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?

The Nigerian lady came to UK on purpose . Nigerian ivf clinics have no scruples about implanting numerous fertilised eggs, and then advise patients facing multiple births to make it to a country with free healthcare. I think we need to demand that people visiting the UK prove that they have adequate health insurance before they are admitted. It's no use expecting doctors to act as gatekeepers.

I'm afraid that I think that ivf is not a necessary treatment - and I say that as someone who went down that route. The NHS needs to be stripped back to provide excellent essential care. I think there needs to be a real correction in people's expectations and demands.

And the story refers to another mother who had babies here and cost £350,000. Between those 3 ladies alone, that's 200 rounds of IVF that could have been funded.

It's v difficult, but if we are telling taxpayers that we can't afford to treat them, should we be treating non tax payers?

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.vanguardngr.com/2017/02/nigerian-mother-quadruplets-owes-london-hospital-n192-5m/amp/

mousy - I think if you're going to argue that you need to also argue that ALL maternity care is unnecessary and that having children is a lifestyle choice, therefore only those who can afford it privately should be able to have children.

(I would hope that no-one is that inhumane on here, but I am constantly surprised by Mumsnet).

Starting down the "essential" or "self inflicted" routes is a very dangerous path to start on. Where is the line drawn?

So resources should be prioritized to add to overpopulation as opposed to medicines for the existing population?

I don't buy the "overpopulation" argument. Overpopulation is caused by fertile people who have several children, not someone who needs IVF to have their first child.

If the NHS needs to save money - and I agree it does - it makes even less sense that some areas have different treatments. Wouldn't it save more money if the more stricter application of the rules applied across the board?

My issue is mainly the unevenness of it all, more than the fact savings need to be made. I always thought the NHS was one of those services where your treatment was the same in all parts of the UK.

IVF is extremely expensive. Given the state of the NHS funding I think we should to campaign for more funding in general so there is no postcode lottery and coverage is the same in every area.

In the meantime, if the rules are no coverage it should be consistent in every single area. I would also look at doing IVF in developing countries. Friends of ours went to Cuba and paid about $15k for 3 rounds. Worked well for them. I would imagine Poland, Czech Republic, Estonia and Latvia are all a lot cheaper plus easy to fly to for treatment.

I hate the 'we shouldn't be doing breast jobs on the NHS' argument.

First of all, the NHS is not giving boob jobs to women who just fancy a change. Breast reduction surgery normally occurs when someone is experiencing real problems from oversized breasts - in my case I couldn't sleep on my back because of the weight, I had constant back pain and my spine was beginning to warp. Breast enlargement tends to happen if a woman's breasts are severely asymmetrical (and we're not talking 'half a cup size difference', or have basically not developed at all.

It's not 'I wanna be a page 3 girl'. But it's always brought up as a 'waste' of NHS payment, because apparently constant pain and a warped spine should be something people should suck up or pay for.

I mean, in general, I hate the fight between 'undeserving' and 'deserving' NHS treatment but this one bugs me particularly.

YANBU. I believe IVF should be available on the NHS, fairly and without a postcode lottery. Means-testing is also a good idea.

Obviously life-threatening conditions are top priority for the NHS. But how many people on here have only ever used the NHS for something life-threatening? If a part of your body isn't working properly, and medicine can help, then the NHS will assist in nearly all cases.

There are numerous minor problems which aren't a danger to life, yet the NHS treats them. Given the choice, would most people rather live one of those, and have a family, or receive a cure for the mild condition but never be able to have children?

The NHS also spends far too much on preventable problems, such as the 40% of A&E admissions which are related to alcohol. For this reason I think alcohol should be more highly taxed.

Means-testing is also a good idea

it's a horrible idea! What does that even mean? the more tax your pay, the less you qualify? (or the reverse? the more tax you pay = the more you qualify)

'I hate the 'we shouldn't be doing breast jobs on the NHS' argument.

First of all, the NHS is not giving boob jobs to women who just fancy a change. Breast reduction surgery normally occurs when someone is experiencing real problems from oversized breasts - in my case I couldn't sleep on my back because of the weight, I had constant back pain and my spine was beginning to warp. Breast enlargement tends to happen if a woman's breasts are severely asymmetrical (and we're not talking 'half a cup size difference', or have basically not developed at all.

It's not 'I wanna be a page 3 girl'. But it's always brought up as a 'waste' of NHS payment, because apparently constant pain and a warped spine should be something people should suck up or pay for.

I mean, in general, I hate the fight between 'undeserving' and 'deserving' NHS treatment but this one bugs me particularly'

That's another example of postcode funding as I ended up having three lots of spinal surgery due to mine and still had to pay privately for a reduction.

I do wonder if in the long run the NHS will have to look at co-pay for non-life threatening conditions (I don't want to use the word non-essential).

Ultimately, I don't think IVF is unique - it's obviously very important and life changing for some people, but so is facial reconstruction surgery, or tattoo removal under some conditions (facial tattoos, gang tattoos etc), or breast reconstruction post-mastectomy, etc. And yes, some people would give anything for a child, but frankly, I'd have chosen the ability to stand up straight and get through a day without pain over that any time.

We all have different priorities. And right now the NHS can't afford to fund all of us equally, so we need to either increase NHS funding (which means paying a load more tax) or we need to come up with some fair and objective rules about what kind of conditions should be fully funded (cancer, schizophrenia, MND etc) and what kind of conditions are distressing but it's possible to live with and maybe need funded slightly differently.

