...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 have been having fertility treatments for the pasr five years. This effects my mental health. I think that depression is more costly for the economy in terms of loss of work etc.

Thankfully I live in a country where I can have multiple treatments. I also pay into the system which funds people with weight loss, lung problems caused by smoking, joint problems because of sports injuries etc.

I think that people judge too much what is necessary and what isn't. Best to leave it to the health professionals.

I also read a lot that the NHS is struggeling. In other countries where the health care is more available they tend to pay at least 10% more income tax. Tbh I think that the uk should up the taxes and provide good health care. Reading about people who can't get certain treatments for cancer etc is ridiculous for a first world country.

Lots of things funded by the NHS are not medically necessary - you're unlikely to die from an ear infection, or a broken finger but the NHS will treat you to help alleviate your pain and distress. And infertility can cause life altering distress. Also, IVF is very expensive in this country and many go abroad to countries in Eastern Europe, or India for treatment. Regulations are very different and the NHS often has to deal with the consequent very high risk pregnancies / multiple births that result. One complex case can cost the health service hundreds of thousands of pounds - more than funding many women to safely have IVF in this country. Finally, the NHS does not pay the 'market rate' that you would pay a clinic privately. I had IVF on the NHS and they 'bulk buy' the service from a clinic. It's a bit like economy class - we had to wait til the clinic did an NHS intake and instead of a private initial consultation we went to a group induction with about 50 couples, only certain treatments were available, only a max of 3 cycles, you had to be under 40 etc, etc. I reckon my treatment cost the NHS about £5-6k. And I do not feel bad about that. Myself and my husband have paid more than 50 yrs NI contributions between us and have had no more than a handful of GP appointments in our lives - we've paid in more than we have taken out of the system. And we have a lovely, healthy, bright, caring little girl who will be a tax payer of the future.

That's it exactly, @AppleFox my DH and I have adopted now, but we had to go through a long journey first. We explored the idea soon after our failed IVF attempt, but we were advised to apply again a year later, once we'd had a chance to process the fact that I was infertile and would never have a biological child. I was advised to have therapy, which I did. In the end, it took me 18 months to be ready; I knew it was the right time when I heard the news that my DSis was pregnant and didn't feel jealous, and was simply happy for her.

Infertile couples do adopt; the majority of couples we got to know on the training sessions offered by SS had been through infertility. But you need to have made peace with the fact that you won't ever have children naturally.

Now we have our DDs, I really can't imagine our lives without them.

this thread has made me think and changed my mind a bit. I still don't think it's very cost effective but it's become clear that IVF is so often singled out for debate for misogynistic reasons, or rather our attitude towards women's treatments in general. IVF is seen as selfish, abortions are seen as selfish , wanting children is indulgent even though every other fucker has them.
I've had non lifesaving non emergency treatment on the NHS many times. Why are women's health issues always seen as frivolous

So to throw a question out to you then as it seems this thread has compared spending money on NHS funded IVF to highly expensive cancer treatments - as many ppl have pointed out that IVF CAN be needed for medical reasons (mine due to 7 years of chemo treatment & being told I wasn’t eligible for egg harvesting but we managed to around it finally 6 years after)

I have had costly ground breaking immunotherapy skin cancer treatment (in trial & now licenced) for 7 years since the age of 26 for stage 2, 3 & 4 skin cancer which for 3 years now has put my stage 4 tumours into complete remission. A miracle. But low fertility & I can’t stop my 3 weekly treatment. At age 30 DH & I started asking about kids, was told I could carry a child & needed IVF help for a surrogate to carry. I have to LEGALLY remain on contraception to still get my NHS treatment.

On the NHS we got one shot despite it being due to my chemo. But only part funded cos NHS don’t support surrogacy.

My DH has no children & it’s not his fault (or mine) that he married a dud! And I asked before all treatments why my I wasn’t eligible for egg harvesting but told I wasn’t & who was I to question?

So should I not have got IVF?
We still then had to pay for thousands btw even in that round, but we are fortunate, it worked, & my treatment continues but it’s all hell

branleuse although the woman is the one who goes through the invasive physical treatments, IVF isn't solely a women's health issue. The largest single cause of infertility is male factor - so very often the couples will be having IVF treatment as a result of a male health issue. Complete agree with the dismissal of so many women's health issues - but just worth emphasising that IVF isn't necessarily a women's health issue per se (although the treatment itself is)

Oh, and we couldn’t adopt as so many have said because of my condition it’s not allowed...
DH could adopt without me but I make him ineligible for that too

Let's take this out to other areas then if you say children are a lifestyle choice and IVF should be self funded as no one needs a child.

We are an infertile couple. We have no children.

Education is a choice. People don't have to have an education. Since I don't have children why should I pay towards school. Perhaps parents who made the lifestyle choice to have children should pay for education if they want their child to go to school.

The government should also stop building affordable housing. After all no one needs to own their own home and if they want their own home they should save up for a few years until they can afford one. If they don't then they just don't want a home of their own enough!

Looking at it both ways ...

Do you then also not offer cheaper treatments like clomid? (Worth noting there are many fertility treatments a lot cheaper than IVF)

Or if you offer IVF do you then also extend to gay couples etc?

Personally my view is the offer needs to be standardised across the country. Eg in Dudley you get one round, next door in Birmingham i think you get 2 or 3.

I believe it is a medical issue (often unexplained) and straight couples with no other children should be offered it. Hard where one partner has a child and I know people in this situation who have paid. Shocked by the people with child each but then couldn't make one together getting assistance. I do have sympathy as have had infertility myself but somehow a line has to be drawn.

Re gay couples the issue there is bringing in the donor egg/sperm which raises other issues and also the clinics doing this well are putting a lot of "selection" into it beforehand which massively increases cost.

