...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?

There is a medical need, so yes, I don't have any issue with my taxes funding IVF.

people quote that funding could be better used for cancer treatment etc but what about all these lifestyle cancers because people are fat, smoke, drink? People seem to have no issue with spending ££££ on somebody who largely caused an illness by their lifestyle choices but disagree with IVF because a child is a lifestyle choice.

Where do we draw the line? if someone with a medical need to get pregnant needs IVF but is not deserving - then who is worthy of NHS treatment given that many conditions are the result of a certain (often unhealthy) lifestyle?

I agree op.

There's too many people on the planet. I really don't think we need to spend money on this... although I do have a lot of sympathy for people who can't have children.

I don't really agree with IVF at all, and I don't think it should be available on the NHS.

And I don't mean to be horrible, but what about lesbians who may be perfectly able to conceive but get help because they obviously won't concieve because of their sexual orientation. Should they get help when their bodies may work perfectly well?

Personally I don’t think IVF should be funded when things like removal of excess skin after weight loss, aren’t.
I think the opposite because infertility is something that happens for medical reasons and getting that overweight usually isn’t. But then I also believe that there should be radical life-management treatment available for people before they get so over-weight that their skin becomes over-stretched so that would solve that one.

It isnt cut and dry.Yes it is a medical problem but not an illness.However we do treat smokers,heavy drinkers poor eaters and so is it right to deny a woman this chance of a baby whilst some are treated for conditions caused by poor lifestyle choices?

I don’t know whether I agree with you OP. I do wonder how well resourced MH services would be if they got the ivf/cosmetic surgery/transgender Surgery funds?

Lots of people use the NHS when giving birth. Most in fact.

Since children are a non essential lifestyle choice, why is it ok to do that but not have help to conceive?

Breast augmentation after breast removal is not essential, skin removal after weight loss might not be essential, physio after an op (could send patients home with a list of instruction) might not be essential, allot of stuff is not essential - advice from dietician may not be essential. Loads of prescribed medication is not essential etc

It is a very tricky one. At the heart of it, I think this is a problem at the core of the NHS - it was devised in an era when medical care was nowhere near as advanced and it was never intended as a completely comprehensive "womb to tomb" offering. IVF gets a lot of attention as it's something most people, medical or not, have heard of and understand (even if only loosely and in layman's terms).

YABU. Infertility is due to part of the body not working as it should, so it falls under the remit of the NHS. Obviously life-saving treatments are top priority. However, there are also quite a lot of mild yet NHS-treated conditions which aren't anywhere near life-threatening or as awful as infertility.

If it had to be a choice, I'm guessing most people who'd like children would surely much rather live with a mild health issue, than never be able to have any children?

Money should be saved instead by cracking down on misuse of services, such as the ridiculous amount of A&E admissions which are alcohol related.

YANBU. The money should be spent on the already existing children who have no homes (I don't count children's homes as a home).

Thank you for all making interesting and reasonable points which are very far from the abuse I was expecting

The whole thing is a bit of a mine field, isn't it? The more this thread goes on the less sure I am of my opinions... damn the NHS and it's ethically sound intentions!!

Bit all of those non essential things have already happened, by providing IVF they're then pre-planning on spending money on maternity services, vaccinations for the baby etc etc.

I think some of attitudes here are spectacularly uninformed, mainly by the fortune of not having suffered infertility.

Infertility can and does effect your mental health. I resent the post advising if your mental health is that precarious that children may be more than you can handle It is an exhausting thing to go through, so of course it can effect your MH.

The whole point of the NHS is to provide treatment to all. For it to be even. If it stops being funded, it adds up to only the rich being able to afford to have children which I don't see as a benefit to anyone.

Infertility is an umbrella term that covers a multitude of issues. One rule simply can't cover everything, so if you stop finding, you're stopping gay and lesbian couples, disabled people, people who want a family but to prevent passing on inherited illnesses.
This would lead to exceptions being made - after all, it's not a mans fault if he's gay and wants a child etc, and that leads to an awful 'who is entitled to be a parent' type thinking, and no one should be able to make that judgement.

With regards to cost - IVF has more than one form depending on what the issue is. What might cost £6k for one couple could cost £12k for another so not being able to afford to self fund is indicative of nothing

I am assuming there is no infertility in your immediate family OP.

Ok. I’ll bite. This again. Agree completely with ghostylovesheets lets make all maternity care private as it’s a lifestyle choice, then it’s fair to both fertile & infertile couples.

Please don’t be so silly or insensitive.

I think I disagree with ivf being funded but I’m a bit on the fence. Sorry for flakey answer. 🤷🏻‍♀️ I haven’t had fertility problems and I KNOW that I would be beyond devestated if I couldn’t have had kids. However, I just think that there are other things that are more important to fund.

The one thing that I know that I wholeheartedly disagree with is that IVF treatment isn’t offered fairly across the whole country. The postcode lottery aspect of it is outrageous and should be stopped.

It's a medical issue, therefore until the NHS becomes life saving treatment only then of course it should be funded.

To the pp who said if you can't afford ivf you can't afford a child, how ridiculous . There's a big difference betweeen absorbing the cost of a child from the household income and finding 10k+.

Adoption shouldn't be left to the infertile either. It's a totally different experience.

Totally agree. Was offered IVF but decided against it.

If you really want children you will find a way to have them. Lots of other more worthy causes in healthcare other than IVF.

Bit all of those non essential things have already happened, by providing IVF they're then pre-planning on spending money on maternity services, vaccinations for the baby etc etc.

Contraception and abortion are free. No one has to have children

it's hard isn't it OP - because lots of things seem fair until you dig down a bit - such as treating alcoholics for liver failure (mentioned by other posters) when their alcoholism is possibly a symptom of poor mental health, childhood trauma, abuse, homelessness etc etc - nothing is really cut and dried - and treating illness leads to breakthroughs and innovations that can benefit us all.

It's true the world is overpopulated, but that clearly isn't caused by infertile couples waiting to see if they'll ever have even 1 child.

I don't personally think it should be available through the NHS. There is no medical requirement to have a child. We're not underpopulated. You could adopt or foster. Nobody NEEDS a child.

There's plenty of other causes that money is better spent on, even within the NHS itself.