Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

NHS IVF policy change

455 replies

Bambamrubblesmum · 11/02/2017 17:58

Have you seen this?

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/rip-ivf-nhs-cuts-to-fertility-treatment-will-deny-thousands-parenthood-a6717326.html

I can see both sides of the argument but AIBU to feel very sad that it's come to this Sad

OP posts:
bananafish81 · 14/02/2017 23:08

Why do people need to have a biological child? There are thousands of kids needing homes, why not adopt?

Because I'm not sure I'm equipped to voluntarily take on a child with significant attachment disorder and developmental issues

Because the support available for the teenage years when many adoptions break down is woeful

Because there aren't thousands of kids needing homes and most parents wouldn't get approved to adopt their own children

DelphineCormier · 14/02/2017 23:10

I totally would say the same about adoption to fertile couples. The difference is it's easy for fertile couples to not bother considering it as a means of having kids.

Not sure if I'm the PP being referred to, but just to reiterate, I didn't adopt. I wanted to, I was turned down.

flatwhite that was exactly how I felt, something about the whole thing didn't sit right with me. I wasn't a suitable adoption candidate, but having a biological child with a 3 week warning while single and family-less was absolutely fine. To be fair, the hospital were incredibly supportive, the whole circumstances were quite traumatic and I was a long, long way from seeing it was the child I'd always wanted for a good couple of weeks. I just found it amazing that given the circumstances SS didn't even try to get involved.

FlatWhiteToGo · 14/02/2017 23:15

No - the PP was Babycham who successfully adopted.

That really must have been traumatic. I know that sounds crazy after everything you went through to have a child, but only having 3 weeks' notice and with no partner/family around must have been terrifying!

MuseumOfCurry · 15/02/2017 07:03

Wow Delphine, that's pretty fucked up that you would be dismissed out of hand for adoption because you don't have any extended family on hand. Have the powers that be perhaps not taken at look at the dire outcome for children who reach adulthood through the UK care system?

DelphineCormier · 15/02/2017 13:05

I totally accept that not everyone is in a position to take on a child in the care system. I do, however, think too many adoptive parents are turned down for insignificant reasons and could make perfectly good parents if given a chance. I also don't think the right to be a biological parent is enough of an automatic right for it to be paid for by the NHS during a period in which the whole system is in crisis.

The extended family argument was that I didn't have enough of a support network to be a parent. Via adoption, didn't get any further than knowing I couldn't afford it when I looked into IVF. Again, that wasn't an issue when I became a biological mother unexpectedly. I will never get my head around how that works. A part of me does wonder what would happen if I reapplied now, I can see that going either way. Obviously that's only my own experience, but I do think there's a huge contradiction in the system there. I was definitely far, far more ready to become a parent when I wanted to adopt than I was when I had DD.

user0000000001 · 15/02/2017 13:15

Delphine

I'm sorry you had such a hard time going through the adoption process.

Social services ask many things of potential adoptive parents that aren't asked of biological parents.

These children have already lost everything in their lives and are overwhelmingly likely to have moderate to severe issue issues as a result. (If you're interested Google child development with regards to attachment theory - if you haven't already).

Approximately 20% of adopted children will have little to no issues, 60% moderate, 20% severe. Social services have to be sure that they are finding the right parents for these children (and it is about finding parents for children... not children for parents).

thundermum · 15/02/2017 13:39

Calling all Swindon mums-to-be:
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/15090824.TimeissrunningouttontimeetohaveesayoverrIVFpolicyychanges/

BabychamSocialist · 15/02/2017 13:44

bananafish81

My kids don't have those issues. Many don't. Some do, but you can say that of biological children too. We have had great support all through our lads' teenage years, so not sure what you're getting at there.

I would suggest adopting to anyone, actually - best thing we did. We didn't go to adoption first because we were wrongly advised that DP's job (long periods away once a year or so) would stop us from adopting. It turned out to be not a problem at all because DP's job is actually a good one and he's at home 9 months of the year.

I don't get why more people don't adopt - there really are thousands of children out there who are great kids needing homes. We adopted ours from abroad because we have a connection to the place and we knew the family we were adopting from, and we actually had to jump through more hoops than adopting in the UK. We've loved our kids so much that we've actually begun the process of fostering some kids because they deserve a bit of stability.

BabychamSocialist · 15/02/2017 13:48

But yes, I was probably too quick to judge and I realise adopting isn't for everyone. I don't think anyone has a 'right' to a biological family though, if you see what I mean. Like I said, the NHS has to be picky over what it funds and I'd rather things like cancer treatments and more MRI scanners get funding over IVF, which is readily available privately (yes, it's expensive but it's not something that is completely necessary and it has a huge failure rate which makes it not good value for money).

MulderitsmeX · 15/02/2017 14:08

I think suicide / mental health problems will definitely increase if ivf is ceased. I do think it should be means tested (which would count me out, however I think that is fair). Private IVF is very expensive for some people, these mothers to be's lives are no less important than anyone else's.

user0000000001 · 15/02/2017 14:12

Thanks for that thundermum, have completed it.

