...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?

Infertility is a medical condition. Who is anybody to decide it isn't as important as other medical conditions?

What an insensitive post.

My daughter has MRKH Syndrome, its very rare and she is unable to fall pregnant. I have no issue with the NHS funding IVF (dd needs surgery), but there needs to be a cap on attempts, that is actually enforced...

My daughter has MRKH Syndrome, its very rare and she is unable to fall pregnant. I have no issue with the NHS funding IVF (dd needs surgery), but there needs to be a cap on attempts, that is actually enforced...

My daughter has MRKH Syndrome, its very rare and she is unable to fall pregnant. I have no issue with the NHS funding IVF (dd needs surgery), but there needs to be a cap on attempts, that is actually enforced...

My daughter has MRKH Syndrome, its very rare and she is unable to fall pregnant. I have no issue with the NHS funding IVF (dd needs surgery), but there needs to be a cap on attempts, that is actually enforced...

Something that has irked me throughout the research stage to ivf is the ‘option’ to donate some eggs for other women to use - it makes the donors treatment a bit cheaper as it is partly subsided by the recipient. I feel that in doing that, I’d be exploiting the desperation of another would-be parent/s
Might not be an option as i May be too old soon

Actuallly I have not adopted myself but have personal experience of adoption in my immediate family. Often there are complex needs, but often there are not. Parents don’t have to take a child with complex SEN or a sibling group. They might have to wait longer, but there are a huge number of children waiting to be adopted. I just feel where do we draw the line if we fund IVF for something which is not life threatening and when having children is a privilege rather than a right. I feel very sorry for people experiencing infertility but there are people being denied cancer drugs on the NHS.

@DontMentionTheWar

Really sorry for the loss of your sister and all that you’ve been through. You’ve written a fantastic post. I wish people on here would actually read these posts about why adoption is not a solution for infertility rather than continue to harp on about why we should all “just” (because it’s always prefaced with a just) adopt.

I agree with you OP.

I didn’t predicate it with just Adoption is hard. But that is one option. I don’t understand why it is seen as a right to pass down your genes to the next generation to the extent that the NHS pay for it.

For those who have been diagnosed infertile but state they won't use NHS resources for IVF, I can only assume your desire for children is not as great as many others.

FFS. What a spectacularly insensitive and ill informed thing to say. I have read some shocking things on this thread, but the insensitivity of this statement is breathtaking and the assumption completely wrong.

As I was typing my previous post, along comes petitepamplemousse to demonstrate my point.

Parents don’t have to take a child with complex SEN or a sibling group. They might have to wait longer, but there are a huge number of children waiting to be adopted

And there are a huge number of reasons why people may get rejected as adopters

I know infertile couples who explored adoption who wanted to give a child a home, but were rejected because:

Too old
Not the right ethnicity
Not the right religion
Don't already have children
Self employed
Both partners work
Rent not own
Have debt
Any current or previous mental health issues
Any current or previous physical health issues
Have a dog
Difficult childhood
No family close by
Not enough outside space
Not enough bedrooms
Any previous relationship issues
Were grieving over not being able to have a birth child

Many parents wouldn't get approved to adopt their own birth children!

A friend is going through the adoption process and most of the couples in her cohort have dropped out because the process of being torn to shreds by social workers was so emotionally gruelling

Many couples have been rejected as adopters because SS decided that as an infertile couple they hadn't fully got over not being able to have a birth child, and weren't emotionally equipped to become adoptive parents. I believe there's a poster on this thread who described that very situation

That's wonderful that your immediate family member has had a successful experience

Many people do and I am so happy that posters on this thread have wonderful adopted families - the families they and their children so richly deserve.

Unfortunately it's not the case that everyone does.

Banana glad to see you here. I haven't been able to contribute as unable to find the right words when there are some very heartless posters here, but as always you have summed up perfectly what I wanted to say.

I hope everything is good with you, I was only saying to Boris yesterday that sometimes I wish we still had our old thread!

Do let me know when your book is out, I would love to read it.

FFS. What a spectacularly insensitive and ill informed thing to say. I have read some shocking things on this thread, but the insensitivity of this statement is breathtaking and the assumption completely wrong.

