NHS IVF policy change

[Bambamrubblesmum]

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

My beautiful 6 week old son was conceived after 1 round of NHS ivf treatment. I have PCOS. I have never used the NHS as an adult previously to my treatment. Saddens me to see the view on here.

So which one is it, delphine?

Today 14:57 DelphineCormier
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.

Today 16:17 DelphineCormier
Because we do actually need to maintain the population, user confused

Babycham, despite many people posting links of success rates, you keep perpetuating the myth that it 'rarely works'
The NHS ivf clinic near me has a 50% success rate.
Is that good enough for you? Would you support women being treated when they half a 50:50 chance of having a live birth?

And as tigerdog said, it's over 70% over 3 cycles

That's higher than the success rate for my back surgery which cost a hell of a lot more than a round of IVF...

Honestly, this terrifies me. I have stage 3 endometriosis, and we've been trying for three years. IVF may be an option we need at some point, but if we can't have it on the NHS... It's not something we'd be able to afford for several years, and by then, it'd be too late. It's stressful and depressing enough struggling with infertility, without having to worry about money as well as the ticking clock.

It's hard trying to accept that having a child isn't an entitlement.

Randomly cross-posted with flatwhite who has also mentioned back surgery
I'm sure there are other examples

And re the 'cut price NHS IVF' point... the NHS clinic I mentioned, that has the 50% success rate... they don't even anesthetise patients for the egg collection
Where a private clinic would do heavy sedation or a general, the NHS provides gas and air while inserting a massive needle through the walls of the vagina or cervix and into the ovary. Repeat up to 15 times and then waddle back to a chair until you are well enough to leave.

Hardly a luxury private treatment...

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.

But we don't measure what gets treated on the NHS according to success rate. If we did, there would be no treatment of any number of diseases, HIV and pancreatic cancer immediately springing to mind??

It's hard trying to accept that having a child isn't an entitlement.

No one will ever convince me that trying to have a child isn't an entitlement.

Last time I looked, UK citizens didn't have to get a licence before trying for a family... unlike some countries.

I hope you get your family.

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,

But this is incorrect. There is an element of learning from each IVF cycle, different drugs, different doses, different protocols depending on prior response. Each subsequent cycle can be fine tuned, which is why guidance is based on a minimum of 3 cycles. A single cycle may be more likely to fail than not fail but IVF does not fail for the vast majority of people.

NHS funding for just one cycle is therefore a false economy - I took the notes and results from my failed NHS cycle and gave them to my private clinic, which led to pregnancies on cycles 2 and 3.

What about an IVF loan? Like a student loan? You pay it back under certain circumstances... I guess the point of a student loan is that you'll be earning a lot in the future to pay it back. I'm just spit balling!! Wonder if it's an option.

Some very interesting points here about the cost and the way that the NHS do it versus private

And my god - I can't imagine how it feels for people like micycle and many others

I was in the camp of it's a high cost low Probability treatment but this thread has made me think - a lot

We paid £4000 for DP to have knee surgery - if he had waited on the NHS he would have been in a lot of pain for 8 months - we dipped into the life savings . Now imagine spending that money and not even having a decent % success rate
Fuck

What about an IVF loan? Like a student loan? You pay it back under certain circumstances...

What circumstances? Getting a baby to take home?
Let's go the whole hog! Why not do the same for all maternity services? Pay per scan. You get a refund for a miscarriage but otherwise you take the debt.
If you don't like it, you can always adopt, right?

Well after reading some responses on here I accept I'm probably being a bit harsh. I think having a biological family is still something you're not automatically entitled to, and I had to come to terms with that myself.

It's just when there's people like my friend who had to go to mainland Europe for cancer treatment because the NHS couldn't fund it. She's still here almost 5 years later thanks to that treatment.

Personally, I would love the NHS to fund everything but the Tories are determined to keep defunding it. If that keeps happening, we're going to have to make tough choices like this, sadly.

I've been ones of those shitty people that haven't read the whole thread but has anyone pointed out that the UK currently spends less of its GDP than many of our European peers? We spend less per capita than: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland (and over 1/3 less than the US).

Rather than this in-fighting about who deserves more of a small pie, why not make the pie bigger?

Stats from the OECD: stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA

Personally, I would love the NHS to fund everything but the Tories are determined to keep defunding it. If that keeps happening, we're going to have to make tough choices like this, sadly.

This exactly. As much as everyone here would love the NHS to be able to fund IVF for everyone, it simply can't.

It can't even afford to offer enough services for those with severe MH illnesses like schizophrenia and psychosis. As harsh as it sounds I would rather more money go towards MH. My husband got offered three CBT sessions. Three! Then when he got there they said his illness was too severe for them to help with but the NHS won't fund any other type of therapy for him because he needs it long term. So that was that.

IVF isn't a high priority because it isn't essential treatment. Other treatments that aren't essential have been cut and the ones that aren't will no doubt be cut soon.

We can keep saying 'but this hasn't been cut' the key word is yet.... it's coming. I sit in many clinics and watch people being turned away for countless types of treatments because it isn't essential.

sparechange yes. I had 'light sedation' while a needle the size of Gibraltar was inserted up my foof and 30 eggs were collected one by one. Mind you, I don't want anyone to be unduly put off. DD was worth the pain and much, much more.

