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 not fair at all. We paid for IVF as it wasn't free in our area and thankfully it worked. Then a few years later it did become free, but of course we were not then eligible as we had a child, so we had to pay again.

It is grossly unfair & there should be a 'national standard' of say 2 cycles per couple.

BUT. The NHS is struggling and I do believe other conditions should be prioritised over and above treating infertility - e.g. Cancer. If we had the funds within the NHS - different story.

I make this comment as an IVF patient who was refused any NHS cycles (DH has child from previous marriage) so privately funded 4 cycles of IVF - the fourth worked 😊

The postcode lottery is grossly unfair and open to exploitation imho

No this particular inconsistency is not fair. It's about money and about ways of drawing lines around available funding and not about the individuals concerned but it really hurts when you are on the wrong side of the policy.

I was caught on this particular hook for years and drove myself nuts because I couldn't separate a funding decision from a judgement about my being less deserving of a child than people without fertility issues / partners without children. The worst thing is that at times I started to feel resentful of my stepdaughter's existence and to see her as a competitor against my own longed for children (and an impact on my finances when I was saving for ivf, not so much when she was actually with us but when I was thinking about her in the abstract as it were. I also delayed having private treatment because I felt so angry about the lack of support. I feel sad looking back about how heavy and difficult that period of life was and I do think I made it worse for myself by dwelling on aspects that I couldn't affect.

OP, For your own sanity try not to get caught up in the (un)fairness of it all and focus on the practicalities of saving up for the ivf etc., getting in the best possible health for it etc. Infertility is tough enough and you need to focus your energies positively. There are benefits to going private - you'll get to choose where you go, you can research individual doctors and clinics to find what suits you, you'll get a lot more say over the timing of your treatment, you'll get more detailed discussion with doctors. Mine cost approx 6k (I was lucky first time). Good luck

Are same sex couples subject to the same rule? I.E. if one has a child/children already then they don't qualify for IUI/IVF under the NHS?

Only asking because I learnt from a friend that NHS covers IUI/IVF for same sex couples, they decided to go private due to the wait list but that's considered to be a medical need as two woman can't have a child naturally.

Of course if you're pregnant or have had a child you/they should receive treatment on the NHS

Sorry, why??

Having children is entirely preventable due to contraception and/or abortion. They are, as people keep saying, not a right

Exactly it's not a right hence why it shouldn't be funded on the NHS. Just like someone who wants to drive can't expect the NHS to buy them a car.

But if I chose to buy a car, have a child, horse ride etc etc and needed medical treatment then of course the NHS should treat me. That's the whole point of the NHS....but I'm not going to ask the NHS to buy me a horse because I really really want one.

Wow strawberry, that's one of the most callous posts I've ever seen on here.

infertility hell can cause serious mental health issues. and is often due to a physical condition. why should these issues not be treated - but your broken coccyx should be when you fall off that high horse that you chose to buy?!

Newbian, same sex couple being funded is another postcode lottery. We had to pay for our own, no funding available to us at all. Friends in other areas did get funded. But where funded the same rules would apply - i.e. If one partner had a child from a previous relationship they wouldn't qualify.

I am by no means trying to minimize the pain that infertility can cause, believe me I know all too well the torment women can face. I was replying to a poster who had quoted me as I simply cannot understand the argument that having children is a lifestyle choice therefore you shouldn't expect any help from the NHS when you have them. That's just a bizzare viewpoint.

infertility can cause serious mental health issues
I am aware of this and the mental health issue should be treated, same as if someone with small breasts couldn't leave the house due to depression/paranoia. I do not think they have a right to get surgery on the NHS but they absolutely should be able to access counseling etc.

often due to a physical condition, why should these issues not be treated
Who said they shouldn't be treated because I certainly didn't? Of course any physical condition that is affecting someone's quality of life should be treated. If an outcome of that means they are now able to conceive children then that's excellent but if not I don't think the NHS have a duty to cover the cost of IVF treatment. Having children is not a right.

Coldilox makes sense as with everything else. My friend and her wife were in London but they didn't want to wait as her wife was approaching 40 so they went the private route.

Can single women also get free IUI on the NHS?

I do not support any inconsistency. I don't even like that Scottish university students pay no fees and Scots and Welsh don't pay prescription charges. How can we be a united kingdom if we have lal these regional differences? Why do some areas have grammar schools and some like the NE where I am from lost them in the 1970s. Why can't it be the same everywhere?