My reading of @RhapsodyQueen very thoughtful post was different

I took her post to be very supportive

I read it has saying 'those posters who are saying 'yes I'm infertile but I wouldn't take NHS resources for IVF for myself, I believe all IVF should be self funded' are probably not experiencing the same depth of longing as others. Where most of us are getting into debt and would walk over broken glass to do ANYTHING to have a child, to say that they would turn down an NHS funded IVF cycle on principle would be very atypical.

Thanks to @RhapsodyQueen for her kind and words

Bold fail!!

@RhapsodyQueen and @bananafish, sorry if I misunderstood RhapsodyQueen’s post. The second paragraph is actually very supportive and kind. I thought the first sentence was quoting someone else’s post with a bold fail.

I don’t understand why it is seen as a right to pass down your genes to the next generation to the extent that the NHS pay for it.

In that vein, do you think the NHS shouldn’t fund antenatal care either since you think having children is a privilege rather than a right?

Bold fail!!

having children is a privilege rather than a right. I feel very sorry for people experiencing infertility but there are people being denied cancer drugs on the NHS.

I presume you also think that maternity care should be self funded, and that child benefit and tax credits should not be available, given that children are a privilege not a right.

I can see a shitload of NHS funding for cancer drugs right there if you were to follow that through and say maternity care should be self funded, because children are a privilege, not a right

Given there's so many children needing homes, by that logic shouldn't people adopt a child before they TTC for a birth child, and take up valuable NHS resources on maternity care that could be used to fund lifesaving cancer drugs (given there's so many children waiting to be adopted)

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-04-18/debates/64AB06A9-1769-4F31-BCFD-77F466A12B0B/AccessToFertilityServices#contribution-4734C747-A209-4BE6-AE93-D2DC7B97CF53

This post won't change anything, unless action is taken. I mentioned if previously, but if you do believe NHS should now be funded, please, please, ask your MP to support the second reading of Steve McCabe's Ten Minute Rule Bill.

I presume you also think that maternity care should be self funded, and that child benefit and tax credits should not be available, given that children are a privilege not a right.

It could be argued that these are for the benefit of the children not the parents, the children would suffer if they were not available. I agree that having children is a privilege not a right.

In my experience, SS don't turn people down because they're grieving that they're not able to have birth children. What they do insist on is that you take time to come to terms with it and undergo therapy. We were advised to apply in a year's time, which we did, and then we were approved.

Most of the prospective couples we did our training with had been through the pain of infertility as well.

The assessment is rigorous but tbf it does need to be.

The assessment is rigorous but tbf it does need to be.

I entirely agree

As it should be

I don't believe DH and I would make great adoptive parents as even with masses of therapy we are nowhere near coming to terms with not being able to have a birth child

I don't believe we would be emotionally equipped to adequately parent a child with complex needs, as things stand

By the time we might be equipped, we'd be too old

We would get rejected anyway due to my chronic health conditions, and the fact DH was rejected by his own parents, and we have no family close by, we're the wrong religion, he's too old. So it's academic anyway.

I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but I have issues with IVF in principle. For centuries the human race as thrived due to genetic selection - people who were infertile just couldn't have children.

Now, we allow infertile people to get pregnant conveniently ignoring the possibility that there might be some unknown reason why their genetics have made them infertile and so should not pass their genes on to the next generation.

Even in the cases of early cancer being the cause of it. There is obviously something that we do not yet understand that makes that person more susceptible to getting cancer young - and allowing them to have children passes that unknown down.

I'm not sure if there has been any studies that have tried to analyse whether the growing levels of infertility that are talked about has any correlation to the start of treating infertility. (And I know correlation is not causation but its a start to investigate).

Only read the first page but surprised at so many women saying why not do away with ante natal care and nhs birth related care.

If we get rid of this women will die, also babies. No one has mentioned getting rid of abortion but I only read first page. Maybe it came later.

I really think that looking after pregnant women and birthing women is a must, surely? I mean, we could get rid and for most it is a choice not always by any means obv) but I think it would be a pretty negative thing overall for society.

Just my view can see plenty disagree.