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?

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.

Indeed. Seems the NHS paying for IVF is mainly a means of guaranteeing a man's right to a male- heir.

It is unfair, but while we have a government that is ideologically defunding the NHS in order to sell it off piecemeal, that's just how it is.

There have to be priorities set, and, while we have situations where there is not a single actue MH NHS bed in the country, then, with the greatest respect to the OP's position, she does come lower down in the queue.

I sincerely hope you find some help with your predicament.

Infertility is a disease just as much as other diseases and if IVF can overcome that and improve quality of life that to me is worth spending money on. Lots of NHS money is spent on improving quality of life it's not all about saving lives.

AFAIK the independent body that makes these recommendations recommends women?/couples? (I'm not sure which) are offered 3 rounds of ivf. My understanding is that most areas don't do this. Imho everywhere in the country should be offered the same. I don't know about previous children.

So sorry to hear you are having these problems op. It's really shit.

The postcode lottery is incredibly unfair.

The Royal Family are probably the only people who would have fertility screening done before marriage so the person who suggested marrying childless partners are being unfair.

I think there should be NHS posters everywhere telling women the IVF rules so that we can make informed choices. I honestly had no idea about this. Will be telling all my friends too so they can taking the info into the dating arena.

My partner didn't have children when we met. It was years before we found out he couldn't without ivf!

I am in a position to save and I will, so I count myself lucky in that at least.

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I don't believe IVF should be available on the NHS full stop. Not being able to have a child is not life threatening and diverts funding away from more critical care.

I do think there should be a blanket rule with IVF

Absolutely this. The current system is a postcode lottery and the rules confusing and outdated.

Infertility is a disease

Actually, this isn't strictly true. Infertility is actually a symptom of a wide range of diseases. IVF won't cure any of the underlying diseases so therefore can't really be described as a 'cure'.

Given the cost & budget constraints etc it must be right that the treatment is rationed, e.g. it mightn't be the best use of resources to fund patients who are young enough to maybe conceive naturally; old enough that even IVF is highly unlikely to work; already have kids; etc.

This said the rationing rules that we have might not be right, e.g. it might be fairer to only take into account whether the woman had previously had the treatment?

My ignorance here but OP describes her "partner" as just that, a partner, if she's not married then is there anything much to stop her registering for IVF as a single person?

BUT whether or not she is eligible to receive that treatment relies entirely on the actions of a male partner

In my PCT (or whatever the correct term is these days) the same rules apply for sterilisation. I am not eligible as a "might meet a man who wants children".

OP I am so sorry. Infertility is the worst thing I have ever gone through. But there just aren't the funds in the NHS to cope with all the services it needs to provide

This discussion has been had on here many times. Lots of NHS treatments could be called "non essential". Personally my view is that infertility often has an underlying medical cause that deserves treatment in the same way as any other medical issue. If the underlying cause can't be found then clearly the body is still not working properly and given that IVF is an available treatment it should be, well, available if you have no children of your own. If the evidence is that 3 cycles are likely to be more effective then that's what should be available.

OP I also had previously undiagnosed endometriosis which caused secondary infertility. I also could not get fertility treatment on the NHS because I already had a child (which is fair enough). Thankfully having my endo cleared seemed to work in the end but I still had private rounds of IUI before the end was diagnosed.

the same rules apply for sterilisation. I am not eligible as a "might meet a man who wants children

So your need for permanent contraception is trumped by the needs of any man (whom you've never met) out there in the world?

This is the kind of illogical stuff I am angry about in the NHS.

The NHS does have to prioritise, but then so does our wider society. We are reminded almost daily by politicians and economists about our ageing population and the associated consequences. Barring a program of culling pensioners, immigration and increased birth rate are the only mitigations I can think of. A few thousand pounds helping a couple who want to have kids sounds like a bloody good investment to me.

Hope you get there somehow OP.

Expat - I think it is easy to make that decision at the start of a relationship and I've made decisions about things that were deal breakers, including one who didn't want children as that was a complete deal breaker for me.