Essential has nothing to do with it. The NHS funds mastectomies for transmen and endless rounds of puberty blockers plus associated therapy. It funds operations for people who have got pissed and fallen down the stairs or through a window or people who have climbed a mountain or just fallen over an unexpected toy in their hallway. It funds healthcare for people who have looked after themselves and people who haven't.

If we start going down the road of essential vs non-essential, or fault or no fault, it is a slippery path where none of us are winners.

Have a genetic predisposition to eczema? Why should the NHS treat your kids? Actually, if you have cancer in the family, should the NHS fund further treatment? People are far more likely to get cancer (or heart disease) if a relative has suffered after all. If you choose to partake in cycling, particularly in London, should the NHS fund your treatment if you're injured? Actually, should it fund any sporting injuries at all, given they're all self-inflicted?

But this isn't a self-inflicted injury. WHO has deemed fertility treatment a right - if we are infertile, part of our body isn't working properly, and it is as deserving of treatment as a malfunctioning limb or any other organ. Fertility is not a blessing, it is a right as long as we have the technology to treat it.

It is a soft target to go after IVF to reduce NHS costs and women should think very carefully before they celebrate this as a positive move.

Very well put Jiggly, I agree with everything you've said!

The point I was trying to make is that, looking at this from an entirely non sentimental perspective, we don't need IVF to sustain the population. IVF is a relatively new thing, it's far from foolproof and before it existed, infertile couples adopted/were childless. The population growth will not drop rapidly if IVF is no longer NHS funded. Millions of women do conceive every year, therefore it makes sense to offer everyone free care whether that happened naturally or not. I would love to live in a world in which everyone is entitled to as many free IVF cycles as they need to have a baby, but the NHS right now can't cope with that. I don't think IVF is the only thing that needs to be cut, but I do think while the NHS is in dire straits, it's not priority. Along with other services it currently offers. The sad reality is that if we suddenly had some kind of nuclear accident that had a profound impact on fertility (Google Aral Sea) the government might well start funding IVF. Fortunately/unfortunately/however you want to look at it, we don't. Having a biological child isn't a right, it's something that's now possible for some women it might not have been possible for up until very very recently in history, thanks to science. Unfortunately that science is inaccurate and bloody expensive, which means hard choices have to be made. I also had to accept that I wouldn't have a biological child, and that I would not adopt. Admittedly I went on to have a baby late in life, but we won't go into the circumstances around that. I accept I was very very lucky in terms of getting the baby I wanted. But before that, I came to terms with the fact that I most likely wouldn't.

I would be interested to see who a clinic with a 50% success rate took on. I suspect it wouldn't be the same range of couples/women than a clinic with a lower success rate.

delphine
This is the NHS clinic I mentioned in my earlier post
Their criteria are simple - under 46, normal BMI
Each CCG will have additional criteria for the funding. Usually FSH under 12 and neither partner to have any other children
www.chelwest.nhs.uk/services/womens-health-services/assisted-conception-unit-acu/accessing-this-service

I can't see it mentioned on the website but around 75% of their patients are NHS funded. They do get private patients but most of them are couples who had an NHS funded round and then come back again as self-funding patients for another round or another child
The unit at Guy's (also predominantly NHS that takes self-fund patients) has success rates in the high40% last time I checked

You obviously have beef with IVF but it is very unfair to keep trying to rubbish it

I have nothing against IVF. I don't, however, think it's perfect, and I think given the mess the NHS is in, more research is needed to make it more effective before it's offered fully funded universally. I also think the NHS in general needs a hell of a lot of reform, but that's a topic for another thread. I would love to live in a world in which IVF is available for everyone, but we don't live in a perfect world in that respect. Hopefully that will change.

Other non-essential treatments are being cut all the time and will continue to do so.

I would class a drunk person needing an operation because they fell over essential treatment. I don't agree the NHS should treat people on a self-inflicted vs self inflicted basis either.

I don't think it's a positive move. It's a very negative move. The NHS is on its knees and there is nothing positive about having to cut many services and IVF is one of many cuts that have a devastating affect on people.

Hear, hear, Jiggly.

No-one is suggesting that IVF is a magical cure for infertility, or that it guarantees a baby. What it does is give infertile people the opportunity to have a realistic CHANCE at conceiving. My mental health vastly improved during IVF (before finding out if it had worked), simply because I felt like I was finally able to do something positive.

Well today's NHS updates are -

My friend has her varicose veins taken out !
I went to my GP today (to get a prescription ) and it was EMPTY - she even offered me an emergency slot as it wouldn't get filled - I of
Course declined it (minor issue )

And lastly for 2 boxes of my painkiller I paid the normal £8 charge

Yet when they gave me 1 box I paid the same

Charge me double NHS !

And I have changed my view - I now do believe that people deserve at least 1 go - I dont support this cut

Just been to boots to get a few bits. In the pharmacy there boxes on the floor of gluten free bread and cereal that people will get free but which cost the NHS a prescription charge. Bonkers.