...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?

As it was 10 years ago and wasnt a specific area of concern for me (as sperm quality wasnt my reason for infertility) i don't recall exactly sorry, half a story and if science has now proven otherwise then great.
i had a quick google in the fertility sites and it was something along the lines of this ..
"Male factor infertility, unidentified DNA fragmentation could result in initiation of apoptosis (natural cellular death) and mutations resulting ..abnormalities in the offspring and an increased susceptibility to childhood cancer"

Ten years ago half-recalled science saying children of infertile couples may have illness as a result is scaremongering.

it's common sense to consider defective cells may cause problems down the line. it's not scare mongering. it's still being published in 2015 studies which ive just found that quote from.

@CornishMaid1 wasn’t too clear from your post where you are at in terms of ivf, if you’re still going through it have my fingers crossed tightly that it works for you. So sorry you’ve already been through 4.5 years of torture.

it's common sense to consider defective cells may cause problems down the line

NICE guidance bases its recommendations in solid clinical data and meta analyses of existing studies

They recommend ICSI treatment for male factor infertility on the basis of evidence for its efficacy, and for the benefits out weighing any documented risks

Currently I'm not aware of NICE guidance that advises couples where either parent has any kind of medical condition get pre TTC counselling

Epilepsy can be inherited

So can ASD

I'm not aware of people with these conditions (I have epilepsy) being advised to consider not procreating because of potential 'defective cells' causing 'problems further down the line'

Then again, to have IVF you have to complete the 'welfare of the child' form and disclose any physical or mental health issues. People who conceive naturally don't have to complete a questionnaire judging their physical and mental fitness to procreate

@Lizzie48 really sorry to hear that. IVF is tough when all goes to plan, it’s pretty shitty when it doesn’t. Glad that adoption worked out for you.

Well thank Fuck they do because my two ivf babies (5 & 18 months) are currently eating their dinner. Dd2 is from a batch which was frozen after dd1,

We pay a small fortune in tax through our buisness so if I’m entitled to the treatment then I’m going to have it.

Rather than judging other NHS users how about really looking at the money the NHS are wasting on botched operation pay outs, directors of the hospitals, and paying private nurses.

To all the people saying that cancer treatments should take priority - why? A lot of the most common cancers are caused by being overweight, smoking, drinking and being sedentary. Type 2 diabetes is the same and costs the NHS a bloody fortune - rising every year. Is anyone suggesting getting rid of those treatments? No, they're not, yet they are far more expensive and being lavished on people who have, generally speaking, made poor choices with their lives. Why should people who may well be infertile just because of bad luck be penalised to make way for treatments for people who have indulged in lifestyles they know damn well could harm them? I'd much rather fund IVF for people suffering with infertility.

Playing devils advocate- why is IVF funded which is non lifesaving when various cancer treatments and drugs aren’t?

To an extent, I agree. The NHS was set up at a time when IVF didn’t exist. Technology and science has advanced so much that the NHS has had to make choices as to whether it funds it or not. I believe you only get one round of IVF that is NHS funded and that they have strict rules (for example a couple where the Father has a child from a previous relationship can’t have NHS funded IVF.) So it’s not as though they give it to all and sundry which helps their case somewhat. I don’t agree that ‘if you can afford IVF you can afford children’ since I don’t know many people who have upwards of 12k in their back pockets at any given time and more if the first round fails.

At the same time, the NHS spends an awful lot of money on people with poor lifestyle choices for example smokers, drinkers and the obese. So do we want them to give preferential treatment to a couple desperately wanting a child or to a 20 a day smoker? I’m not sure.

Also feel its not my place to disagree with it as someone who is not infertile and has healthy children.

ourmiracle there are 19 pages discussing exactly that!

The thing with the NHS is it's a universal health service. It's collective. It's not the same as means-tested benefits, which are only for those who "need them". Rich people are perfectly entitled to use the NHS = the logic is more "it makes sense to pool resources here" and that it's fairer for the cost to be spread throughout the population (who put in proportionately to their income and take out according to their need), rather than for the loss to lie where it falls (on the person who happens to get sick, be infertile or whatever), You can put more or fewer costs in this bucket, depending on your appetite for collectivism versus individualism - it isn't a finite resource, it just depends on how much tax people want to pay, and there isn't any one right answer, but the fact it's not an "essential medical cost" doesn't mean it shouldn't be collectively funded, necessarily. Ultimately it's down to democracy - what do we as a society want to contribute to, and what do we think should be borne by the person who makes use of the service?

Defective cells? Are you fvcking kidding me?!

First, there is often nothing wrong with anyone’s “cells”. In my case, I just couldn’t get them out of my ovaries to meet the sperm. Once that was done, job done.

Secondly, ALL of our cells are defective. It kind of comes with the territory. As Dr sher is fond of saying, humans are the most inefficient mammals on the planet at reproducing. Some people are just luckier than others. The % of infertile people that actually have something fundamentally wrong with either their eggs or sperm is very small.

