be boring and legalistic you can't just take a case to Strasbourg as you have to go through the national courts. European Convention on Human Rights has an article guaranteeing the right to family life but I don't think that extends to requiring governments to provide free IVF to all.
Typical Daily Fail Article.

[AuntieDee]

So who loses out on their life saving treatment so this couple can have a baby? Should we say that you have to be seen in 6 hours instead of 4 when waiting in A&E? Should we cut the number of antenatal appointments pregnant women receive?

How is this luxury IVF going to be paid for? There isn't a bottomless pit of money. In order to provide free IVF some life saving treatments will have to be cut/limited.

IMO having a IVF should never come above another's right to life.

[CatnipMouse]

Oh yes auntie dee, IVF is such 'luxury', it is all so much fun. Sticking needles in my middle for weeks on end, having half the county poke about up my vagina, and then having it all fail at the end of it is just like a five star holiday. Clearly I should have paid for all this fun myself.

Or, you could say, IVF is a medical solution to a medical problem, infertility is a recognised health condition with a considerable impact on patients, and the NHS budget is not just for people whose lives are in immediate danger.

[AuntieDee]

Catnip mouse - you won't die if you don't have it though. Who should die so that the woman in question can have hers for free? Because that is the situation the NHS has to deal with.

[BubblesInMyBath]

It's not quite as black and white as someone dying so someone can have IVF is it?

Budgets are allocated to various things and criteria need to be met for people to get treatment in whichever area?

If no money is left in the budget for one thing it doesn't mean they then say, oh ok let's take it from over here because these people aren't actually dying...

[adora1985]

Infertility normally has other health issues at the back of it. I've been under investigation for infertility since September, and have been diagnosed with PCOS, possibly endometriosis and uterine polyps, the last of which could be life threatening if found to be malignant. PCOS can lead to all sorts of health problems of severe and left unchecked, and endometriosis again has its own health implications and can be debilitating when severe.
How can you possibly say that infertility isn't life altering and shouldn't be treated?
The NHS isn't just treating life threatening illness, it also treats life limiting and quality of life affecting illnesses also. If you truly believe that a couple having IVF (which doesn't cost the NHS anywhere near what it costs a couple to pay privately for the exact same treatment) is going to prevent someone else from living then it's worth reading more in depth about the distribution of NHS funding, and the huge amount of money that is being squandered and wasted within the system every year (my trust spends millions per year on renting hospital buildings from a private company after moving out of NHS owned buildings right next door, which were larger and more adequate than where they have moved to).

[CatnipMouse]

No, the nhs commissioners do not have to decide who dies so that I can have my 'free' 'luxury' IVF or so that the woman in the article can have hers. They do have to manage many different demands and priorities. We could spend the whole nhs budget on cancer treatment alone... We don't because there are many other health needs as well.

It's not free, I have paid lots into the nhs, as have you and everyone else here I am sure.

[CatnipMouse]

Nicely put adora.

[Shockers]

But Catnip, the same stipulations are put on adopters.

All I'm saying is, before the NHS spends thousands on helping to create new lives, it might be prudent to ensure that those lives have independent means of support. There is not a bottomless pot of cash for the NHS and welfare, although it would be fantastic if there was, so accessing support and treatment wasn't a lottery.

[Naty1]

I agree there should be criteria. And a possible sensible one would be the partner not intending to take 'mat leave' has a job.
Weight of both partners, existing children.
As a pp said there are criteria for adoption.
Im quite surprised a couple would ttc when they are so unstable. (Though on the whole think people need to ttc younger)

Completely disagree with auntiedee. Where we are with nhs is largely caused by nobody taking responsibility for their health. Cancers arent always worthy of spending money on. You would rather spend funds on a smokers lung cancer or drinkers liver (?) cancer, obese persons cancers say bowel. Than for instance the healthiest couple ever where the man had undescended testicles.?
Do you have kids?

The cost of ivf (1 round) is tiny, and certainly not causing life and death decisions to most people.
In fact if you have kids (as ive said on a previous thread) you are likely 'depriving' others their cancer treatment yourself.
If you assume a couple fails compared to a couple with a child.
1 child
Maternity appts
Birth 1-5k
Hv appts
Gp appts (a&e)
Dentist
Optician
Child benefit
Child tax credit
School
There is no doubt that all this costs in excess of £5k
If you have multiple kids its even more swayed that way.
Not even including your pill/iud/abortions.
Do your bit by not smoking/drinking heavily/bmi well under 25/ exercising and once you have done that maybe you can look for more cost savings like fining those turning up at a&e drunk (though not practical at least that if their 'fault'
Reading the comments on the mail. The woman denies a lot of the article and says she has tried other treatment first.
Changing the culture of women waiting till thirties to have kids may well help.
Also people having ivf have often been very careful with contraception so not costing gov ££££ looking after lots of previous families and waited till they can support kids. Really you cant win.
Maybe i'll encourage my kid to ttc at 18 then work after.