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

It's sad.

IVF funding does not magically get turned into cancer funding. I hate hate hate that argument.

Personally I think when budgets are less stressed, IVF should be made available (assuming there are restrictions and guidelines as there used to be), because it is used when there is a medical problem (infertility), having a child may not be a right but it is a basic human craving and not having a child can cause major problems that will cost the NHS money anyway.

However it is a fairly inefficient technique. If success rates were higher it would be better.

I am lucky because I did have NHS IVF to have my son (and paid privately to have my daughter). I can understand why this may not be available in future, but I do feel there were good reasons for it being available to me in the first place.

The 'if you can't afford to pay you can't afford to have children' argument is ridiculous. No fertile people I know save up 10k prior to having children just because, yet you expect the infertile to?

Expect more people going to the clincs overseas and more multiple births now...

I totally agree with the previous posters who have picked up on the "having children is a want not a right" comments, and have suggested that maternity care should not be offered on the NHS either. You cannot argue that infertility treatment is a luxury but maternity care is not.

Neither is a luxury. I don't get the comparisons with maternity care though. Having children means you need medical care, or at least some.

If we scrap free maternity care what will happen to the women who will still get pregnant anyway but can't afford to pay? It's not the same. Then there are the babies to think of.

Considering how unsuccessful IVF usually is and how many rounds people need it just isn't an expense the NHS can afford.

We can argue about it all day long, but the fact is something has to give and of course any causes for infertility should be treated where possible, but IVF? Not how it is right now.

People are being turned down for many procedures that were available on the NHS. Like I said earlier, I can't get my lipo on my hundreds of lipomas (possible dercums disease) that cause me a lot of distress and pain. The pain just isn't bad enough apparently and the fact it hurts to be touched, sometimes awfully so is something I will have to put up with unless I can fund it myself. Of course it isn't comparable to being infertile but many other people with health conditions can no longer get the treatment they need. Why should IVF be any different?

People hate the way it's worded but creating a new life when funds are needed to fix and save the life's of those already here are clearly bottom of the priority list.

As callous as it sounds, it is exactly spot on.

If you can't afford treatment can you afford to have children?

Surely th logical conclusion of that is to start charging for maternity services? Or at least remove free prescriptions and dental services for pregnant women
After all, if you can't afford your heartburn medication, you can't afford children...

@U2hastheedge I was making a point that claiming infertility treatment is a luxury while defending the need for maternity care on the NHS is unfair. Of course they are comparable - you need maternity care because you want to have a child. Some people are unlucky enough to need infertility treatment because they want to have a child. Same thing. I followed it up with my statement that I don't think actually believe funded maternity care should be withdrawn. Of course that would be ludicrous.

To those saying if couples can't afford IVF they can't afford kids - have you looked into the ongoing and unseen costs of fertility treatment? Not just the IVF itself but the tests, consultations, prescriptions etc... running up to treatment? All of which needs paying upfront. This isn't as a support for the NHS funding treatment at all, I'm just baffled as to how people can use this argument. Do you propose all couples thinking of having a baby should complete and application first to see if they are deemed financially secure enough and if not, no baby? How many families rely on benefits to raise their kids, whether by choice or necessity. No-one denied their right to get pregnant. If you have kids, did you need to show the hospital wage slips and savings before they would let you access maternity care? What about if you lost your job and found yourself with no income?

Whereas my partner and I had to complete numerous forms and interviews prior to IVF to establish that we were psychologically fit enough to go through treatment as well as financially stable enough to have a child. I even had to give details of my parents and PIL. (This was out clinic, not all)

I completely agree that having children is a financial burden and one that needs to be taken seriously, but this should be the case irrespective of how that child is conceived. Fertility treatment is a huge upfront cost and yes, with years of saving some couples would be able to afford treatment, but often with infertility you don't have years to wait.

I am sorry to say that I never thought it was an area the NHS should have ever gone into. We have to be honest with ourselves and stepping back from emotion we have to see that the NHS cannot cope with the number of people in the UK already. To assist in more human beings being born than are leaving the earth would be to create more problems.
I have PCOS and yes I am lucky to have had three healthy children without assistance, but there has to be natural selection in any species and to override this makes me nervous. We have to be able to sustain those of us who are already here.
The NHS also needs to be hard I'm afraid and return to basic health care. Lifestyle care needs to go. That means no cosmetic surgery unless you have suffered an accident, no IVF unless you have suffered cancer, no gender reasignments...
Money needs to go into social services to ensure that less admissions are needed and discharges happen efficiently. Money needs to go into emergency services and departments that deal with life or death conditions first. This is going to sound disgusting, but stop offering treatment to those under or over certain ages, whos chances are less than others waiting for similar help.

