...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?

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.

Okay, so let's end all treatment for all medical issues, because for centuries the human race has thrived due to genetic selection...

@SardineReturns I don't think anyone actually believes that. It's used as a debating point to the overly simplistic 'well children are a privilege not a right' point. Or course NHS maternity provision should be funded

But why doesn't everyone adopt a child before they have their own birth child, if there are so many children needing homes. The NHS should fund maternity provision. But that has a cost attached to it, and most pregnancies are planned - so that's a fertile couple planning to bring a child into this world and use NHS funds for maternity provision

If infertile couples shouldnt use NHS funds to procreate when there's children who need homes already and the world is over populated, why should fertile couples not have to adopt first before using NHS funds to have a much wanted child?

It's a debating point. I would be astonished if people actually believed this. I certainly don't.

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.

I think people aren't actually calling for funding for those things to be abolished; it's about highlighting the irony of the amount of funding going towards the costs of having children when PP have stated that having children is a choice not a right - they have negated to consider an individual's right to have that choice.

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

Ding ding ding! Infertility bingo again!!

But hey woolythoughts has solved the NHS budget problem. We don't need to treat ANY medical conditions because we are going against nature and natural selection, and people with cancer and other medical conditions would have died out without medical treatment

NHS budget solved!! wooly for PM!

Francis Galton and others in the eugenics movement would LOVE this thread

There's no abortion in northern Ireland though, and look at situations like Rochdale.

I'm not sure how the adoption thing fits in there, when you find out you're pregnant then you have to take am additional child? This would increase abortion I imagine, quite significantly, that would reduce costs to society in the longer run I suppose. It seems to fall all to women though, where are the men in these ideas.

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

And people with cancer had no treatment.
How about vaccinations?
People with mental health issues were locked away.

But hey, natural selection right?

If nature always "gets it right" in this way there would be no inherited genetic conditions as those who have them would be infertile. That's not the case though is it?

There is a difference between treating people who are already born and here and bringing new people who don't exist yet into the world.

There is a difference between treating people who are already born and here and bringing new people who don't exist yet into the world.

But Wooly, I'm already here, why can't I be treated?

So just to check - you think that nature somehow managed to 'breed out' infertility problems over millennia (leaving the somewhat baffling question of why, in your simplistic world, infertility still exists), but that a small minority of people using fertility problems will cause catastrophe? It is absolutely clear that you know nothing of the complexity of how genetics actually works.

Infertility is disease, ovarian failure, PCOS etc all are medical reasons why people can't have children so they should be treat with medical treatment.

While the NHS is still funding self inflicted disease due to obesity and alcohol, it should be funding those who want a child through no fault their own.

People go on as if having a child is because of social expectations etc but most women (while acknowledging they are many women who don't have that instinct) do yearn for a child.

Its a horrible experience infertility, ruins mental health and people's lives.

There is a difference between treating people who are already born

I’m already here. On that basis why can’t my infertility be treated?

There's also something about IVF kids which makes them worthwhile.

To get to the point of having IVF you will be in a committed relationship of at least two years length and usually quite a bit longer. IVF parents are more likely to be in a stable financial and housing situation and will always be in the situation where both parents have actively decided that they want to have children and have been pursuing that end for at least two years. So they are more likely to have an actively involved father. They tend to be older parents too. And their parents won't be obese, smokers or drug users or they won't be treated.

All of these are factors which can lead to a range of benefits including higher educational attainment, more earning power, lower levels of criminality, lower levels of benefits claims and higher levels tax payment, better mental health and physical health and lower use of NHS services and they will be a lot less likely to end up in the care system.

IVF children offer societal benefits and are much more likely to pay back into the state the cost of them being reproduced and brought up.

It certainly isn't genetic in my case. My DM got pregnant easily, as did my DSis. My maternal GM (deceased a long time before I was born, came from a very big family. Same on my F's side. So nothing genetic at all.

