to think NHS IVF rules are unfair?

[kathkim]

So I have adenomyosis and endometriosis. It's looking increasingly likely I will need IVF. Why can't I get it on the NHS just because my partner has a child with someone else? It's me who needs the help. How much would it cost privately?

Not read the whole thread. It's deeply unfair. If you are the one with the fertility issue she you would have had to have IVF regardless of whether your partner had a child or not.

I remember a woman taking this all the way through the NHS before and winning. I'll try and find a link if I can.

I egg shared as couldn't afford ivf. The first time the receipient got pregnant and I didn't. The second time I gave them all away (receipient did not conceive) and third time I kept them all and got pregnant with my son. We didn't qualify for free ivf as I already had a child and didn't qualify with secondary infertility (caused by having coil after first child). So my kids have half brother out there somewhere😄

I had ivf on the NHS in 2013 and had to lose 5 stone in order to meet criteria so I understand your pain. equally I realise there are restrictions in place for a reason. I suppose my only reasoning for this is that I believe your husband has experienced fatherhood where my husband hadn't and so was given the chance. Perhaps this isn't fair but nothing is with infertility so you have my sympathy

Sorry to hear this OP

It's so upsetting. I am Underage for IVF! I would've had to wait another 5 or so years of grievance and wanting for a family before I qualified. I have PCOS, Endometriosis and one ovary left. By some miracle we conceived after a very long time of trying again after 4 recurrent miscarriages in a row.

It's saddening, and I know parenthood is a lifestyle choice but it's strain on the NHS isn't that significant. Psychiatric support, which many who must come to terms infertility must face, costs far more.

I think it's horribly unfair and I completely disagree with people who say IVF shouldn't be funded because it's a choice rather than an essential. What about those people who chose to smoke and ended up with lung disease or those who chose to go skiing and broke their leg? Nobody chooses to be infertile and it's a devastating situation to be in. This is from experience as someone who went through 3 NHS funded IVF cycles and very fortunately conceived beautiful twin babies on the last attempt.

The NHS should be for illness only. If you can't afford IVF you most certainly cannot afford to bring a child into the world.

Did you pass an income test before having children then monstiebags?!

An utterly ridiculous statement to make, yes children cost money over time but couples who conceive naturally aren't expected to pay in excess of £3,000 upfront in one go.

should be for illness only. If you can't afford IVF you most certainly cannot afford to bring a child into the world.

Ah, there's always one.

you most certainly cannot afford to bring a child into the world.

What would you say is acceptable then? X salary Y savings Z job prospects?

Think it should not be a postcode lottery and should be consistency across the UK. However do think IVF treatment for a first child trumps purely cosmetic treatments eg breast enlargement/reduction where there is no underlying medical reason

I honestly never knew this! I think it's appalling that having a partner who has a child from a previous relationship is a deal breaker. I'm so sorry.

Have you thought about adoption? I'm sure you've considered it but could that be another option?

I always hate the smug people who say it's sad but you don't need to have a baby, the NHS can't fund everything blah, blah, blah. I think it's people who just do not understand. The NHS is giving away free treatment to people who live unhealthy lifestyles etc etc. Then a woman who probably never usually goes near a doctor but can't have children is told no, sorry. The psychological trauma of not being able to have a child is overwhelming. And I can't say the way the NHS handle it is particularly pleasant - in fact, I think they can handle people quite brutally. I speak as someone who has had secondary infertility and therefore didn't qualify - this I accept and agree with. But I know that pain and it was only lessened by the fact I already had a child. Everyone who has not had 1 child should be allowed at least two goes. In my case I looked at adoption but decided on one go privately. I was lucky and now have a wonderful two year old as a result. I paid £10000 (all our savings) because I also had to have a procedure done to give me the best possible chance. So it's not just the cost of a good holiday as some say. And with adoption there are a lot of things to consider so it's the right thing for you and the child.

monstie You make no real sense. A lot of IVF doesn't work on the first try, so it's not just 2K+ upfront, but possibly 7K+ before there is even a pregnancy, and even then there's no guarantee.

Many very comfortable and financially secure families couldn't afford that. Are babies only for the rich then or?...

We all consider our case to be important but with nhs funding being what it is, sophisticated and very expensive non life threatening cases will not get credence. Nhs was not designed for this. It's about good quality of life for as long as poss. I've seen couples mortgaged up to the hilt doing repeated assisted conception. Personally I'm against a lot of the bariatric surgery too!

Sorry, don't know the postcode lottery, and ridiculous idea you should have chosen your partner more wisely / ditch him, but I think their financial priority is saving lives.

Sorry, but when people are being denied cancer treatment because of funding issues, I can't get worked up over IVF. Your partner has a child. If you want one with him, you should either fund your own IVF or adopt.

It sounds awful, but having a child is a luxury, and the NHS is not there to provide luxuries, but to provide care and preventative medicine.

However do think IVF treatment for a first child trumps purely cosmetic treatments eg breast enlargement/reduction where there is no underlying medical reason

Good job that's why the NHS offers breast enlargement/reduction and not just because someone fancies it.

Can I ask what you are having done regrading your endometriosis? As I do know people who have had successful treatment for it and gone on to have a baby naturally afterwards. This person did have quite severe endometriosis and with the right treatment did very well. I feel it is unfair that some women get treatment on the NHS and others don't I also think it is unfair that you are penalised due to the fact that your partner has had a previous child surely it should be viewed as the couple in question rather than individuals after all it does take two to tango! Could your gynaecologist who you are seeing for your endometriosis help you? Perhaps he could write a letter of support and try appealing the decision?

I haven't read all the replies but most of the rules are fair. The fact that each area implements their version of the rules is unfair. In my area no IVF for a woman over 36! Yet in the UK some places go to 42. Everything is based on the woman's age even if issues reside with the man. I've had a few friends with all sorts of issues. The rules are so general that each case can't be considered for its own merit. However, sadly there is always a line drawn somewhere. I hope you find thd money to do it. good luck xxx

littlemummy the age thing can go both ways. I would of endured years more of desperation and devastation if I wasn't lucky enough to have conceived despite the odds being stacked against me

Babysham ^having a child is a luxury.
^
Fine, then why the hell are we providing for maternity care on the NHS for you and your luxury item? By that argument, all child related matters should be funded privately. Oh wait, having a child is only a luxury if you are infertile...those who can pop them out can adopt the 'I'm alright jack' approach and trot out a load of shit about luxury and cancer treatment.

It's really sad that some cancer drugs are denied. This is generally either a pricing issue making them too expensive, or a clinical body deeming them not cost effective for the years and quality of life they add to someone. IVF passes the cost effectiveness tests AND is relatively cheap when done via the NHS. It's a crass and irrelevant comparison. Makes me furious.

It isn't even about having a child, it's about getting treatment for a disease that prevents pregnancy, not about having a child per se.

It doesn't matter how many people come and put across decent and well reasoned arguments on the subject, it comes back to the same fucking ridiculous points.

Well someone somewhere is making money from research and procedures in these clinics - cost price isn't likely to be '£10,000'

Any paid for service makes a profit - so this luxury is only for the infertile rich and not the infertile middle? Or indeed the infertile poor?

I wish it wasn't unfair - but those are the current rules - maybe you should challenge the decision?

What Shotta said

With the addition of .. when will people learn adoption is not the easy option!!! "Just adopt, just adopt" FFS .. a massive insult to those who've been through the incredibly hard process of adopting.