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?

Herotherhalf - my post wasn't a response to yours, I hadn't even read it when I posted.

*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?*

My belief is that eggs and sperm freezing should be offered prior to chemo/radiotherapy which could affect fertility. Not the actual IVF/AC part of it which would have to be self-funded.

I see it as part of the cancer treatment rather than an infertility treatment.

The NHS should be about protecting us from life/death situations. It should not be used for lifestyle choices.

So no hip replacements or reconstructive surgery, then? My husband's asthma makes life a bit unpleasant for him, but isn't bad enough to kill - no inhaler for him?

I'd just point out again that the NHS spends an awful lot more on maternity services than it does on IVF. It's not only the infertile where having children means the NHS paying for your 'lifestyle choice'.

"The NHS should be about protecting us from life/death situations. It should not be used for lifestyle choices."

Health and lifestyle are so intertwined, you could never make this stand up as a differentiation in any kind of practice. Someone having a heart attack after a lifetime of fried food, is that included? Someone who has "chosen" to live in an urban area and is therefore exposed to fumes, causing severe respiratory problems in the longer term? What about someone who "chose" to have children, then had a difficult birth through no fault of their own?

Also, life and death are often a matter of intervention. I cut myself in my garden, and it gets infected. If I see a doctor early, it's not 'life or death'. If I don't, and I get tetanus, it might be but it also costs £££ compared to the price of a cheap pack of antibiotics.

I do wish people would stop treating the argument that resources are constrained as some God-given law. Resources in the NHS are constrained because our government CHOOSES not to fund properly. Look around you, we live in a wealthy country, and we can use policy and tax to ensure that services are properly funded if we want to.

"So no hip replacements or reconstructive surgery, then? My husband's asthma makes life a bit unpleasant for him, but isn't bad enough to kill - no inhaler for him? "

The above comes under what should be provided by the NHS.

But you raise an interesting point. The NHS is a money guzzler, we are aging population. Something has to give.

Women's gynaecological conditions are not a lifestyle choice. The OP didn't choose to have endometriosis, which is a cyclical painful and debilitating condition. If she didn't have endometriosis she wouldn't need fertility treatment.

I understand the need for these issues to be discussed but ethics do come into play, which is why the guidelines should either cover women with these conditions or not but women don't choose to have gynae conditions or diseases. They are rarely talked about because of the stigma surrounding it, but that's another issue entirely.

Thank you shovetheholly :)

I read this thread because I think of my poor niece who has never really wanted anything out of life except a child, and it's not going to happen. She had one cycle of IVF on the NHS which failed; but then she broke up with her DP and by the time she had been long enough with the lovely chap she is now married to she was deemed "too old".

I suppose there have to be such rules but it seems hard on her.

Darla21 Are you aware that there are some of my gender who are better than sperm-donors and that many women want more than just a sperm-donor?

I'd just point out again that the NHS spends an awful lot more on maternity services than it does on IVF.

How is that an argument for spending on that, PLUS IVF and then more maternity services?

Why does the NHS even have to know your partner has fathered a child with someone else. There must be men out there who have fathered children they don't even know about. So presumably they would be entitled to free IVF. The system is crazy. The NHS is not fit for purpose. Sad as it is the NHS will go private in the end unless it gets its act together and makes some tough decisions.

It's funny, people who argue IVF shouldn't be available on the NHS seem to have no problem with contraception being available on the NHS.

It's two sides of the same coin, IMO, so either both should be within remit of NHS or neither should.

Portico, does your argument about children being a lifestyle choice also apply to non-IVF children born within the NHS?

I have 2 children- my husband and I made that lifestyle choice. The NHS paid for my maternity care, my hospital stay while I gave birth, follow-up midwife visits, health visitor services. The NHS has paid for my children's GP visits, and a couple of (thankfully minor) hospital visits for them. The NHS paid for my medical treatment for the multiple miscarriages I suffered when I made the lifestyle choice to have children. At no point have I had ivf.

So my choice to have children probably has cost the NHS thousands. And I'm willing to bet that at least some of the posters on this thread who proclaim that the NHS shouldn't pay for people to have children have used it to do exactly that.

The NHS shouldn't be life or death only. It is, if run effectively for the benefit of patients rather than politicians , a cost-efficient way to provide healthcare for all .

How is that an argument for spending on that, PLUS IVF and then more maternity services?

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.

It's funny, people who argue IVF shouldn't be available on the NHS seem to have no problem with contraception being available on the NHS

How is that funny? Contraception costs very little and saves the nhs money. IVF costs a lot and then costs the nhs even more money.

Bit surprised anyone needs that explaining, tbh.