I believe my infertility could well be down to damage from childhood SA. And there are a lot of causes of infertility that are down to illness, botched abortions (obviously very rare now abortion is legal). Other times it's unexplained, but that doesn't mean it's genetic.

Its a horrible experience infertility, ruins mental health and people's lives.

It doesn't have to. It broke my heart but I am still here. I believe I still have dignity and worth as a human being.

The vast majority of stuff funded by the NHS is not for “life threatening” conditions. Most of it is to improve/restore people’s well-being in terms of their physical and mental health and enable them to live as fulfilling lives as possible.

I didn’t need to be able to walk and run perfectly again after my ankle injury. Entirely possible to live a fulfilling life with an imperfect ankle and a bit of a limp. I’m v v v glad the NHS fixed it though. I’d be interested in how medical need should be defined by those who think infertility doesn’t count as one. Does anyone need to live over the age of 80? NHS could save loads by just not treating people - other than palliatively - once they’ve had some arbitrarily defined “good innings”. Or should we stop all elective surgery (by definition not needed) being funded by the NHS as well?

From a reductionist point of view, what’s the main objective of all species on the planet? Reproduction, right? Of course we humans have made life a fair amount more complicated, and have added a lot more layers to what constitutes a fulfilling existence. But from a basic evolutionary perspective, it seems entirely natural that reproducing is very much felt as a need by many people.

NHS is cash strapped, yup. I’d very very happily pay more money for it through higher taxes.

Expecting our IVF baby in a couple of months. Deeply deeply grateful to our wonderful NHS.

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.

This is such a sick, ignorant, disgusting thread. It’s a grabby “I’m more deserving” shaming competition between cancer, diabetes and being overweight vs virtuous fertility,and then there is your comment that well if you don’t do XYZ then you don’t want kids badly enough. Seriously wtf is wrong with some of you people?

I’m not entitled to NHS funding as I’m over 35 but I did state I wouldn’t have used it anyway as I want to try and improve my health first. I hate having medical procedures at the best of times and IVF is certainly no walk in the park. Doesn’t mean I have thrown in the towel, Im just looking at other alternatives first whilst being realistic that in my case, my chances are very very slim. I have been told by the fertility clinic they are. So what if I can’t have children? Should I spend the rest of my life depressed and on the verge of suicide? Feeling sorry for myself while there are people dying who would give anything to live longer. While there are people crippled or have no arms and legs but still getting on with their lives with a smile.

I’m incredibly greatful to be married to my soulmate who has told me, if we can’t have kids, we will still be happy because we have each other. Having children is only one of the avenues of fulfilment, it’s not the only way. This whole concept of as a woman you must have children in order to be happy and if you can’t you must spend the rest of your days as a depressed martyr is absolute bullshit. I want kids as much as the next person and more importantly know why I want them and for the right reasons. I have spent years putting a lot of thought into having children. Would I spend my time day dreaming about how I’m going to raise them, all the things I will do with them, teach them, take them and buy them, already have their names picked out and how they will be schooled, if I wasn’t that invested in having children? If I didn’t really really really want them! I still have hope it will happen but not to the point of self-destructiveness. Not to the point of losing my marriage, getting into lots of debt, having a mental breakdown and being left with absolutely nothing because I have made having a child the only valid reason for life being worthwhile. Fuck that. You can gladly win this competition.

*Its a horrible experience infertility, ruins mental health and people's lives.

It doesn't have to. It broke my heart but I am still here. I believe I still have dignity and worth as a human being.*

It didnt to do you but can do to others.
I know 3 people in real life who have infertility and all 3 have had counselling and one on medication.

There are simply not enough newish babies, up for adoption for all the infertile couples, who some pp think should adopt, rather than seek IVF.

I have a child with very complex SEN. I have come across many parents of SEN children, as DD1 progressed through the education system as she was always in special/specialist provision. There is no doubt about it, unless your child with hidden SEN is a round peg in a round hole (ie has moderate learning difficulties and can go to a local moderate learning difficulties school), then life for the parents and the child is likely to be an ongoing battle with the local authority, (the SEN division and social services); the NHS, the benefit agencies....through the education system and possibly into adulthood.