For anyone who has not suffered from infertility I would suggest you watch One More Shot on Netflix. It is harrowing.

I would also recommend watching this very short video, made for Fertility Awareness week

It explains so beautifully and painfully the agony of 'The pain of never'

m.youtube.com/watch?v=5OEDYZ19EuE

As someone who could not and did not have children, I totally agree with you OP.

I can't remember who it was now who recommended the film "One Last Shot", but thank you to whoever it was. I have just watched it, and it brought a lot of memories back. It has also reminded me how fortunate I am.

We have a 5 year old who was conceived via ICSI. We had 2 attempts that were funded by the NHS and then we paid for our third, which was nearly £11k because DH has a sperm count of zero. DD is biologically his ... they found the sperm to make her via surgical sperm retrieval, which was one reason our cycle was so expensive.

The reason DH had a zero sperm count could well be down to an error on the part of a doctor at some early stage of his life. He had undescended testicles, which is supposed to be corrected in the first year of life I believe, but they went untreated until he was 7 and were very damaged as a result. If the doctors had operated sooner, perhaps we would have conceived naturally (I do not have any fertility issues that I am aware of, and I had a lot of tests).

This thread (horrible though some of the comments are) has made me think a lot. I know the OP has fertility issues of her own but I think it's very difficult for anyone who has conceived naturally (or just didn't want kids) to understand what it actually feels like to go through infertility and IVF. Some people's comments on here were just so crass and get trotted out all too often (just adopt/you can't afford a child if you can't afford IVF/some people aren't meant to have children/etc).

I agree that it shouldn't be funded - in our area the criteria is so strict that it's really hard to get it at all and that is just one cycle. Yes, I am infertile so understand why it is so desperately wanted.

But I also have a friend who needed cancer treatment. Choice of NHS providing me IVF or keeping her alive, I'd choose her treatment. In an ideal world, it would be both of course, but it's not unfortunately. In the end we went private, and it failed anyway.

And fwiw, we did go on to adopt twice....... So have seen a lot of the arguments above first hand

This thread is utterly depressing and a symptom of the change in atmosphere that started in this country after the financial crash. It's the same pernicious, penny-pinching nastiness that has led to the appalling treatment of the disabled who have been bullied and deprived of their benefits for years now because they're easy to pick on and judge as not being worthy of public money, particularly if they can't work.

I had two cycles of IVF but I didn't get pregnant. That sentence in no ways conveys what infertility is like but fuck you, I'm not explaining what I went through to a load of people who lack empathy. I have a medical condition which means that my body destroys embryos. The same medical condition has meant I have lived with chronic pain and discomfort since I was in my teens when my normal, healthy life fell apart. Thankfully, I have a loving and supportive husband which has meant I have been able to find a way to train and enter one of the professions so that I can financially support myself but I've never got over the fear of not being able to do that, which I lived with for many years - and it turns out I was right to be worried. So, we can't have babies, but my husband and I have, for years, paid shitloads of tax so that people who are fertile can get tax credits, healthcare and schooling for their easily-made children. C'est la vie.

Think before you judge other people. You never know when you might be judged to be unworthy yourself. Life is random, anything can happen. Once you start removing things from people don't be surprised if the thing you need at some time in the future has also been removed by someone.

I believe it should be avaliable. Health care should be holistic not just the basics for physical survival. Mental health can cause extreme suffering as much as physical illness. There is plenty of money to go round if things are shared more equally. We should be helping others not becoming a dog eat dog society.

Ivf is the end of a journey of investigations which have their own costs.
Are you going to stop funding that too?

I had 7 years of investigations and procedures that must have cost the NHS a fair bit and probably more than the IVF itself.We then funded our ICSI and IVF ourselves which pretty much wiped us out. No way would I have funded all the previous investigations too, would have simply gone from 0-IVF. IVF has risks and pushing women into IVF quicker than necessary would be a foolish thing to do.

So, we can't have babies, but my husband and I have, for years, paid shitloads of tax so that people who are fertile can get tax credits, healthcare and schooling for their easily-made children. C'est la vie.

Put like this it does make the idea of not having IVF available unfair. I also don’t really understand the postcode lottery thing - shouldn’t it be a blanket amount of tries for everyone?

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
shame that so many don’t^ though

@Beeblot it was me that mentioned One Last Shot. Cried my eyes out watching that. So happy you were able to have your DD.

The inequality of ivf funding, especially where one partner has a child already, feels like the childless partner should just be happy with being the ‘step parent’ of an existing child and shouldn’t need their own... irrespective of the child’s age or contact time with that side of the family

• So, we can't have babies, but my husband and I have, for years, paid shitloads of tax so that people who are fertile can get tax credits, healthcare and schooling for their easily-made children. C'est la vie.

Put like this it does make the idea of not having IVF available unfair. I also don’t really understand the postcode lottery thing - shouldn’t it be a blanket amount of.*

Precisely my earlier point. A universal health care system can’t just fund based on criticality it needs also to be inclusive and equitable. I believe passionately in the NHS but it is not the only way to provide healthcare. There are alternatives. Had I been excluded in my hour of need, my support would have waned.

On a slightly different note but again referring to the principals of the NHS, the idea of means testing is completely illogical and divisive. You can’t exclude the very people who have contributed to the service from benefiting from the service. Why should they? They would have been better off channelling their money in to a private health care system where they could pick and choose what to spend it on. It’s a universal service and needs to cover a range of different needs for different people.

I mean principles of the nhs of course not principals

the idea of means testing is completely illogical and divisive. You can’t exclude the very people who have contributed to the service from benefiting from the service. Why should they? They would have been better off channelling their money in to a private health care system where they could pick and choose what to spend it on. It’s a universal service and needs to cover a range of different needs for different people.

This!!!!!!!!!!