I meant to say, money needs to be ring fenced and we need to increase spending in mental health provision, cresting a system that actually works.

... there has to be natural selection in any species and to override this makes me nervous.

wtf? Seriously?

I have PCOS and yes I am lucky to have had three healthy children without assistance, but there has to be natural selection in any species and to override this makes me nervous

Lucky you had your healthy children then

I have PCOS and yes I am lucky to have had three healthy children without assistance, but there has to be natural selection in any species and to override this makes me nervous.
You didn't seriously just write that infertility is natural selection in action?

Actually the UK will end up with an ageing population. We do need children, if only to help pay for the increasingly elderly people in this country!

oopsdearyme

Your post makes no sense.
How can you be in favour of natural selection, but also in support of IVF for cancer patients, when many cancers are heriditary?

Surely one of the biggest 'natural selectors' is disease, so if it makes you 'nervous to override it', you should be advocating for the withdrawal of treatment for any and all inheritable illnesses?

@oopsdearyme there is so much wrong with your post that I don't even know where to start...

Unless the cancer is related to the womb, you will not have lost fertility to the disease, it is the treatment of the disease. You would be asking women to choose between treatment and children.
The natural selection element is in getting cancer.

I have a bad back and it would not stop me from clubbing, if I could be arsed, nor from wearing "skippy" clothes. Though the draught would get to me eventually.

So IVF should only be available to people with womb cancer?
Not ovarian, cervical or thyroid cancers?

And they shouldn't be allowed treatment for cancer because it is 'natural selection' to let them die?

Hopeful ... That would be great if it worked in reality, we are doing wonderfully well looking after our elderly currently aren't we.
The failing NHS is just part of a bigger picture. A move away from close knit communities and support networks, a belief in individual need and the destruction of family.
There are so many ways we could help the NHS and money is not the only answer.

I meant gynaecologic cancers. I apologise.

I am just looking to see where I said that about only allowing certain cancer patients have IVF or letting cancer patients die?

Everyone round here who keeps saying that NHS is free, needs to get their head checked. We PAY for it with our TAXES. Why is it so hard to get?
I want to know where my money is going.

Well your posts don't make any sense which is why I'm asking you to clarify

You've said you are against IVF because you support natural selection.
So that can only mean you are also against the treatment of any camera with a heriditary element and against IVF for people who have had cancer.

It must surely also mean you are against treatment of All heriditary diseases, because if we let people die before they are of breeding age, it is nature and natural selection at work.

Im just confused as to why you go on to say you support IVF for people with cancer as it is so at odds with your ideas about natural selection

Nope!

I was pointing out that infertility was caused by treatment not the disease, in many cases. Clearly not those that begin in the areas needed for fertility. I didn't comment on whether or not IVF should be offered to these patients.

I was saying that I disagree with IVF in its entirety and that the NHS cannot afford for many reasons not to offer it. I am talking objectively. Human beings survived without IVF and we should be concentrating on survival first.

Bloody hell oopsdearyme, I really don't know where to start. Utter ignorance. you have three children and yet you think there are too many people on this planet. Well, that was very selfish and hypocritical of you wasn't it? It's ok to fill up the world with your kids but not for others to do the same?! One rule for you eh? Would you be advocating 'natural selection' if something happened to someone you loved and treatment wasn't available? Unbelievable.

Everyone round here who keeps saying that NHS is free, needs to get their head checked. We PAY for it with our TAXES. Why is it so hard to get?
I want to know where my money is going

some people pay for it with their taxes. Many don't pay any tax.

And of those who do pay tax, you need to be earning more than £35k a year before you are actually a net contributor to the system.
Below that, you are most probably taking out more than you are putting in, so probably shouldn't be on a high horse demanding to know where 'your' money goes

Infertility is not a disease though isn't? You can have a perfectly normal life without children. Or using other routes such as adoption and then with them.

I don't support natural selection, I said it concerns me, when we have over population problems that we are increasing it by assisting those who would otherwise not had children, many of which have multiples when if able to get have a child naturally would not have done. Not to mention the increased likelihood of pre term labours and heritary infertility that could increase NHS needs.

If we begin discussing the ethics of IVF we will be derailing the thread.
There was