I am also a centralist at heart I think and don't like postcode lotteries.

However, I guess there needs to be a degree of local decision-making, but not on something as key as healthcare, I can't really see why requirements would be different - there might be some small variation in environmental factors but generally anyone can get dementia or cancer or heart attacks. Either the same rules apply to everyone or nobody. Whether you get care should not depend on where you live - the same taxes apply across the board.

I did not know that you could not get IVF if your partner already has kids. That does seem very unfair.

However, I think we need a national debate on what the NHS is for. Is it about saving lives and getting rid of painful conditions, or is it about improving lifestyles? I think IVF falls into the latter category. Infertility is not life-threatening (unless you are so devastated by it you would contemplate suicide) and it is not physically painful in the sense that you would need to take painkillers just to get through the day. If I had to choose between treating someone who could not have kids, or someone who was in severe physical pain, I'd treat the latter.

Ultimately you need to decide whether you are prepared to pay more taxes (the fact that we have a Tory government indicates most people are not) or you think people need to pay for their own treatment when it's not core to the NHS' remit.

Really unfair. Different if you'd already had a child, but him having had one doesn't mean that you even have access. I'm really sad for you.

How do they know that he has had a child?

Personally I don't think the NHS should be funding IVF at all. I feel sorry for anyone with fertility issues but we have issues with overpopulation not underpopulation and there are enough unwanted children who could do with adopting out there.

When people are denied life saving/prolonging drugs due to funding the NHS should not be funding people getting pregnant.

Wow. Just wow.

As a person currently undergoing NHS funded ivf I am so saddened by some of the views being expressed on this thread. If you have children and have said that you don't support NHS funding, please think very hard about how you would have felt if the happiness they bring to your life was denied due to a medical problem you had no control over. just say you had no way of funding private treatment? How would you feel?

My husband and I have had to seek help due to an injury he sustained as a child, no fault of his own. In the vast majority of cases people are not to blame for their fertility problems and denial of access to treatment in my opinion creates a two tier society where if you are able to afford private treatment good for you but if you can not it's 'sorry you will just have to deal with that - don't you know children aren't a right?'.

I wouldn't advocate a bottomless provision but surely fair and consistent access to a sensible number of cycles for anyone struggling to conceive should be a bench mark for compassionate society.

Also on the topic of 'unexplained infertility' in the not so distant past they would have no way of understanding my husbands issue, we would have had no way of knowing what was causing our problems. We would have fell into the 'unexplained'. Sometimes just because current medical science can't diagnose an issue it doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Bob1985

At the end of the day there isn't a bottomless pot of funds. Every penny sent is a penny that can't be spent on hospital beds, social workers, teachers, emergency services etc potentially causing someones death in many cases.

Let me put a hypothetical situation to you. If there was a button that could make you pregnant but it also killed a random person strapped to a chair are you that unhappy at childlessness that you'd press it? That is a microcosm of this argument.

Rale, I think that is ridiculous analogy, of course I wouldn't. It over simplifies what is a extremely complex situation. And implies that every penny not spent on ivf is spent in the provision of crucial services, I highly doubt that is the case.

The provision of sensible and fair access to fertility services should be part of the NHS and is in reality a small percentage of the overall NHS budget. Hard decisions unavoidably need to be made and of course there is not a bottomless pot of money. However, what other options have been explored to reduce costs e.g Streamlined procurement?

The impact of infertility is wide reaching and the answer is not simply 'get over it ' you are being selfish that money could be better spent.

The thought of access to ivf only to those who can afford it is very worrying.

The impact of infertility is wide reaching and the answer is not simply 'get over it ' you are being selfish that money could be better spent.

Sorry but it's not being selfish saying money could be better spent, it's the truth. NHS needs to prioritize patients who have illnesses that affect their quality of life and/or are life threatening etc. that is primarily what they are there for.

If you suffer from depression as a result of infertility then you should absolutely have treatment on the NHS to help you deal with this, counseling, medication etc but IVF is costly and not a guaranteed way to conceive a child, it's not a waste of money per se but could be better spent elsewhere for patients who are dying, in constant pain to improve their quality of life or cure them. It's easy to say the cost of IVF wouldn't go to something better when you think about it on an individual basis but if thousands of women are getting IVF on the NHS this 100% has an impact on other things that are more essential.

