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

A close friend of mine is facing IVF after needing to have her eggs frozen due to chemotherapy when younger.

Your friend would qualify for NHS IVF under the proposed guidelines in those circumstances.

The problem with this kind of discussion is people always compare it to cancer. How about the cost could be put into physiotherapy? Or mental health services? You know, areas where ANYONE can end up needing them

YippieKayak yes, I'm really pleased she will. Just hoping to make some people think before claiming IVF is a luxury or that a successful pregnancy shouldn't be a medical aim for the NHS not everyone thinks of the reasons needed for IVF, it isn't just couples shagging and getting nowhere

Absolutely agree that IVF is turned to very quickly rather than try or investigate other options. This is because of the nature of the procedure, it get past obstructive problems and is an efficient way of finding out if you produce viable eggs/embryos. It is also very much cheaper than a lot of procedures that used to be performed to help with conception. For those that think you should have no help at all with conception, why? What if there is a minor mechanical problem it can mean a full operating theatre and overnight stay which would cost much more. Is this acceptable. Also how about contraception that's free, should it be. Ok to pay for people not to have children but not to have them.
Most people start out not completely desperate for a child but over months and years with others around you popping babies out and the constant "you'll be next" fuckwittery it starts to become a much bigger deal. The cost of treating the mental health fall out should not be underestimated. With not just the couple but extended family as well. No grandchildren be happy with that? My partner had an almost complete breakdown over this, went from being very economically productive to being unable to work. Luckily for us we had the means to pay for our IVF ourselves, there was no help in my area. Could easily have not been able to afford it though. Where do you stop with judging who is worthy? Do you stop treating people who don't exercise or who eat too much do you stop cancer treatment for smokers, or people who like burnt bastard toast and all the other crap we are told is making us less healthy. How about we only offer treatment to non smoking, vegans who exercise 5 times a week, oh that would be me.

But Chatty I am more annoyed frankly that my elderly aunt has to wait in pain for a hip replacement because people gorge on crap food,demand gastric band ops,smoke and rock up to A&E/ GPs when they really shouldn't.

Infertily cause depression and puts the health of women at risk. Pregnancy reduces some cancer risks and helps conditions such as PCOS and Endo.

Andrology is next.

We paid for ours and we were successful first time with twins...I really feel for people who can't afford the treatment. I'm finding the NHS restrictions very depressing, we have spent a small fortune in helping our dcs deal with issues that are not NHS funded but we have the extra cash to do this, I really pity the poor kids and their parents cannot afford to fix their conditions privately. It wasn't meant to be like this!

It's very sad. But watching "the hospital" brings it home that the NHS has a chronic shortfall of funds and it needs to focus on illness and not luxurious extras. *

Sorry when did a child become a luxurious extra?

I agree with the decision.

It's devastating for those who need it but I too don't think this is the NHS's responsibility.

The NHS is in crisis, cuts need to happen. Maybe IVF needs to be one of these cuts, but in my opinion so does the amount of money spent treating drunks, A&E time wasters, drug addicts etc...

Put money into MH services and you will probably lower the amount of 'drunks' in A&E. The regulars I see are very often suffering with MH and had services cut.

So you think the NHS shouldn't spend as much money on addicts? What about leaving people who have a broken leg because they decided to play a dangerous sport? Or the person who had a heart attack and eats nothing except fried chicken all day long?

We shouldn't want cuts for people we feel are less worthy of medical treatment because it would never end. IVF is completely different because it isn't treating the course of the medical issue. I can't have my hundreds of lipomas removed because it isn't going to kill me... people can't have a lot of treatments they used to be able to get free on the NHS because we can't afford it. I don't think IVF should be any different, no matter how awfully horrible it is for the people who want it.

I am also annoyed when people have several children they can't afford and never pay into the NHS at all.

It's not black and white. Infertility doesn't just "happen." There's a reason that a couple are unable to conceive. There's an underlying physical malfunction/disease/ illness/ problem somewhere. If the underlying problem can't be found or treated then IVF can sometimes bypass it as PP Sara says.

