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?

No, of course it's not unfair. The NHS is struggling to fund treatment for life limiting conditions, why should IVF treatment be prioritised?

We couldn't get it even though neither of us had any children! Postcode lottery. You'll need to go private. It's widely recognised as unfair but resources are unfortunately limited. We spent about £20k

If a sperm bank would be acceptable to the NHS, what would your DP think of that as an option?

I think suffering from infertility is unfair. Ideally the NHS could cover every persons infertility till they had a child but that's not realistic at all. I don't think the NHS not being able to pay is unfair. The unfairness is the infertility itself.

I have severe endo and needed IVF to conceive my son. When I met my now DH (who has two teenage kids) we lived in Wales and would have been eligible for NHS IVF. By the time we were married and starting IVF we'd moved to England due to my job and weren't eligible in the new area. So we paid 10k for one private cycle which thankfully worked.

Honestly (and I say this as an NHS employee) I don't think we should fund NHS IVF at all, there are just far more important things that we need to pay for. But if we are going to, then it's utterly unfair for the rules to change depending on where you live.

The trouble is, there isn't enough funding. The logic is that if your partner has children from a previous relationship, there are children in your life, so to speak. I know there's a hundred flaws to that logic, but reluctantly I can see their intentions. Doesn't mean I don't think it's unfair. I have suspected endo (no one will diagnose me because of my age) and at the rate I repel the opposite sex I'm probably going to end up saving for the donor route. You have my sympathy

It's not the IVF that's causing the NHS problems. How about the free paracetamol, free cough medicine, free kids calpol, breast jobs (for cosmetic reasons).

Billybonkers76 So resources should be prioritized to add to overpopulation as opposed to medicines for the existing population (agree free breast jobs isn't high priority?

I don't think IVF should be available on the NHS at all.

It can't be right that actual people, with lives and children etc die earlier that they should because the drugs that would keep them alive are deemed too expensive, while money is seemingly available to bring additional people into the world.

It is unfair. The postcode lottery of it in particular is unfair - why should women in one area of the country be entitled to more rounds than those in another postcode?

I agree that the problem is funding - but this is sortable. We need to put more money into the system.

It's different for everyone, kath, we all have 'dealbreakers' and that was mine, nothing to do with fertility as I had no idea back then if I were fertile or not (I was, probably not now as I'm 46, but doesn't matter as DH had a vasectomy after we completed our family).

Maybe I should say in my OP that the rules are illogical/confusing to me rather than unfair. I think that's what I am trying to get across. I know the NHS cannot cope with everything it's expected to cope with. The money just isn't there.

With the NHS in crisis and treatment to reduce chronic pain or extend a life that would still have quality not available to those who are already here, I think that no-one should get IVF free of charge, to be honest - then there are no issues with who does or doesn't qualify.

I think people struggle to see the pressure that the NHS is under because of the scope of services it offers.

Everyone wants their treatment to be #1 and thinks of it as being the most important.

But there aren't unlimited funds. It's not a case of denying a certain group treatment for the sake of discrimination or because nobody thinks it's important.

It just means that something else was deemed to be more effective and worth the money.

There are patient groups campaigning for access to cancer medications that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds per year for mere months of life. To those patients it's worth it. But when you look at the whole country and the good you could do with that money, it's just not reasonable.

I think you have point there OP, it's a confusing landscape with rules differing between areas.

Whatever the policy is, it should be consistent for all.

"But there aren't unlimited funds"

We could change this!

This is what this government wants you to do. It wants you to argue between yourselves/ourselves over who is more worthy of treatment, some of it bordering on eugenics, whilst they slowly dismantle the service altogether.

...should probably add that I have 2 DCs conceived through (self-funded) IVF, so I do understand the pain of infertility.

Personally I don't think that an already overstretched state service should be funding men to have second families. If money was plentiful then fair enough.
I think that fathers should concentrate on their first. All to often they don't do enough to support their first families when they start a second.
I am not saying all do this before anyone jumps on me. but that is the sad truth of a lot of dads in my experience. And the state all to often picks up the tab for the first family. I say that as the daughter of someone who remarried and has more kids. It's not fair on the op but the NHS is very stretched.
I don't agree with the postcode lottery though. It should be the same everywhere.

So this lady should ditch her husband, just because he was able to have a child with a previous partner.

Yes, that's what she's told now to shut her up.

But I bet if she really did ditch him, if she really took the logical conclusions from those irrational rules, the cries of "misandry!" would be resounding.

Funds will never be unlimited though. There is never going to be a service that pays for everything.

whilst they slowly dismantle the service altogether.

To be fair, I don't think the whole model of the NHS is fit for purpose any more. Its a shame, but we need a new answer to this problem.

Personally I don't think that an already overstretched state service should be funding men to have second families.

I quite agree. They should be funding women to have first families, though.

And why oh why can I not quite believe that they'd fund OP if she agreed to do it with donor sperm from a childless man?

I do think there should be a blanket rule with IVF - I understand those saying they don't think the NHS should provide it, and can't really argue against that despite my own infertility.

But what I disagree with is that IVF is predominantly a women receiving treatment, BUT whether or not she is eligible to receive that treatment relies entirely on the actions of a male partner that took place before their relationship even started.

The only women I know who have had free breast implants, are those who have had breast cancer.

Op you say that if you had a different partner you would be eligible. If I lived somewhere else I. Would have been eligible. But I didn't. So I paid up the £20k for of myself but think I got my money back from the NHS, c section birth and twins in nicu!

For what it's worth it doesn't matter whether your stepdaughter wad planned or not. Your dh didn't take sufficient contraceptive precautions. The was his choice.
💐