...to ask why the NHS funds IVF?

[moofeatures]

I promise I'm neither an (intentionally) goady fucker, nor Katie Hopkins.

But.

Following on from a recent thread about there being a perception that public money grows on trees, I'd like to ask your stance on the NHS funding IVF.

Now, before I get flamed for my insensitivity, let me explain that I myself was diagnosed with ovarian failure in my 20s. I am still of an age where I'd meet the criteria for NHS IVF funding, which would be my only way to have a biological child. I initially grieved for this as I always assumed I'd be pregnant one day, but also from day 1 of my diagnosis I've felt that artificial reproductive hormone therapy/IUI/IVF falls outside the remit of what the NHS should provide as it serves no medically therapeutic purpose.

The logical response to my argument is: "if the only option for IVF is to privately fund, then you're depriving less affluent people the chance to become parents", which is both true and a shame... but is it the NHS's problem? Really, it's the infertility which took away that choice - and it is a choice, not a right... at least in my opinion.

Am I alone in feeling this way?

Are we breeding infertility issues that would naturally be curtailed if infertile people didn't have children artificially?

Infertility bingo!!!

I mean, let's just breed the infertiles out. Natural selection and all.

I told my DH to leave me and find someone who could give him children, because I can't. I've considered whether life is worth living given I will never be a mother.

Apparently I was right! Best let us infertiles die out. Best all round really.

If infertility shouldn’t be treated because kids are a ‘lifestyle choice’ then please can we also refuse all treatment for alcoholics, fatsos and druggies because ‘lifestyle’? Thanks!

Why does infertility always get singled out? IVF is, for some, a wonderful and borderline miraculous medical treatment. Didn’t work for me, but I would always support my taxes being used to help another couple get their baby.

That said, I would prefer it (and many other things!) not to be such a postcode lottery, with equal access (whether one or three plus rounds) to all regardless of where they live.

We’ve been lucky enough to conceive without too much hassle. But infertility is a genuine medical need in my book.
I believe the NHS should fund both infertility treatment and a limited number of IVF cycles and this should be a consistent policy across the country. Say two cycles per couple.

Once you start to involve moral judgement rather than clinical efficacy you’re on a slippery slope. Where does that stop? Would my knackered foot from falling while rock climbing have been treated? It was technically my fault I was in a position to fall. Would a kid playing football have a broken leg fixed? Many accidents and incidents could be pinned on us if you tried hard enough. Too lazy, too sporty.
I’ve also heard people say smokers shouldn’t get treatment. But you can only very rarely pin an individual cancer on a specific action - non smokers get lung cancer too, you can never say an individual cancer WAS caused by x, only that it’s very probably caused by x.

Provision should be based on medical need.

tbh though, the issue of 'rights' is difficult for me, because they are an entirely artificial construct based on what we as a human community think is reasonable. Once you get down to the unpleasant basics of human nature a la lord of the flies, we find that our fellow man usually feels no obligation towards us at all, except when our agendas coincide. So as for having a child being a right.....if you were to be entirely robotic about it you would have to say that it isn't. I suspect that modern medicine is actually storing up a lot of problems for the human race by preserving genetic combinations that would have otherwise been eliminated......

That's if you were being entirely dispassionate and robotic about it. Which is hard when you watch people with apparently very little to offer a child procreating with ease.

If infertility shouldn’t be treated because kids are a ‘lifestyle choice’ then please can we also refuse all treatment for alcoholics, fatsos and druggies because ‘lifestyle’?

With alcoholics, obese people and drug addicts, you are treating the medical problem that theirs lifestyle choice has caused. Not having a child in itself is not a medical problem although the cause is. That's the difference.

@formerbabe Asphinctersayswhat?

For me it is heart vs head.

Head says, the NHS it’s on it’s knees and things need to change. Of course it shouldn’t be funded. Neither should many, many other things.

My heart says, it’s easy for my head to say that as I sit here with my two naturally conceived children. I’d have been beyond devastated not to have them.

I personal you feel that these types of treatments were investigated and funded for the sole purpose of selling the idea and process to make money. Same as any medical break through - so they can sell the new treatment to other countries.

It's business and big bucks

You'd be a fool to think the NHS are doing you a favour

Out of interest: I haven't had (or needed) IVF, but I did get NHS tests, treatment and extra care in pregnancy for recurrent miscarriage. Do the people who wouldn't fund IVF also think the NHS shouldn't have funded my investigations? Because I get the impression that people think it's different, but I don't know why.

I haven’t rtft but infertility is a disease and should be treated as such. The world might be overpopulated but I believe the birth rate is in decline in this country. As a pp said, is not going to be caused by an infertile couple wanting one baby. The effects caused by infertility are devastating. I had counselling following a miscarriage and the charity who offered it also counsels those with fertility problems. They have huge waiting lists.

Parenthood is a different life. It might be something a couple has thought about and even taken for granted from an early age. To not be able to have children isn’t just saying goodbye to having a child, but the life and future that you were hoping for and expecting. They might have planned things accordingly - saved hard and bought a house suitable for raising a family, climbed the career ladder so they can afford it. Etc etc. The effects don’t just end when they’re told they can’t conceive naturally. All around them the couples who started ttc at the same time as them are having 1, 2, 3 children - who then grow up, go to school, form relationships, leave for university.

Unfortunately my area offers no funded cycles of ivf at all. I don’t believe that those on high incomes should be the only ones eligible for fertility treatment, it’s completely wrong.