Really badly worded questionnaire, don't know if you looked at it?

sparechange · 15/02/2017 14:31

Babycham

There are plenty of private MRI scanners.
A private MRI costs about £500. Shouldn't we be encouraging people with non-life threatening joint pain etc to just stump up for a private MRI?

DelphineCormier · 15/02/2017 14:57

Sparechange because the NHS needs to prioritise improving the quality of life of existing lives over creating new ones. It's an uncomfortable truth, but it boils down to that. Even before I had DD I would have agreed with that decision.

BabychamSocialist · 15/02/2017 16:13

sparechange

See, the thing is we know MRI scans actually work the way they're supposed to every single time we use them. They also provide quality of life to, y'know, people living.

The NHS should not be helping to create new life with a method that is very rarely successful. It should be giving quality of life to people already here. A biological family is a luxury, not a right.

user0000000001 · 15/02/2017 16:16

A biological family is a luxury, not a right.

So - again - I ask.

Why do NHS maternity services exist? Why isn't everyone forced to go private for this luxury?

DelphineCormier · 15/02/2017 16:17

Because we do actually need to maintain the population, user Confused

user0000000001 · 15/02/2017 16:19

Sure, delphine

But why do I have to pay for others to do so?

DelphineCormier · 15/02/2017 16:26

Because you live in a country with a national health service, and therefore pay for others' treatment/have yours taken care of through taxes. You don't like that, move to the states.

user0000000001 · 15/02/2017 16:31

Yup... and I'm happy to pay to treat people's infertility.

Because, you know...it's often caused by illness and disease.

I cannot for the life of me get my head around the argument that we shouldn't do that. It just completely smacks of people pulling the drawbridge up behind them.

tigerdog · 15/02/2017 16:40

I'm disappointed to see this debate rumbling on with some of the same hypocritical and misinformed views that I'm sure were responded to several pages ago.

A biological family is a luxury not a right. That isn't the consideration here (athough for what it is worth, it's bullshit!) the real question is, do women have a right to have their recognised medical condition (infertility) treated on the NHS in order to assist them in creating a family? I don't see how the answer can be anything other than yes. Recognised medical condition with a treatment that has been deemed to be cost effective using the same criteria that all other treatments are assessed by. All this talk of low success rates is also not true - no IVF doesn't guarantee a baby, but over three cycles the results are very good. I can't find the exact reference but one Danish study found that somewhere in the region of 70% of women going through treatment eventually had a child. That's not bad - it beats some cancer survival rates. Pound for pound, it has been considered to improve quality of life sufficiently to be vaiable as a treatment. Success rates are only one part of the equation, needing to try is also important.

If your child is a 'luxury item' then perhaps you wouldn't mind paying a higher rate tax to fund this luxury lifestyle of yours that us infertile women can only dream of. Means testing maternity benefits, removing child tax credits - it can't be a luxury for one part of the population and not another!

Delphine, you completely neglect the quality of life concerns of the infertile woman (and her partner). Do you not think that is equally important? It affects those involved as much as other serious illness do, and they have a right not to suffer.

DelphineCormier · 15/02/2017 16:54

I was the infertile woman. I watched my closest friend and his wife unexpectedly get pregnant with number 5 the same year I was turned down for IVF and adoption. It was hell. I still believe that in an ideal world IVF should be fully funded, but when stretched, it simply isn't priority.

user0000000001 · 15/02/2017 17:12

And I'm the woman who adopted (twice) rather than attempt IVF and still thinks IVF should be funded for those woman who feel they have to try to have biological children.

Not many people would argue that woman with breast cancer shouldn't be entitled to reconstruction surgery on the NHS. I honestly can't see the difference.

Still, Delphine, we are the lucky ones. We have our children.

curiositycreature · 15/02/2017 17:13

Not to take the attention off of IVF but would be interested to hear opinions...

IVF often falls into what the NHS considers a "procedure of limited clinical value" which essentially is a list of things that are not automatically funded for. Each local commissioning group has their own list of PLCVs so there's a huge postcode lottery. Things like second eye cataracts (because you don't need to be able to see out of both eyes!). IVF is always a tricky one because of the emotional attachment, but should things like second eye cataracts be paid for? Other examples include snoring surgery, carpal tunnel release, tonsillectomy, sometimes even vasectomies....

BabychamSocialist · 15/02/2017 17:59

Like I said - if IVF had a better success rate, I would want it to be available. But seeing as it fails for the vast majority of people, I just don't see how we can expect the NHS to keep funding it.

FlatWhiteToGo · 15/02/2017 18:02

As many others have said, the NHS is deliberately being stretched so that it will fail and can be privatised.

In any event, the cost of a round of IVF is negligible compared to many other wasted costs in the NHS (e.g. A topic close to my heart: Surgery for back pain costs approx £10k a go and is very rarely effective, yet it is still routinely carried out as people want the potential for their quality of life to improve). Additionally, everyone assumes it costs the NHS approx £6k a go for a cycle of IVF, yet that's the cost many private clinics (who seek a profit and have additional overheads to cover, such as extra insurance etc) will charge NOT the basic cost of carrying out IVF.