...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?

I think that IVF on the NHS will definitely become a thing of the past.

It's all very well to say people don't need children. But the reality is that if you don't have children you will be likely to die alone. And nobody deserves that. So I support IVF being funded by the NHS.

Gynae checkups are totally unnecessary. They are humiliating and sexist and serve no medical purpose - they are there to control women

Hah. They’d have found my issues instead of it taking 6 years to actually be taken seriously only to then find the parameters for treatment have been changed.

The NHS’s attitude to women is totally dismissive

Really? I think if I'd had one in my teens I could have perhaps avoided 20 years of endometriosis, a lot of pain and then infertility. Do you feel that dental checkups and eye checkups are humiliating and sexist or are those okay as men have teeth and eyes too?

Leaving the thread now. OP, I contributed because there is so much ignorance on this topic and unfortunately I have had to learn about it due to circumstances. I wish you well, personally.

But might not those children grow up, secure employment and pay taxes to help you all in your old age? They might, for instance, help support the NHS for older adults' medical conditions; pay taxes to improve public transport when you're unable to drive- or even support adult social care.

Thanks all those who responded to my question

I meant that some people want children who are related to them genetically (I don’t think this is right or wrong, just subjective). But also, as others have said, even getting approval to adopt is very tricky.

Agree with this 100% ...

Gynae checkups don’t diagnose endometriosis.

I don't think IVF should be on the NHS although I have great sympathy with infertility sufferers and with the arguments put forward as to why it should be.

There are loads of things the NHS funds that I think it shouldn't - Viagra to me seems to have similar arguments against it as IVF does yet that is doled out right, left and centre at NHS expense.

If you want to adopt you need to be pretty well off. That is my experience of people who've adopted. Usually both parents lawyers and one a partner or something like that.

We had to pay for our own ivf, there is a post code lottery for funding. We could afford to set aside the money needed for the three cycles we were told to plan for but not everyone will. If your argument is that you should have 20k saved before you start a family You are excluding huge groups of the population from having babies.
There are currently more people wanting to adopt than children requiring homes however if adoption before reproduction is to be encouraged then this should be for everyone not just those with fertility issues.
Finally fertility is a medical issue caused through no fault of the individuals involved. I find it odd to say that the NHS should treat people who have caused their health issues with their lifestyle choices but not those who have not. If we stopped treating every alcohol induced injury in a &e there would be plenty of money for fertility treatments.

So, as part of your job you see people having children when you don't think they should have children for whatever reason (with their antenatal care and childbirth costs funded by the NHS) ... but you think one solution to the NHS funding issues is not to fund IVF for people who can't have children but desperately want them. Am I understanding your posts correctly?

Surely a better way of reducing costs would be agreeing to only fund NHS care for a set number of children (e.g.: only two pregnancies and births). £5k per third or more child would surely bring in a decent amount!

(I'm not entirely serious about this, if you can't tell).

Sparklypinkshit - because adoption isn’t the same for reasons that previous posters have said. I was extremely fortunate to conceive on my first round of IVF. However some people are less fortunate and go through many failed rounds before finally giving up. I can’t imagine how hard that must be. Imagine being in that situation - and then having to go through the extremely difficult process of adoption (you have to go on a course, every aspect of your life is scrutinised and they interview your family and friends to try and establish if you make suitable parents) - only to then be turned down, as happens to many many couples. There is no way I could have put myself through that.

The NHS should fund IVF and (like with any other kind of medicine) it should do that on an evidenced basis (of what has best evidence to be shown to work).

In Scotland IVF is fully funded. In England however, costcutting decisions from local NHS commissioners to save money have created the postcode lottery of IVF and the NICE guidance on effectiveness in IVF is not always followed.

If you care about the NHS not wasting money then you should want the evidenced NICE guidance to be followed in full:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/06/ivf-cut-back-in-13-areas-of-england-in-bid-to-save-money-new-data-shows

I’m sure most posters who are saying the NHS should not fund IVF either has no problems conceiving or would have managed to pay for private IVF if they did have conception problems.

I had 3 goes of IVF including one NHS. It is utter hell going through that as you constantly feel you won’t get the one thing you absolutely want more than anything else in the world. I’ve had various other health issues and would take any of them any day over infertility it is the absolute worst thing that’s ever happened to me. Helping people who cannot conceive naturally should be kept on the NHS as it can’t just be the rich who have the hope.

And as mentioned above by posters there are plenty of NHS “treatments” that are not technically purely to treat an illness.

Gynae checkups don’t diagnose endometriosis

Factually inaccurate statement. A decent gynaecologist will recognise the signs and symptoms of endometriosis (heavy bleeding, bleeding outside of period time, longer periods, severe period pain, cysts etc) and refer to a specialist.

But the reality is that if you don't have children you will be likely to die alone

I'm a care assistant in a nursing home. I can assure you that plenty of childed women die alone.

In any case, that's a really shitty reason to reproduce.

EllieQ

I'm not sure what I think. This is a relatively new diagnosis and I feel extremely conflicted at work. It's not as black and white as many posters (from each 'side') make out.

Savings need to be made, and IVF is one small part of the NHS budget, but it's the bit I started a thread on because it's the most relevant to me right now. I feel other areas are more worthy of axing, but

There is research which shows that infertility causes the same proportion of sufferers depression as cancer.
Only people with chronic pain have higher rates. What that tells us is that infertility causes the same rate of mental anguish and strain as having cancer. I've lost a parenta FiL and three grandparents to cancer and I've suffered infertility. I can vouch for the research. I can absolutely see why the NHS is supposed to fund IVF (a lot of funding has been cut).

There is also a policy point: people unable to access NHS IVF are very likely to get into problem debt which causes health problems and becomes the taxpayers' problem, e.g. court expenses, rehousing etc.
I had my first child because of NHS IVF. It gave us our life back and cost a lot less than the cancer drugs which the NHS won't normally fund as they give less than a 10% chance of extra time alive. Also, there is a cancer drugs fund for these exceptional drugs.

I will never forget one particular post on one of these infertility bashing AIBU threads last year, that resonated with me so, so, strongly

The poster had suffered both infertility and subsequently cancer. She had been through IVF and chemotherapy treatment respectively. She said the difference was that 'when I was going through cancer I very much wanted to live - when I was going through infertility I wanted to die'

@sparklypinkshit - just to give a different perspective. For us, we didn't want adoption to be, or feel like 'a back up plan'. We didn't want an adoptive child to feel rejected by their biological parents, and then as a back up by us. We want to wait and eventually we may come to the conclusion that adoption is exactly the route for us, almost organically. We would want a future child to feel chosen and wanted - not just a back up. Whilst there is a massive connection, we wanted that decision to almost be mutually exclusive.

This isn't a goody question, so I hope t doesn't come across as such and if it does I apologise - but why is adoption not a sufficient option for couples who cannot conceive? (Again I'm really sorry if that sounds goady; I'm just trying to understand)

Because most infertile couples, just like most fertile couples, want to procreate. They want to physically have a child, experience pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding, watching their child grow from a baby into a child. Adoption can be a wonderful thing for many but it is not procreation.

@bananafish81 that's such a poignant thing to say. Bless her. I hope whoever it was found peace.

Bananafish81 That's utterly heartbreaking. That message will stick with me for a very long time, too.

However you feel on the issue it is clear the NHS is bursting at the seams. Sadly I think it will end up with the NHS being privatised but the government of the day will badge it up as something else.