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 there are people who already exist whose existing medical conditions affect their reproductive health. They should be able to access the medical treatment required to address their medical condition.

Sorry worried, my response was also to Dingdong rather than to you .

Um, portico, you might think that your being overweight is a lifestyle choice, but that is not a universal truth. And the only reason you shouldn't be able to access medical treatment at a certain BMI should be because it would lower the rate of success or pose other unreasonable risks to you. Not as a punishment. Not because fat people don't deserve medical treatment as a result of their choices. I hope you know you still deserve to be treated by a fair and reasonable society.

Of course the people with infertility exist, but there isn't enough money for everything. Existing people should come before making new people, if you have to choose. And you do.
In a direct comparison: you have to put drugs for a child with cancer above ivf. There can't be any question about that. And it is that stark, the nhs is nearly bankrupt, you can't keep spending money that isn't there.

But it's not as simple as "cancer treatment v IFV" though. That is a very simplistic, and not realistic way to look at it.

And let's not forget that cancer treatment can also be a cause of infertility!

And without knowing the actual numbers, if everyone paid for their own (cheap) contraception, it'd free up funds to pay for (more expensive) IVF for those who need it.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

But it's not as simple as "cancer treatment v IFV" though. That is a very simplistic, and not realistic way to look at it

Oh but it is. You like to think it more complicated, but its actually very simple. There isn't enough money, choices have to be made. It really is that simple.

And you do. In a direct comparison: you have to put drugs for a child with cancer above ivf.

What about nuclear weapons? Or massive infrastructure projects? Or tax relief for Google and Facebook? Wouldn't you rather put cancer drugs for a child above those? Why are we turning the NHS into a gladiatorial arena where sick and suffering individuals are set against each other in competition as to who is most deserving when surely being sick or suffering makes them all deserving of more from other areas?

you have to put drugs for a child with cancer above ivf
Dont do this.
I HATE it when people do this.

Don't use children with cancer in this argument. Its offensive and crass.

Kath I am sorry for your struggles. I hope you can get the help you deserve and you get the family you want one day.

I find it offensive and crass to NOT put it in stark terms like that.

Oh but it is
Bollocks is it

I find it offensive and crass to NOT put it in stark terms like that
I find it offensive and crass for people with no understanding of medical ethics to co opt my child's experience to back up their spurious arguments and justify their idiocy.

boopy my religion has a very clear stance on abortions, but even I can see that sparing an unwanted foetus from a lifetime of misery/neglect/poverty/abuse/reminding its mother of her rapist is a better solution than no abortion on the NHS. What a ridiculous analogy.

MrsDV

Oh but it is. You like to think it more complicated, but its actually very simple. There isn't enough money, choices have to be made. It really is that simple.

But by not funding IVF treatment for a couple then NHS could easily end up finding a lifetime of mental health treatment for that couple as understandably that is a trigger for a lot of people who struggle.

And we go back to the same point - existing people are suffering with diseases of the reproductive system.

I don't agree with it being available on the NHS either. Children and adults are being denied treatment due to costs yet we can spare the money on IVF to provide people with something they want not need.

What would be better is for the treatment to be done at cost plus a little extra that can be used elsewhere.

It does all come down to medical ethics which is frustrating as each health trust seem to have their own guidelines which aren't coherent with another.

What child has ever been turned away for cancer treatment?
Despite all these selfish people wanting IVF babies has any child been told 'sorry mate, we need that money for fertility treatment. You will have to go home and die'

They spent tens of thousands on my DD's treatment with no guarantee of a cure.
No child is turned away. NHS will fund treatment in the USA for children with only 25% chance of remission.

So. Tell me again how simple it all is.

The thread has moved on while that post got stuck...

It isn't simply a choice between life-saving drugs for children or providing medical treatment for women with diseases of the reproductive system. As Epoxy explains, in a first-world country with a universal healthcare system, we should be able to provide the healthcare required for all, not forcing people to prove their worthiness before being able to access healthcare.

Let's not pretend that this government's willingness to run the NHS into the ground is anything other than deliberate.

Mrs DV

*Today 16:07 Owllady

It does all come down to medical ethics which is frustrating as each health trust seem to have their own guidelines which aren't coherent with another

This is exactly right. I used to get very frustrated when I worked in a London teaching hospital. Frustrated at what we're wasteful descisions and what I felt were people deserving of some treatments not given it on the basis of cost.

That's why we have ethics comittees, so that others can take a more clear headed approach I suppose.

I pragmatically think that there has to be some kind of cut-off and if one person in a couple has a child, that couple is technically not childless. It is a total bitch though, obviously. The postcode lottery is much less fair, when we all pay in to the NHS to an equal extent.

As a same sex couple we went straight for private IVF, so I have no experience of NHS IVF, but I know many straight couples who have had it. Most needed more than just the one cycle and ended up paying out a substantial amount over and above the funded treatment. IVF is more of a process than a one stop shop and the first cycle can be more of a diagnostic process than a fix.

Definitely look into clinics abroad such as Serum, they are a lot cheaper and have great success rates. Good luck!