Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To lie so I can have a baby?

481 replies

LittleMissNew · 12/10/2017 13:49

very very long story short, I am desperate for a baby, DP and I have discussed it and its something we both really want

Problem is DP already has one DC - 9 and when I started going to the doctors saying we have been TTC for over a year she asked if we had any previous children living with us. I said no and she said good because otherwise you cant have IVF on the NHS if you do

I asked why it makes a difference and she explained that if my partner has his child living with us I can play parent to that child so therefore wouldn't be eligible.

At the time my DP's DC was not living with us but circumstances have changed and now she does.

However, there is nothing "in writing" to say she lives with us, no court orders, DP still pays his exw child maintenance and his exw still claims child benefit (don't get me started on all this its a whole other topic)

Her school and doctors address are still registered with her mum so how could the powers that be prove otherwise if I say no when it actually comes down to possibly having IVF? (I'm still being investigated medically at this stage)

I know morally I'm being wrong but I desperately want a baby and we can't afford IVF and to say that I can play parent to his DC couldn't be further from the truth, I have no say in what she does or doesn't do and she doesn't treat me like a stepmum.
Don't get me wrong we rub alone just fine but she has difficulty accepting her mum and dad splitting up - even though they had been split for a good 4 years before I came along - she's been used to having her dad to herself and I think she resents us being together in a way so I cant hope to be any sort of mum figure to her for the foreseeable at least.

I just think it's unfair that I'm being penalised for something that is out of my control.

OP posts:
Ifearthecold · 12/10/2017 23:34

We don't use moral judgements with most health care, imagine if we did this with smoking induced lung cancer or type two diabetes caused by diet and weight issues. There are many health issues which have been triggered by personal lifestyle choices which are treated without a second thought, why are reproductive issues which are rarely caused by lifestyle choices singled out for this? If we need to limit NHS services more than NICE guidelines advocate a more open and honest discussion about what can and cannot be afforded by the country should take place and then be evenly applied. Right stopping now, riding hobby horse is rarely a good look!

zzzzz · 12/10/2017 23:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ShellyBoobs · 12/10/2017 23:42

It's ironic that such a large proportion of people on this thread are in favour of the OP doing exactly the same thing just because she really, really wants to - I bet they would have taken just the opposite view regarding the other situation!

Definitely.

The thing with a great many MNers is they think someone else should pay all the taxes and they should get to spend them.

Thread after thread of 'me, me, me' and massive entitlement.

mintteaandbananabread · 12/10/2017 23:44

We don't use moral judgements with most health care, imagine if we did this with smoking induced lung cancer or type two diabetes caused by diet and weight issues. There are many health issues which have been triggered by personal lifestyle choices which are treated without a second thought, why are reproductive issues which are rarely caused by lifestyle choices singled out for this?

For one thing we do make judgements, we don't give you a new liver if you are still drinking, or new lungs if you are smoking. There are plenty of procedures you can't have if you are overweight significantly.
And for another thing there is a difference between treating people for things that can kill them, and for treating them to create a child.

Cinderllaspinkdresswasthebest · 12/10/2017 23:59

PrettyLittleBrownEyedMe Thu 12-Oct-17 23:28:37
I can't help but be reminded of a recent thread where someone asked for ways they could (legitimately) pay less tax. She was almost universally slated for considering 'wrongfully' depriving the state of some money. It's ironic that such a large proportion of people on this thread are in favour of the OP doing exactly the same thing just because she really, really wants to - I bet they would have taken just the opposite view regarding the other situation!

You're equating a tax to an inability to have children??? oh behave Hmm

Cinderllaspinkdresswasthebest · 13/10/2017 00:05

Thread after thread of 'me, me, me' and massive entitlement.

Not sure about thread after thread but yes, It would be all about me in the OP's situation. Having children should never be the privilege of the wealthy who can afford IVF - hence my post up thread.

Cinderllaspinkdresswasthebest · 13/10/2017 00:08

For one thing we do make judgements, we don't give you a new liver if you are still drinking, or new lungs if you are smoking. There are plenty of procedures you can't have if you are overweight significantly.

I work in the NHS and I can say that you're wrong in some of what you claim.

SD1978 · 13/10/2017 00:13

I would continue to access IVF. You don’t have a child, the one living with you is doing so intermittently, and I don’t see why that should be a consideration anyway. This seems like a very silly rule. You’re entitled to try for your own child only if you don’t have one you can play parent to, because that should be enough. I can’t blame you for not updating the info. I wouldn’t either

MargaretRiver · 13/10/2017 00:35

If the true costs are as Cavemum states, then the NHS should fund IVF with the same system it uses to fund dentistry ( except more realistically priced)

They should announce the fixed fee they will pay (eg £3000) and private clinics can decide to take it or leave it

If that fee is not profitable in expensive areas then patients can travel

R2G · 13/10/2017 00:54

YANBU

Italiangreyhound · 13/10/2017 01:38

OP can I also suggest you explore IUI (Intrauterine insemination). It is hundreds of pounds as opposed to thousands and depending what exactly the problem is, it could get you pregnant just as effectively as IVF.