Reproduction is a fundamental human function. Should we stop funding research or treatment of/into recurrent miscarriage because "having a child isn't a right"?

Where do you draw the line? I don't know the answer. It's very difficult. But I get annoyed when IVF is targeted as a "luxury". It's far from a luxury for those who need it.

To the people saying having children is a choice, not a right - does that mean the NHS also shouldn't fund maternity services? You choose to be pregnant, you should pay for your own childbirth?? Or take it further, you choose to have children, pay for their medical care?
We all understand how stretched the NHS is, and the difficult decisions that need to be made, but IVF should not simply be seen as an easy cut, as if its an "option" - it is an option nobody wants to take, and a last resort caused by medical conditions. People who need IVF have every bit as much right to it as anyone else requiring NHS services.

Sorry - about a gazillion cross posts there

Green I don't think gastric bands should be on the NHS is doesn't fix the reason behind why the person is overweight it's just a bandaid over the real problem.

A lot of issues could be treated better via counselling weight issues (both ends of the scale, depression (rather than just pills to cover it up), smoking, alcoholics, body dismirohia etc the list is endless of what could be fixed with counselling rather than covered up with pills and quick fixes. However sadly that would be the end of big pharmaceutical companies making quick easy money so won't happen.

One thing I think shouldn't be funded by the NHS is gluten free food, nobody needs bread or flour. I know it wouldn't save much money though.

Another anomaly that maybe somebody with some medical knowledge might be able to explain, is the fact that asthma medication is a paid for prescription and diabetes medication is free. Most diabetes is type 2 from lifestyle and eating habits whereas asthma is not.

the list is endless of what could be fixed with counselling

I don't think this is true, counseling isn't some magic bullet.

How should depression caused by infertility be treated?It would be x2 and over several years.

Wonder how the cost compares.

My pregnancy cleared my painful Endo and PCOS too. I'd had treatments for both on the NHS.

I knew the obesity comparison would come up but often, the treatments are funded because it's more expensive to treat obsesity related symptoms and illnesses. If the research shows that it's more cost effective to the NHS to fund gastric bypasses, for example, then it's a short-term upfront cost to save money in the longer term.

But you can say that about IVF.

My pregnancy also cut my risk of ovarian cancer.

Where do you draw the line? I don't know the answer. It's very difficult. But I get annoyed when IVF is targeted as a "luxury". It's far from a luxury for those who need it.
I really can't imagine what it is like to want a child when you are infertile and I wish the NHS could afford to give everyone who needs it IVF.

My ex husband's wife was turned down because she was a step mum to my children. They live with me and her being a step mum did not take away from her heartbreak. He was infertile due to cancer treatments. She found it incredibly unfair, and the current way it works, who gets it and who doesn't is unfair.

To the people saying having children is a choice, not a right - does that mean the NHS also shouldn't fund maternity services? You choose to be pregnant, you should pay for your own childbirth??

It's not really the same is it? Once you are pregnant you need maternity services for your health. The baby needs to be delivered safely. It's different to helping people conceive a child.

We could say that about anything. If you choose to play sports don't ask for free treatment if you hurt yourself. Drive a car and crash? Well, your choice to drive! Looking after the health of mum and foetus/baby is different to funding the conception.

From a cash perspective, it doesn't have a hugely high success rate, so makes sense to cut it.

You could also say that about a lot of cancer treatments.

And people who've had strokes and need rehab.

And people with mental health issues.

... Surely people can't just be valued this way?! Get rid of some of the other inefficiencies and perhaps some more important things like IVF for at least those who haven't tried before and have no children already can be saved?

My ex husband's wife was turned down because she was a step mum to my children. They live with me and her being a step mum did not take away from her heartbreak. He was infertile due to cancer treatments. She found it incredibly unfair, and the current way it works, who gets it and who doesn't is unfair.

My SIL is in a similar position, it's very sad