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 very hard. I've had IVF myself x 3 and I had to go private as I had a child already. I'm aware that lots of people simply can't for financial reasons. As others have said, it's the postcode lottery that I find most unfair.

Egg sharing is an option but you shouldn't go into that lightly. Think carefully about how you feel about another couple having a baby that has your DNA (especially if your own IVF isn't successful). I'm a firm believer that the parent is the person that raises a child and I'm entirely comfortable with egg donation but I do think that many clinics rush people into that option without them fully considering the implications, which to done are enormous.

Also don't underestimate the stress of IVF. It's a hard process even without a financial burden.

I eventually conceived naturally. If there is hope of that route succeeding and time is on your side, my advice would be not to rush into fertility treatment.

Do people really think that defunding fertility treatments will help save the NHS?! The NHS spends approximately £400,000,000 per year on fertility treatments out of a budget of (in 2015/2016) £116,000,000,000. That's, if my maths is right, 3% of the annual budget.

Part of the problem is that the clinics the NHS use are charging anything between £3,000-£6,000 per cycle to the NHS. In reality the cost should be the same for every cycle across the country. If clinics can charge private patients £3,500 per cycle why can't the same rate, or less owing to number of patients, be paid by the NHS?

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

Presumably the same rules apply to men who are infertile but who's partners already have children though. So it isn't sexist.

It is available to everyone if they are prepared to pay - it's just not free on the NHS. Seems fair to me.

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".

They openly admit this?

Wow.

It really is all about men's rights to have male heirs.

The sterilisation thing is nuts.

They openly admit this

Pretty much a direct quote: of course they tried to dress it up with "and what happens if you meet a partner who wants children, you might change your mind".

I said "then they're not the partner for me" thinking it would shut down the discussion. But Nope. However if my partner didn't want children we could visit together 😭

Yes I think the rules are very unfair. A lot about the NHS is unfair.Sometimes I think it would be better if the NHS stopped offering IVF to anyone as it seems to be on its knees already and unable to offer help to chronically sick people. I agree that the postcode lottery is outrageous and should not be tolerated in a democracy.

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.

I said ageing, not falling. We do have a problem and it is very real. Google if you don't believe me.

Presumably the same rules apply to men who are infertile but who's partners already have children though. So it isn't sexist.

Only if you don't look too closely.

The fact is that in most cases, the mother is the primary carer. Which means that a family where the woman already has a child is a family with a child.

A family where the man already fathered a child with another woman is, in most cases, a childless family. Perhaps one where children visit at the weekend. Which is not the same as having children.

Also, a man can father children pretty much until the end of his life.

For a woman who spends her fertile years with a man who already fathered a child with someone else, that's it. Even if it doesn't work out and she divorces him, she's not going to have children.

The assisted conception system is inherently unfair in it's current form, given the inconsistency between areas.

However I personally don't believe IVF/IUI/AC should be funded by the NHS at all. It's not really a health issue. Not being able to have children doesn't impact on your health (though of course I understand it can affect your mental health). I don't agree that it's a disease.

The exception to this IMO should be sperm and egg freezing for people undergoing cancer treatments that would otherwise negate their fertility.

@owllady for you. Your posts are so compassionate and wise, I had no idea you were going through all of that.

Women do have a right to treatment for diseases of the reproductive system which cause infertility. And I agree, it seems entirely unfair to make a decision about a woman's medical requirements based on the reproductive history of 2 other people.

The NHS should have a more cohesive nationwide policy on this, but it's unlikely to happen as the NHS continues to splinter off. As previous posters have said, this is exactly what the government want you to do - people relying on the NHS making judgements about who is 'worthy', with the ultimate aim of making the NHS unworkable so that they can bring in the private companies that so many government ministers personally stand to benefit from .

And we shouldn't forget that actually, the NHS spends thousands of pounds on almost every non-IVF baby. It's easy to be sanctimonious about priorities and limited funds, but if you're a parent and made use of NHS maternity healthcare, or gave birth in an NHS hospital or birth unit, then the NHS also funded your choice to have children.

It is possible for the NHS to provide a fair system for infertility treatment along with other services, but it's in the interests of the government to make the NHS as unworkable as they possibly can.

I personally think as woman are having babies later in life - that there should be some sort of insurance policy that covers 3 cycles. I'm sure many woman would chip in just in case they find themselves in this position.

No it's not essential - but it is unfair

Presumably the same rules apply to men who are infertile but who's partners already have children though. So it isn't sexist.

In one sense you're right; but like I said, it would be the female partner receiving the treatment. So she wouldn't be able to receive the treatment because she already had her own child. Which still sucks but ultimately as it is a procedure on the female it makes more sense.

Woman can't receive NHS treatment because of her own choices even though her childless partner wants a child = shitty situation but she is the patient.

Woman can't receive NHS treatment due to the choices of a partner before she was in a relationship with him = even shittier because she has no control of the situation.

Your point is certainly valid though because it's not the fault of the male in this scenario that he is biologically unable to get pregnant! So it is still unfair. But ultimately, I don't think it is fair to deny a woman NHS treatment based on the life choices of her partner.

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

I hope this is a joke of some kind?

I don't think anyone should get IVF on the NHS.

that's not me saying infertility is not heartbreaking. That's the fact that the NHS cannot afford IVF if it cannot afford to treat babies already here.

The exception to this IMO should be sperm and egg freezing for people undergoing cancer treatments that would otherwise negate their fertility.

Why?

Life is also fucking unfair. So many people who would be amazing parents struggle to get there, and some never do. Mother Nature can be an absolute bitch sometimes

Vestal

I actually agree with you, yes I see it probably is particularly unfair on women (as usual).

Those who say that nobody should ever get any fertility treatment on the NHS if it can't afford to treat babies who are already here - should the NHS withdraw all funding for all maternity treatment/ birth units on the same basis ?

What about any treatment for men's reproductive health which may affect their ability to reproduce? Should the NHS withdraw all treatment for erectile dysfunction, on the basis that it might lead to more pregnancies ?

The exception to this IMO should be sperm and egg freezing for people undergoing cancer treatments that would otherwise negate their fertility.

Don't understand this - why should infertility for one reason be treated differently from infertility for another?

So if I understand this, the NHS is a national system, paid for by taxes. So everyone is paying basically the same for it (a certain percentage of their earnings?) regardless of where they live. But the services provided differ based on where you live. How does that work? If something is 'national' shouldn't the rules be the same for everyone?

Could the OP move into another area where IVF is covered for her or is there some type of waiting period that makes doing that difficult?

Sorry if these questions sound silly. I live in the US where IVF is never covered under Govt-funded Medicaid. But whether a person lives in California or New York the services Medicaid does pay for are the same.

I feel for the poster, but this is what is wrong with the NHS. The NHS should be about protecting us from life/death situations. It should not be used for lifestyle choices. Sorry, but I feel if you wish to have kids, either pay for them with your partner, or find another partner.

That being said, if a facility exists within the NHS, then use it. You may have to make a decision about your partner though. Keep him, and no IVF, or find someone else. Sorry!

I don't think it is fair.

Ivf is either offered to childless women with endometriosis or it isn't, choosing that one woman can have it and one can't because of where they live in the UK, or one woman can't because her husband contributed 50% of his DNA to a child years ago - not on.