As I said, I know how awful infertility is and the devastation it causes and I'm not saying it's the same thing as riding a horse or driving a car but it IS a lifestyle choice and not a right or a necessity. I wouldn't expect the NHS to fund me a car or a horse and I wouldn't expect them to fund me a non guaranteed shot of having a child either.

IVF isn't hundreds of thousands of pounds, it is costly but a child is a lot more costly in the long run and I think if you are unable to save for IVF over the years it will be a struggle to save for the child's needs as well.

Strawberry - I wasn't implying that you are selfish for saying money could be better spent. I meant that wanting a child is not selfish and accepting NHS treatment to help you achieve that is not a selfish act.Reading my post back that was not completely clear.

Of course a child costs money to raise. However without NHS support couples who face infertility through no fault of their own would face a bill of thousands of pounds just simply to get to the start of the marathon that is raising a child.

Again a unlimited supply of NHS ivf would not be feasible or in my opinion sensible. But providing a chance I feel is important - a chance that should not depend upon your postcode.

We all live our lives with different priorities and I respect your opinion that children are not a nescessity but infertility does affect your quality of life. The impact that successful ivf has on a couple is huge.

As you have said you are aware of the devastation fertility struggles cause but you come across as very hard line on the issue? I am interested to understand what experiences have led you to feel that way? I am happy to share more of my story and experience to help you understand my point of view.

Do I think it's awful that not all women are given help as many times as necessary until they have a child? Absolutely. However, I also think it's right that we put the limited funds there are into helping people who are already here.

I get the mental health aspect. I really do, I was told I was infertile. But IVF is not a guarantee of a child. If someone is depressed because they don't have a child then they need treatment first and IVF second. Depression does not magically go away with pregnancy even if lack of a baby is the trigger.

I do agree, however, that the postcode lottery aspect is outrageous. As the border lottery in Ireland still is when it comes to abortions. Probably because those issues affect women in a field dominated by men.

Apologies bob I misread your comment, what you are saying makes sense and of course no woman is selfish for wanting a child and asking the NHS for help.

I do understand what you are saying but giving that one chance to thousands of women on a yearly basis is so expensive costing the NHS money they don't have.

My mums sister is infertile, she had a round of IVF on the NHS but unfortunately it was unsuccessful. Her marriage broke down (not only because of this but partly) and she has suffered from depression on and off throughout her whole life. She is now nearly 60 and all her siblings have adult children whom they are close to, she is living with her elderly father and is desperately lonely and very aware that she essentially has no one who is truly 'hers' if that makes sense.

I love my Aunty and I have seen the devastating effect infertility had and still has on her hence why I say I am aware of the pain (not on a personal level).

However I do still believe that my aunt should have got counselling and ongoing treatment for her depression, strategies on how to cope with the loss (I say loss because as a woman she thought babies were a certainty and almost already hers if that makes any sense) and coping mechanisms for this deeply sad situation. I can't bare the thought of someone who has a terminal illness or who has a life changing, painful condition not being able to access adequate treatment because women feel it is a right to have a child. I'm sorry, but it's not and without meaning to sound harsh but unfortunately life is such that we don't always get what we want. It's hard and it's shitty but it doesn't mean the NHS should start throwing thousands of pounds at you for something that isn't a necessity or a need.

And I do feel that if you can't save up for IVF for however many years, it will be extremely hard to manage your finances once a child is in the picture, as I said it's a lot of money but not a truly extortionate, unacheivable amount.

I'm fairly open minded and would actually quite like to change my mind on this because I feel mean feeling the way I do but I can't help it!

Also I've seen negative comments on here about women who want boob jobs on the NHS because they're depressed about their body, I of course don't agree with cosmetic surgery on the NHS. Counselling etc yes but not surgery for aesthetic reasons. However if I was honest I don't understand why one persons mental health issues and desire for NHS treatment is looked down upon and the other isn't.

Infertility is completely different to feeling depressed about small boobs and I do get that of course but the mental health issues it can cause are fairly similar. I'm speaking from experience, I've had cosmetic surgery done on a part of my body I was deeply unhappy and depressed about. It affected me on a daily basis in different aspects of my life. I was aware I had the option to at least try and get the NHS to pay for this surgery, but I never even questioned it, I knew it was something I should pay for myself. Essentially, it was my issue and wasn't an illness. I do believe if there is an illness for infertility it should be treated but IVF isn't actually treating a disease.