DP and I are now facing fertility issues, and currently it is male factor - we're awaiting tests for me (which I've paid privately for). I love him and if I have a child, I want it to be our child. Mainly because we have a happy relationship and a child is an extension of that. I cannot imagine now leaving him to find someone else because he has not been able to get me pregnant yet.

I'm not sure how I feel about IVF being available on the NHS. It is struggling so much so I understand the reasons it shouldn't be but now that it is potentially the only way we will have a child I wish that it was freely available. I certainly think it should be fair. When DP and I moved in together, I moved to his town. If he'd moved to mine we would qualify for a lot more help than we might get here.

Infertility isn't a disease but adenomyosis and endometriosis are, and infertility is one of their symptoms.

There are quite a lot of people who have IVF for "unexplained infertility" - ie no illnesses like the above detected - do they get that IVF on the NHS?

Don't most people know someone who had IVF, which either failed or was successful, who afterwards conceived a child naturally? Surely in those happy cases it shows that there wasn't really any real infertility in play and someone's money has been spent on something it didn't really need to be spent on?

OP

Thank you all for your kinds words. I am also really enjoying the discussion, despite my stresses and fears.

So your need for permanent contraception is trumped by the needs of any man (whom you've never met) out there in the world

Pretty much.

Not to hijack your thread but the reason I want to be sterilised is that I want an ablation for bad periods. I am also infertile and wouldn't get any help to have another child as I have secondary infertility.

Women's health is laughably treated by the NHS

Herotherhalf - Exactly. I don't think many people understand the demographic crisis you've laid out there. People have been trained like Pavlov's dogs to think that the problem is too many people, too few resources. The idea that we might actually require a growing population, not a falling one, for pensions and the welfare state to work as projected doesn't seem to have occurred to many. I wonder if this is THE great unspoken contradiction of our times.

Agree @balloonslayer. Where people are diagnosed with unexplained infertility then it usually means they don't know if anything's even wrong in the first place (or what's wrong). IVF treatments for these couples are seen as a waste of time even by clinics and that's why many expect those couples to have ttc for at least 2 years and sometimes even longer if they're younger than 30. All of the unexplained crowd I know have had several 'natural' kids after IVF so it suggests they didn't need the IVF in the first place - one even got her IVF cycle at the age of 21 then had five natural babies back to back which is shocking because I would have thought the clinics would have told such a young woman to wait longer.

I personally think IVF should only be offered on the nhs if infertility is as a result of a known disease/condition eg severe pcos, endometriosis, azoospermia, Cancer etc.

No worries Jacques - this is really the crux of the matter to me. I worded my OP badly. I am angry about the confusion that abounds, the illogical arguments for differing treatment. Not the fact that the NHS has limited funds. I really feel for you too!

I don't understand the sterilisation rules either as I was refused one as well as I am not 40 and it carries its own risk
I have three children, one severely disabled with no actual concrete cause or diagnosis. I've had three c sections, I'm riddled with fibroids, I can't take hormonal contraception as I'm really sensitive to it, I've had an endometrial ablation so couldn't carry a baby to term anyway.
The only reason I can't think of no being a candidate for sterilisation is that I'm a woman and surely this is where ethics cone into play. Either women meet criteria for sterilisation or they don't.
Same with ivf. It's either available to childless women with endometriosis or it isn't.
I'm a bit sick of women being at the brunt of everything. Gynae problems are often painful and debilitating and take years to get diagnosed too. I don't find it it terribly fair tbh.

I was 1 day too old in my area when I was referred so no NHS ivf for us. If I'd lived in the neighbouring county Id have got it. Its unfair and it should not be a postcode lottery. As it happened we decided to use an egg donor and went abroad.

I'm sorry for what you're going through but I don't agree.

IVF is extremely expensive and its success rates could at best be described as patchy. The country does not have an issue with a falling population so it's not in the best interests of the NHS to divert funds from other treatments to fund IVF.

Again, I'm sorry for what you're going through and I wish you much luck.