I think the unfair bit is that the rules aren't the same nationwide. The criteria should be clear and the same, it shouldn't depend where you live. A line will always need to be drawn somewhere

I am not purposely being mean or heartless, but we have a bottomless money grabber in the NHS. Everytime you fill up a tank of £40, about £35 goes to the NHS, you get £5 of fuel. If you smoke, its about 80% of the cost goes to the NHS. It needs to be reformed.

But if the facility exists, use it and game any way you can to exploit it. My issue is at a policy level as to what should be included/excluded. I also speak as a former NHS professional.

Why should the NHS's lack of funds be borne by people with genuine medical or physiological conditions, such as those suffering from infertility, instead of being borne by - say - tax dodging corporations and super high earners? Why should we be choosing between one infertile woman and another based on anything other than need and the absence of contraindications?

I don't think it's fair, not for one second, and the number of people who think it's okay to tell someone we won't remedy the symptoms of their condition because someone in a high tower somewhere isn't inputting into society in a proportional manner; I think the Tories have done a bloody good job turning us all into a self-policing herd of enablers to the rich and powerful. How dare you ask for the basics (in the context of a first world county) when there isn't enough to go round?? Except there is enough to go round. It just isn't "going round".

Why wouldn't IVF be available on the NHS? If the symptoms of your condition mean you lose your hearing, should the NHS restore it? What if they can't identify what's causing you to go deaf but they could still restore your hearing, should they? So you lose your fertility to a known or unknown condition, why wouldn't the NHS cover that?

Havent read all posts so appologies if repeating.

I did IVF 10 years ago, assume things havent changed much, but getting IVF free on NHS isnt necessarily a good thing.

I was in Hampshire at the time and could have got 2 free cycles. I was given the choice of 2 NHS clinics, was advised they were both much the same. Googling HFEA (not sure they exist anymore) results showed that their sucess rates were something like 5% and 12%. No further breakdown by diagnosis was available. One clinic was later shut down as it had lost embroys.

I was lucky enough that NHS agreed to fund my medication and I took that to a private clinic with a success rate of 50% for my particular diagnosis.

You will probably still find vast differences in sucess rates and that some clinics are better at treating particular causes of infertility than others. Prices also vary greatly according to what you require. Do your research, chose wisely and best of luck.

Across, yes, it is a national system paid for by various methods of taxation; yes, you would expect that access to services should be uniform across the country. The issue is that the current government have a vested interest -both ideological and for the purposes of personal financial gain - in the NHS failing so that even more of its services are privatised. Our current health secretary even co-authored a book recommending the abolition of the NHS.

EpoxyResin, I agree enforcement should require tax avoiders and evaders to cough up. But, we are taxed ti the hilt anyway. It's now about making policy decisions about how we can make the most of the NHS budget, and the rules about what is free and not free.

The OP's decision to have IVF, I suppose given her condition isfair. But, where do you draw the line.

Contraception costs very little and saves the nhs money

Is the point of the NHS to save money? Through population control? Then maternity services also shouldn't be on the NHS.

Why does the NHS even have to know your partner has fathered a child with someone else

Because most people are decent and honest. When my DH and I first went to our GP he asked for our details, including any known fertility issues, at which my DH said "No, I have an 8 year old daughter". We knew beforehand that it would rule us out for IVF on the NHS but would not have considered lying.

When we saw an IVF consultant (knowing by this point that actually it was male factor infertility), she questioned whether or not DH had actually fathered his DD "given his stats". Ignoring that fertility is known to decline over time....she then had the cheek to say "Because if she is not biologically yours and your ex has lied, then you would be eligible!". Fucking yay. Let's open up that can of worms!

I shut her down immediately and said I'd rather pay for treatment than question the paternity of my lovely DSD and risk our relationship with her and her mum.

We - as a county - are not taxed to the hilt. Us middle earners are taxed to the hilt. THAT is the policy decision.

I don't draw the line at remedying a medical or physiological condition that affects someone's quality of life in such a profound and fundamental way as not being able to have children. I think that is so far away from the line, the discussion of where the line should be needn't even be on the table in this context!

Sorry, I was replying to you portico :)

"I am not purposely being mean or heartless, but we have a bottomless money grabber in the NHS. Everytime you fill up a tank of £40, about £35 goes to the NHS, you get £5 of fuel. If you smoke, its about 80% of the cost goes to the NHS. It needs to be reformed."

This is ridiculous, and wrong! We don't have earmarked taxes in the UK. The tax you pay on a tank of fuel goes on a whole range of public services, not just the NHS.

What we do have is dissuasive taxes - like that on cigarettes - which is supposed to hurt people who smoke in the wallet, in order to prompt them to give up.