I have spoken to several mothers, who adopted children, who have suffered severe privation - ie not picked up, not fed/clothed/changed properly and basically left in a cot for years. Research by Michael Rutter has shown with the Romanian orphans has shown what the effects of this can be on children, particularly in their first 18 months.
Yet social workers did not inform the adoptive parents of the likelihood of SEN showing up in these children - they had to find out the hard way; and even then got little support from Social Services, as they battled the education system. There are other children, up for adoption who are likely to have inherited these invisible conditions, like autism, ADHD, etc from their parents (who are at the bottom of the heap because they have these conditions); not to mention things like FAS. Personally, I think these children are so damaged they need properly trained long term professional foster parents, with the provision of counselling, speech therapy, etc for the children.

There are some adoptive parents, probably who have fostered SEN children and have lots of experience - they know what they are getting into. However, IMO it is fundamentally wrong for society to take advantage of desperate childless couples, who really want a newborn take home baby and let them adopt older children, who may well turn out to have complex SEN, when they have no conception of what they are getting into, no training; and as we all know, they are unlikely to get anything like the support they need post adoption.

To say having children is a want, not a need - I fundamentally disagree. Having children is a basic human need. Every species is driven to pass on its DNA at all costs. I find it bizarre that IVF on the NHS is singled out for rationing by CCGs and pp on here, while people can drive like lunatics on motorways, cause a multi vehicle pile up and the NHS treats all the injured for free - why not charge it to the driver? Or, all those who injure themselves doing DIY or dangerous sports? Or, alcoholics and drug addicts?

There is a difference between treating people who are already born and here and bringing new people who don't exist yet into the world.

But that's not what you argued

You argued that infertile people shouldn't be treated because they would die out without treatment and wouldn't pass on their infertile genes

Lots of conditions might be inherited but we don't say they shouldn't reproduce just in case they pass them on

Should someone with ASD not procreate, because they might have a child with ASD?

What about cancer?

Infertility is rarely inherited. Most people with infertility had parents who conceived just fine.

If nature has been weeding out infertile people for centuries because they didn't have IVF to help them pass on their childless genes which don't exist as with the exception of a small number of chromosomal abnormalities most infertility is de novo or just one of those things like most other medical conditions - why are we infertiles here? Clearly us barrens haven't already died out as you would have us do

You argued for eugenics. That 'defective' people should not procreate

I'm speaking from the POV of someone who is/was unable to have kids. If there is a medical reason for the infertility, eg fibroids, PCOS-yes of course the underlying cause should be managed, so(hopefully) leading to a successful natural pregnancy. Otherwise, I don't think it should be. As others have said, it's a want and not a need.

EarlGreyT and BananaFish, I was absolutely posting in support of IVF being available on the NHS, and my point was that anyone who says they would just accept their diagnosis and not pursue IVF just can't want children as badly as some others who would do pretty much anything to birth their own child. Sorry EarlGrey if it didn't read right! Some people are ok about not having kids - if you get your infertile diagnosis and are one of those people, I can see why you wouldn't want to go through the hassle that is IVF.
Like those saying it's a want not a need - for some of us, it IS a need. In our opinion, but if feels like a need, for sure.

(I did not need IVF but if I had, I would desperately hope it was available to me.)

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.

We simply choose to adopt having already been foster carers it’s not for everyone

It's not a need that is universally felt by the human species. I think social conditioning (pronatalism) plays a part in our seeing it as a need and one which has to be fulfilled or we will regret it and never be able to live a fulfilled life.

There's also something about IVF kids which makes them worthwhile.

I support IVF being available on the NHS, but there are some awful posts on here, like that one above. IVF children are more socially beneficial than non-IVF children? Seriously, look at yourself.