The “just adopt” argument is ignorant at best. The possibility of adopting a newborn baby is rare these days. I believe it is Adoption UK that states this. The children most likely in need of homes are often disabled children and sibling groups. A couple who has not been able to have any children of their own might be ill equipped to deal with children who fit into these categories, so any adoption agency would hesitate. My colleague’s neighbour fosters 4 siblings and has been told that they will never be adopted out together.

So yabu in my opinion and I say this as someone who has been fortunate enough to have 2 naturally conceived children.

Secondly, successful IVF is the only treatment that creates future taxpayers

I'm sure the world would have enough naturally conceived children without IVF...just as was the case pre IVF.

Not having a child is a medical problem. It can cause depression x2, raises the risk of some cancer and actually pregnancy can treat endo and PCOS.

Why is IVF being singled out here? What about other fertility treatments such as treatments for polycystic ovaries or endometriosis? Should people not have access to treatment for those conditions as it may help them conceive at some point?

And as for these saintly cancer patients who deserve all the funding. You do realise a number of them require fertility treatment as a result of their cancer treatment don't you? Are they allowed?

What about IVF in the case of people with genetic conditions they want to be screened for? Are children 'not a right' for them too?

There seems to be a complete lack of understanding on this thread that fertility treatment is sometimes part of a larger treatment plan.

I don't think it should be on the NHS. It's got a really low success rate

Infertility bingo!

Ffs some people on here.

“Infertility is not an illness.” Er, yes it is. In around 2/3rds of people there is an identifiable physiological cause.

“Just save up for 3 years to fund it”. Great idea - if there was an area not affected by a ticking clock, it’s fertility. Definitely a good idea and not at all counterproductive to add another 3 years to the time it takes (on top of all the time ttc naturally and having investigations).

“we’re taking money away from people with cancer!” Just no.

“Why don’t you just adopt?” Why didn’t you?

Interestingly getting pregnant via ivf seems to have cured my medical condition that caused infertility (anovulatory pcos). I now have periods and ovulate like a regular woman. So sometimes ivf is actually the cure for the disease of infertility. Stick that in your pipe.

But Sandy, we are not talking about the world. We are talking about the UK (possibly we are just talking about England I think - don't the Welsh and Scottish health funding/rules differ to England's?) What use are tax paying adults in other countries if we don't have enough in ours?

Besides, the logical conclusion of what you say is that no-one should be having children, not just the infertile.

Not having a child is a medical problem. It can cause depression x2

Lots of things can cause depression.

Relationship breakdown
Poverty
Bereavement

The depression may be a medical problem but the cause isn't necessarily.

Should we force abortion on all babies we know are going to have medical issues? FGS...

Some people would say yes. I would do personally and a female relative actually did so.

Although NHS funding wasn't her motivation to terminate a child she knew would be I'll a lot.

Why do women not receive gynae checkups in this country?

Because women’s issues are very low on the priority. Funding is largely decided by males and is male biaised. It’s not necessary deliberate. Ivf is seen as a priority because it implicates males.

Had I had qualified gynae scanning, I wouldn’t be in agony right now with advanced adenomyosis. I’d already have had a hysterectomy or some kind of treatment. I had an intra vaginal scan 2 years ago to measure what I thought was a fibroid - what I was told when I had ivf. But 10 years ago adenomyosis looked like fibroids on the vaginal scanning equipment. 2 years ago I wasn’t seen by a fully trained gynaecologist, rather a nurse trained on scanning and they just measured it as a fibroid and didn’t say anything about my enlarged uterus - this “fibroid” was just the biggest bit.

So for the past 10 years I have put up with heavy periods and a fucktonne of pain requiring weekly massages and debilitating fatigue, crutches, pain killers, struggles not to be in a wheel chair, which right now I need and have needed at certain points in the past. And then there was the mri of Lumbar and thoracic spine. If there was any kind of joined up medical care, my humongous uterus would have been flagged up several years ago. And if men had uteruses, we would have regular gynae scans.

I have been diagnosed with a bit of arthritis, ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, chronic pain, a small amount of endo (removed before conceiving dd) and now adenomyosis. I wonder how much better I will be when they remove the watermelon out of my stomach. Perhaps and hopefully I don’t have ME at all. Meanwhile I’ll just keep taking the morphine.

LaceyStace
Oh for gods sake. What's rude about an infertile woman - me - questioning NHS provision of IVF? It being available would directly benefit me if that's a route I ever choose to go down. As a society we have a finite pot of money and seemingly infinite amount of demands. We need to be having reasonable and rational conversations about where this money goes, without calling the opinions of others "rude" and running off to MNHQ to report threads we find a bit upsetting, and respecting that everyone sees their cause as the most worthy. Infertility is just one part of who I am, and I'm considering the possibility that other aspects of my identity might be more worthy of public funding.

YABU. Infertility is a physical illness that is often genetic and strongly linked to mental health issues. Cancer and diabetes as a result of smoking or obesity (for example) are treated on the NHS, so before funding should be taken away for IVF cut backs should surely be made in areas where the disease is a direct result of lifestyle choice first.

IVF did actually cure my underlying health problem too (endometriosis), or perhaps more accurately I should say that due to all the investigations I had and knowledge I gained, I now know what is up with my insides and was therefore able to get the correct treatment.

I meant to add at the end of that very long post. I do wonder if women need more investigations, scans, mris, lining biopsies etc etc before embarking on ivf to ensure their uterus is in the best possible condition before going for the very expensive and gruelling. I definitely didn’t have anything like the investigations I needed before my first round, which I imagine is part of the reason as to why it failed.

The cause is a medical problem. Endo and PCOS are medical problems. I must have cost the NHS thousands in my treatment for both which involved 3 ops.

Pregnancy cleared both to the extent I conceived naturally further down the line and never needed treatment for either since.