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?

It's an argument that women who have been lucky in their own fertility shouldn't be so sniffy about 'not wanting to find lifestyle choices'. We all already fund theirs.

Hear hear.

No, it's not fair OP. I don't think it's even fair if you have a child living with you. Secondary fertility is a medical problem, not a "lifestyle choice".

I think it's totally unfair that women can be excluded On the basis their partner had a child. Especially as that child may have never been a part of the woman's life or could be grown up by the time ivf is needed.
Seems totally bizarre that it's taken into consideration at all.
I can see the reasoning behind ending postcode lotteries and making things fairer so perhaps everyone gets 1 nhs cycle rather than some nine and some 3.....

Also think that the private clinics should somehow be made to put some of their profits back into the NHS 'pot' for ivf. Not sure how that'd work but just some kind of scheme whereby some of their huge gains benefit others. It works both ways especially as the NHS takes over care once patients from private clinics are pregnant, and often with multiples

No idea where the some nine came from. Don't think anyone gets that many cycles free!!!!

If you can't afford IVF you most certainly cannot afford to bring a child into the world.

I disagree. One difference is that the cost of raising a child is spread over 18 years, whereas IVF costs are all before the baby (if you're lucky enough) is even conceived.

Absolutely Shotta. If having a child is a luxury that the NHS can't afford, then every single child ever born following any kind of NHS provision is a luxury the NHS can't afford.

Anyone who received any NHS maternity care yet still has the gall to say that the NHS can't afford to pay for people to have children is a hypocrite.

ShottaSherrif

Probably good to not make assumptions. Me and DP can't have children, so we adopted. We didn't expect the NHS to fund something that has a high failure rate and often takes more than one attempt.

That's why I think there needs to be a line - we didn't get funding, nor did we expect to. We had to actually go through more hoops to adopt our kids, including - yes, affordability checks - before we adopted our boys.

I think the same should happen with IVF on the NHS - you need to demonstrate you can actually provide for the child before very expensive treatment.

The welfare of the child form/checks are for this purpose-to make sure you are in a position to adequately care for a child

Posted too soon. I can see why they have to regulate these services and do the welfare of the child checks but it's one of those things that at the time, feels intrusive and in a way makes you really resent those who can just go off and conceive 'normally'. Nobody asks them to prove their worth as potential parents

Well said London Jam.

Anyone who does not have a child should be entitled to it.

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.

Bollocks. Since when did parents need to pass a financial test? How many people who are trying to conceive have the equivalent of the cost of ivf in the bank?

Ok, well cap mat care at two children per parent and channel the savings into ivf?

Infertility destroys lives. Treating it should be up there in terms of priority treatments.

Can't bear these threads where the 'i'm alright jack' unempathetic gits trot out their usual cold, simplistic views.

Clicked return too soon. Anyone should get one free attempt.

My argument against your views still stands, babysham regardless of your personal circumstances. It remains flawed to argue that children are a luxury, and that it's cancer drugs vs IVF.

You made a choice to adopt babysham, and that's wonderful if it worked for you. You may not have expected the NHS to fund your fertility treatment, or not wanted to take up the offer of lVF. That doesn't mean others should be denied treatment.

Purple daisies - I agree. I was lucky enough to conceive quickly and not need IVF. Although I could have afforded it, it would have been financially draining.

What is the average cost per ivf cycle and average cost per baby for maternity care ? If similar then yes I would say it's a v good idea to say something along the lines of capping free maternity services to two children and anything over that has to paid for and put back into offering a free ivf cycle who those who need it

epi at the risk of going off topic, those stats are all but meaningless as they lump all infertile couples in together

It's really ignorant to just label a whole class of people as 'infertile' and somehow believe they are all exactly the same.

Do you think the HFEA is "ignorant" when they provide those stats? Yes, of course there are different outcomes for different people in different circumstances. And no, obviously people (including myself) who've had such difficulties aren't "all exactly the same"! During that long time, I talked to quite a lot of people with various reasons behind their infertility, as well as unexplained infertility.

The only reason I posted the stats was in response to some of the comments just before mine, which were blanket statements that IVF is unlikely to be successful.

Then all those who are so smug saying if you can't afford ivf you can't afford a child would understand once they wanted a third .........

It's so unfair. Ignore what Darla said. Hope things get better

Excitement the cost of IVF to the NHS varies depending on the cycle offered but usually £3-6k charged by a hospital to the clinical commissioning group. Much cheaper than the private sector charges that patients themselves pay directly.

Maternity care has a national tariff that is split into three areas: antenatal care, postnatal care and the charges for delivery. Prices go up when a patient is complex or has co-morbidities such as obesity and gestational diabetes. C-sections are more expensive than vaginal births, and complications bump up the cost further. Any other inpatient stays in hospital are charged on top, and any days in SCBU or intensive care charged on top as well. The costs of all these things can easily equal or exceed an IVF cycle cost. A single day in neonatal intensive care is usually around £1000, for example.

It should read 'If some other part of the body doesn't work correctly, it is sometimes treated by the NHS.

I would say it was much of the time, or at least often, not just "sometimes".

It depends how poor the quality of life is with the condition, by how much quality of life could potentially be improved, how likely it is that that improvement will happen (ie how likely the treatment is to work), how much the treatment costs, what other treatment options are available.

Surely the great majority of (or all) couples who have a much-wanted child through IVF would say there's a vast improvement in their quality of life?

I also think if there was a list of the most minor reasons for NHS use, and you could either choose to decline treatment for one of those or never be able to have children, not many people would pick permanent infertility.

Gosh I wonder how many posters who say that Ivf shouldn't be funded on the NHS already have children? How fortunate you had to bonk just once and got pregnant straightway.
IVF treatment is no picnic, you have to inject yourself full of hormones, go through the indignity of internal pelvic scans and then undergo egg collection under anaesthetic. You then go through the hell of 48 hours to find out if any of your eggs fertilised and then another 2 weeks of hell to find out if you are pregnant following embryo transfer. And if you do get those magical 2 lines on a pee stick another 8 weeks of hell waiting for the first scan.

I don't know any women who would put herself through this unless she had to. OP the NHS funding for IVF is unfair and I am sorry for you. If you have to self fund your treatment the consider going abroad, I can highly recommend Serum in Athens

I'm sorry OP, it does seem very unfair.

I was v fortunate not to need IVF for my children.

I guess the reality is that NHS admin bods are looking at cancer provision, costs of midwives, cost of childhood immunisation and caring for the baby boomers and instensive care after a car crash ...and trying to prioritise as best they can.

It's a horrible situation and not fair at all. The only answer is more cash to the NHS really.

I'm sorry you are at the receiving end of this.

Whilst I feel incredibly sorry for anyone who longs for a child and can't have one naturally, the NHS was established to treat illness and infertility is not an illness. I am totally opposed expenditure on any kind of fertility treatment on the NHS while there are people already living, and maybe with dependant children, who are being denied treatment for life limiting diseases because they are deemed, ""too expensive".

I think if people want more and more from the NHS it will go private. I wonder if people in the USA who have health insurance, if they are covered for IVF. The thing is as it stands the NHS has too many demands on it and there should be a complete rethink of what it should and shouldn't be providing. I'd like to see charges introduced for some services. Because really free at the point of entry doesn't work if there is a postcode lottery for treatment.