Thirdly the IRONY of saying we shouldn’t be treating defective cells and should be treating cancer instead. Lol. Do you know what cancer is?! Why not let that batch of people with defective cells to their own devices.

So perhaps think before you type. Sheesh.

with cancer u are fixing a problem not possibly causing it. perhaps think before you type.

I knew someone who had IVF on the NHS in the very early stages, think about 17 years ago. She lived on benefits and always had. The thing was she had two older sons who were young teenagers, and she showed absolutely no interest in them whatsoever. They were in care at one point with lots of problems. I can only think it was experimental because I don’t see how she passed any criteria.

Incorrect. Ivf does not cause defective cells. And cancer treatment can cause a whole host of other cellular problems. Honestly the ignorance on this thread is embarrassing.

where have u seen me saying ivf causes defective cells? I said there are studies showing that ivf using defective sperm in the case of male infertility issues been shown to cause birth defects.

IVF is provided by the NHS privately at the same price as private clinics charge, i.e. THE NHS MAKES A PROFIT ON THOSE CYCLES. There will be many more cycles done by NHS trusts that are funded by the couples undergoing them than there are funded by the NHS. Therefore, free IVF cycles are not funded by the taxpayer in most, if not all, trusts!

Apologies as I haven't read the full thread.

I think it is something that should be decided per person not so much an open rule. My 1o yr old niece begins the highest dose of chemo possible in a week and as such has had her eggs removed and frozen and will have the right to ivf when she's an adult if she so chooses. I totally think her parents and doctors made the right choice and knowing she will be offered ivf has been a huge relief to them

And it doesn't cover everyone's IVF which is problematic in its own way. So you get it covered if you live in a certain area with a certain type of infertility.

I don't think it should be publicly (sp?) funded. I had to pay for mine.

This is a really interesting thread. I'm unsure where I stand as there are so many variables. I definitely think everywhere should be equal- the area dependent differences are unbelievable.

I feel very sorry for a lot of people suffering with infertility, however as part of my job I've seen some things which make me think it should be on a case by case basis (which does kind of contradict what I just said I know)

The problem is some people seem to have little concept of personal responsibility. I've seen ladies several who have previously had 3+ terminations and have then come back a few years later asking for fertility treatment as they can't get pregnant. One girl had had 6! I've seen people who won't stop smoking or lose weight and get cross because they're not eligible. This obviously doesn't apply to the majority though.

Where I work the fertility service brings in money through self-funded cycles but obviously there is still expense for the 'free' ones.

I do think eventually NHS provision of IVF will disappear as it already has done in some areas

The problem is some people seem to have little concept of personal responsibility. I've seen ladies several who have previously had 3+ terminations and have then come back a few years later asking for fertility treatment as they can't get pregnant. One girl had had 6! I've seen people who won't stop smoking or lose weight and get cross because they're not eligible. This obviously doesn't apply to the majority though.

How common is that? If someone can get pregnant multiple times, and have multiple terminations (so presumably unplanned pregnancies and not deliberately TTC) then they are pretty fertile! Unless they've developed PID from an STI then that seems quite astonishing to have gone from multiple unplanned pregnancies to then inability to conceive after 2 years of TTC. Unless it's that their previous pregnancies were with different partners and their current partners have male factor infertility?

I know one or two women who had a termination in their teens / very early 20s who subsequently experienced infertility when starting TTC in their early 30s, but from multiple pregnancies and terminations to infertility is bonkers. The mind boggles.

If someone refuses to stop smoking and lose weight for IVF then I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever

Most of us would have walked over broken glass if it meant we'd have a chance at becoming parents. Come onto the infertility boards and women are throwing out pans and tupperware and household cleaning products and nail varnish 'just in case' the fertility books are correct, giving up alcohol, guzzling vitamins, following strict fertility diets etc Boils my piss that people would be so entitled in the first place.

To all the people saying that cancer treatments should take priority - why? A lot of the most common cancers are caused by being overweight, smoking, drinking and being sedentary. Type 2 diabetes is the same and costs the NHS a bloody fortune - rising every year. Is anyone suggesting getting rid of those treatments? No, they're not, yet they are far more expensive and being lavished on people who have, generally speaking, made poor choices with their lives.

Wow, just wow!

I don’t see why anyone would be shocked that if they had multiple terminations they might have trouble conceiving and possibly be infertile in the future.

Devils advocate - but what if infertility was causing someone so much anguish that their MH was suffering and they were depressed? Should it be funded then?

But where do you draw the line? The woman who wants bigger boobs and her MH is suffering due to her A cup? The person who wants some Lipo? The woman who wants her labia evened up for cosmetic purposes?

I don’t think IVF should be funded when people aren’t getting life saving treatment/meds due to lack of funds. Saving lives is more important.