I don't think IVF is unique though, and I think it needs to be looked at as part of the wider discussion about NHS funding.

Reactivedog - that sucks. I'm so sorry. I did get mine on the NHS, but had to wait 4 years, and I think I'd have gone private had I had to wait any longer.

'First of all, the NHS is not giving boob jobs to women who just fancy a change.'

It's also sometimes performed on young women whose breasts never formed due to cancer treatment.

NotReallyMeToday
Thank you, it ended up costing the NHS more in the long run I suppose, a whole summer stuck in the London Neuro can't have been cheap.

I can't work for the NHS anymore either but on balance I suppose that it still would have been a low percentage who ended up needing spinal surgery. So maybe my trust policy is right?

I can't pass over an IVF funding thread without making a few points...

....Yes it is unfair OP. I'm sorry that it is another heartbreaking aspect of infertility that you have to deal with. So much about IVF funding is unfair and the post code lottery really needs to end. So must the prevailing view that infertility is not worthy of funding when competing for scarce NHS resources. Unfortunately I think it is going to go the other way.

The UK spends much less as a percentage of GDP on healthcare than most of our European neighbours, and the rationing of services and the lower outcomes speak for themselves. The government are deliberately underfunding the NHS, and it's really easy to make infertile women a scapegoat for this. Anyone who has experienced infertility will know that the lack of empathy and understanding from the majority of the population makes this even easier.

I'm glad to see people here challenging some of the poorly constructed arguments that IVF should not be funded on the NHS. I'm no doubt repeating some of the arguments already made but I can't not add my voice and support.

I find it hard to agree that treating infertility is somehow a lifestyle choice. If having a family is a 'want' rather than a 'need' then by the reasoning given above, parents should be self-funding maternity care. What about treatment after a sporting injury - should you get free treatment if you've just been indulging your love of a dangerous hobby? Or if you're only in a little bit of pain? You could live with that, right?

Personally, I don't believe in rationing based on characteristics of the recipient and think clinical need should be the decider and that includes IVF. It is easy (and crass as PP pointed out) to make it very emotive by making it a choice between IVF and cancer care or treating sick children, but in reality these are not the decisions to be made. The NHS is not just for those who are dying, most care is to improve lives rather than save them. We need proper funding levels, not fighting over who does or does not deserve to be treated.

The nhs is being deliberately under funded. The government are setting the majority of UK taxpayers up against one another and most ppl are playing to that. We will all suffer though, short and long term. Either directly ourselves it through family members.

Would it be a better idea if we were able to say everyone in the country could have 1 go at ivf? With previous children or withpit? And if they use 1 then that's their go, and if they end up with a new partner they don't get another free go?

Or would it be fairer if they use the partners free go?

I don't know the answer, I do think it's rubbish that it's a postcode lottery, it definitely should be the same for anyone where ever they love

OP this is the governments website that publishes clinics success rates guide.hfea.gov.uk/guide/AdvancedSearch.aspx

btw I do agree the NHS postcode lottery is unfair, but as I said earlier blindly accepting NHS funding and possibly being sent to an unsuccessful clinic is pointless (unless it is absolutely your only choice). Focus your energy on research.

I agree with much of the pro ivf sentiment on this thread. I don't think, however, that the reluctance to fund is anything to do with it being a deserving cause or not. Isn't it that it's likely to be unsuccessful?

It would be interesting to investigate whether the government's reluctance to fund ivf in the NHS is in any way related to the number of private fertility clinics compared to other forms of medical care, and how persuasive the lobbyists are.

Sorry I don't think ivf should be on the NHS at all. By all means treat the other issues, as they can cause serious problems.

This coming from someone who struggles to get pregnant and carry a baby.

Harsh reality is that you will have to pay privately.

ShottaSherrif very good post.
Some people on this thread sound really selfish and do seem to lack empathy.
When you are struggling to conceive and imagine your life childless it doesn't feel like a "want" but a "need".
As lots of posters pointed out, other body malfctions (which is what infertility is) are treated even if they are not life threatening - chronic pain, to use a random example - too easy to say something is "a want, not a need" when it doesn't affect you.

(I did IVF privately for personl reasons, I am not bitter about the money spent as I was eligible for NHS rounds, but not everybody can afford it)

I really think there is a discussion to be had regarding the disregard wrt women's health issues tbh. They are brushed off/ignored and I found this myself. Not all women have an easy ride getting any treatment all for thing like menorrhagia which can be a symptom of other issues, then by the time you get investigation it might have caused secondary complications. It's no joke really. Hence why I feel medical ethics should be general and accross the board. A woman who bleeds so heavily and is in so much pain cyclical each month should not just be brushed off as 'one of those things' I think most of us have gone on to to diagnosis for further investigation and dx of gynae issues.

The trouble is that IVF isn't hugely successful. Often the first round is almost a 'trial' round - of course for some the first round works - but we were told doses etc would be tweaked on subsequent rounds. So if the NHS is funding one round and one round only there is at best only a 1 in 3 chance of success.
We self funded - unsuccessfully - as we already had a child. We had three unsuccessful rounds at a cost of £20k. We had male factor infertility and I was only 29 at the time so not that old.

I do think there should be more consistent rules but it's a tricky one. If it had a better success rate I would say yes it should be funded but actually it really doesn't. It's a gamble every single time and the odds are always against you.