I had it at 39 and my little IUI baby is asleep upstairs (well I think she is, she may be on her phone, she is 12 after all!)

We paid for all our treatment, we were not eligible for anything on the NHS.

I think the rule about step children is totally wrong and unfair. Being a step parent is not the same as being a parent, necessarily. I mean it may be, but for some it may not and it just seems a way of prioritizing the person who is already a parent, over the one who is not!

I am not sure how it is even legal to do that.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/health/discrimination-in-health-and-care-services/health-and-care-services-common-situations/discrimination-when-accessing-fertility-treatment/

Because of your dh's 'parental status' you are being discriminated against! If you were a lesbian and your partner were your sperm donor, would you get NHS treatment then?

designatedSurvivor "You're bumping someone else off the bottom of the list by lying. Try to have a little empathy."

What an absolutely crap thing to say! The OP is having fertility issues, maybe you should have a little empathy for her.

PinkHeart5914 "Then a couple when neither has a child, would miss out. How is that fair?" Do you know for a fact that is how the system works, that there is a pot of money and if the OP gets there first the cupboard will be bare?

A couple with no kids could be eligible (although there are a lot of requirements as well, age, weight in some places etc) so if the OP has treatment it is not necessarily going to affect someone else. It is going to draw on NHS resources like anyone who has treatment.

MinervaSaidThar · 13/10/2017 04:24

Then a couple when neither has a child, would miss out. How is that fair?

Not OP's fault pinkheart

OP pays her taxes, she's entitled to NHS help. Her DSD has hardly satisfied her maternal urge.

Iwanttobe8stoneagain · 13/10/2017 05:40

But those are the rules however unfair. We weren't allowed any help (inc testing) for secondary infertility. Our DS is so desperate for a sibling. Why shouldn't his desire to have a sibling be taken into account. In an ideal world everyone should have the right to have ivf for at least one child. But it has to be rationed somehow

Increasinglymiddleaged · 13/10/2017 07:51

The thing with a great many MNers is they think someone else should pay all the taxes and they should get to spend them.

Tax payment is nothing to do with being a MNetter. No one pays more tax than they have to and if you are self employed you have to work out exactly what you owe. This has always been the case.

The whole spending stuff, one of the really shit things about austerity is this attitude of being miserly. The country can't afford it why should the taxpayer foot the bill? Despite the fact that if the OP has a baby he/she may well be a net contributor/ make some massive medical science breakthrough. We live in a rich country we can magic up ££££ from that magic money tree for Brexit so this nitpicking of 'if you have IVF I can't' is just ridiculous.

diddl · 13/10/2017 07:53

"Why shouldn't his desire to have a sibling be taken into account."

Oh please-that would be taking the piss!

Increasinglymiddleaged · 13/10/2017 08:00

So a man could have 3 kids with one woman, 2 with another, and then you'd give his 3rd wife IVF for free

Well yes, because the basic principle would be that each person has an equal right to one child.

CaveMum · 13/10/2017 08:11

Here's the Prof Robert Winston article I referred to. I know it's a DM link, but it's a very good piece written by the Prof himself: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3220258/NHS-greed-couples-conned-IVF-PROFESSOR-ROBERT-WINSTON-fertility-treatment-pioneer-delivers-devastating-attack-send-shockwaves-health-service.html

Isetan · 13/10/2017 08:12

Whatever is going on with your SD needs to be sorted, given the issues surrounding your SD, what sort of impact do you think a pregnancy will have on her and the dynamic between you, her and her father?

I understand your desperation for a child but it shouldn’t be at the expense of one that is already here.

zzzzz · 13/10/2017 08:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mintteaandbananabread · 13/10/2017 08:45

Well yes, because the basic principle would be that each person has an equal right to one child

They DO have that right. Just not with someone who already has some.

cherryontopp · 13/10/2017 10:35

zzz that living breathing child is not the OPs. The OP did not carry her, birth her etc. No biological connection. If they split up the OP would have no right to access SD.

Everyone has a right (if they are intend to a love a child and not abuse or neglect them) to have a breathing biological child of their own.

zzzzz · 13/10/2017 10:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 13/10/2017 10:40

Everyone has a right (if they are intend to a love a child and not abuse or neglect them) to have a breathing biological child of their own.

No they really really dont

Mittens1969 · 13/10/2017 10:42

*zzz that living breathing child is not the OPs. The OP did not carry her, birth her etc. No biological connection. If they split up the OP would have no right to access SD.

Everyone has a right (if they are intend to a love a child and not abuse or neglect them) to have a breathing biological child of their own.*

No they’re not. Sometimes it’s just not possible. Hence why some of us adopt, like DH and I did. And I can’t imagine loving my DDs more if they were my biological children.

mintteaandbananabread · 13/10/2017 10:56

Everyone has a right (if they are intend to a love a child and not abuse or neglect them) to have a breathing biological child of their own

But they don't. Nobody has that right. Even if you paid for 100 rounds of IVF it might never happen.
Children are not a right at all.