...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?

And as for the poster who came back to reiterate that infertile couples who choose not to pursue IVF treatment “just can’t want children badly enough”, you were read right the first time so there’s no need to rub in your offensive views to posters on this thread who have made that difficult decision for who knows whatever private and personal reasons.

How is it offensive?

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

But what about the millions that’s spent on anti-natal care each year?
12 week scan, 20 week scan, & all the other appointments in between. & as I said a few pages back, the NHS has been screening for Down’s syndrome for decades, paying for expensive invasive tests for women in higher risk groups. Why should the NHS fund these scans & tests?
If it’s ‘survival of the fittest’ then no pregnant women would receive any of this, they’d get pregnant & have a baby ( or miscarry naturally ) which is how it was not that long ago to be fair. But the NHS is constantly evolving and anything that helps people is fine with me.
Childless couples should 100% be helped, & I’m shocked at how many posters agree with the op.

IVF children are more socially beneficial than non-IVF children? Seriously, look at yourself.

But it’s actually a fact. You might not like it but that doesn’t stop it from being true.

The fact of the matter is that a child who is born to a planned pregnancy from two financially stable adults in a long term relationship is going to have far better life chances than the result of two fifteen year olds who get carried away behind the bins of a shopping centre and end up with a surprise 9 months later.

Of course that doesn’t mean that all non-IVF children are going to be born into less than ideal situations, or that all IVF children will be wealthy brain surgeons, but when you look at it at an overall population level, a society with IVF children is going to have higher levels of tax paid and lower levels of children going into care etc, etc which will have some rough correlation to the number of IVF children.

It’s amazing the amount of people who will get upset about adults with a medical condition wanting a child after years of trying who get upset when you point out that people who don’t have fertility problems are by far and away more likely to bring children into problematic circumstances but it’s completely true.

I don’t understand why people think those who have natural fertility should be able to reproduce children into sometimes horrendous circumstances with little thought without a single comment being passed.

But apparently if you have a medical condition but are an otherwise ideal parent your right to have children should be subject to whatever public opinion is?

Makes no sense.

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.

Ok so what falls under a non medical reason for infertility?

I have PCOS and severe problems with my endometrium. I cannot conceive naturally. You simply cannot treat a thin endometrium with anything other than drugs that require IVF.

People don't have infertility for shits and giggles. What would be a non medical reason for infertility?

The fact of the matter is that a child who is born to a planned pregnancy from two financially stable adults in a long term relationship is going to have far better life chances than the result of two fifteen year olds who get carried away behind the bins of a shopping centre and end up with a surprise 9 months later.

Plenty of couples who have successful IVF end up splitting up, just like other couples.

For centuries the human race as thrived due to genetic selection - people who were infertile just couldn't have children

This is a bit ignorant. Because if it had something to do with natural selection obviously infertile people would have been bred out of existence by now.

But instead their numbers are increasing. Because of advances in technology and extreme changes in lifestyle it’s far more likely that rather than a super race being created, it’s far more likely that in countries with western lifestyles (which involve excess weight and sedentary lifestyles) we would end up breeding a race from people who could still maintain optimum fertility while overweight and sedentary which would create a population who tended to be...overweight and sedentary.

But again this is something that people who are fertile tend to get very upset about and complain people shouldn’t criticise their health, or weight or activity levels - whilst at the same time holding forth on how they think the health of people with conditions they don’t have should be managed in their opinion.

It’s kind of hypocritical don’t you think?

@kittenfluff I think you, and some of the other posters, read a different meaning in to the post about how much you want a child, which wasn’t me by the way but just saying. However @kittenfluff more importantly, you should be eligible for treatment based on NICE guidelines for age criteria. The ‘cut off’ used to be 40. But NICE even recommend treatment beyond that now. I realise that part of the issue here is that different regional funding bodies apply their own different rules so it may be a moot point to you however, I make it so that you and others know what NICE say.

I myself was treated at 40 and gave birth at 41 to an NHS IVF baby. All in line with NICE.

Plenty of couples who have successful IVF end up splitting up, just like other couples.

Yes they do.

But a lot less of them. Because if a couple have IVF on the NHS, unlike a lot of couples who have children naturally they will never have not been in a relationship in the first place. They won’t be becoming pregnant in short term relationships. Their parents won’t be smokers or obese (and will have to prove they are not). They won’t have a father who does not want children, who does not want them right now or does not want them while they are with their current partner. Their fathers are far more likely to still be present in children’s lives after any split.

Their parents will not be homeless, will not have had previous children taken out of their care and will not have criminal convictions for sex offences or serious violence or for harming children.

All of these are factors which mean statistically it is more likely IVF children will have better life outcomes than non-IVF children.

This is the bit of these threads I love. All the fertile people who think they have a right to an opinion on whether or not infertile people should have children getting in high dudgeon about ‘How dare you on fertile people’s decision to reproduce you absolute bastard. That’s their RIGHT!’

This is the bit of these threads I love. All the fertile people who think they have a right to an opinion on whether or not infertile people should have children getting in high dudgeon about ‘How dare you on fertile people’s decision to reproduce you absolute bastard. That’s their RIGHT!’

I am infertile. I was taking issue with your view of the moral superiority of infertile couples to have children.

FWIW, I don’t think anybody who is fertile should be stopped from reproducing and I know absolutely fantastic mothers who’ve had children when very young, with no fathers involved and in crap circumstances with very little money and poor housing.

But it is always very interesting when you start pointing out the less than ideal circumstances some fertile people have their children in, the same people who want to deny IVF will suddenly start becoming very vocal about the right to reproduce and how less than ideal circumstances shouldn’t be a barrier even if the state has to step in and financially help.

So why are infertile people the exception from that?

Generally if people are honest the answer is that they know it’s something they don’t personally need so they are happy to see it cut.

It’s a bit like multimillionaires who don’t think the unemployed should get benefits because they would never claim them.

@surferjet
You are really mean

@LadyLucille your comment 'Parenting an adopted child is nothing like parenting a birth child.

It is not the job of infertile couples to adopt all the children waiting' disgusts me.

The second part I agree with, adoption is a choice. However the first... so highly offensive. I have an adopted sibling, neither he nor my parents care whose uterus he came out of. Your comment is so so so wrong.

Oh, and those of you who are getting all ‘survival of the fittest’ and it will be terrible for the genetic pool about it.

Very good. Let’s take your logic to the obvious conclusion should we?

Survival of the fittest isn’t just about reproduction. It’s about survival. So if someone is sick or has a disability they are fucking up the gene pool aren’t they? Obviously their genetics are inferior or they wouldn’t be sick or disabled would they? So why are we paying out benefits for them and their kids? We want the best and fittest! Maybe we should stop them having kids somehow. Maybe sterilise them? After all, the state paying for someone who hasn’t been born yet is all wrong and should be stopped right.

And of course if you want the strongest and fittest and cleverest that means letting all the people who can’t support their families die out, removes all those defective genes of people who can’t lift heavy stuff or work out how to read and write or switch on a computer. We could stop them from starving messily by the road by rounding them up and putting them all in camps.

Some bloke tried it before apparently. Little bloke funny moustache.

But of course when you point out to people that having reproduced doesn’t on it’s own mean that they are the best and fittest and deserve to survive and reproduce suddenly people start insisting on all these funny ‘rights’ for people and stop getting so keen on ‘survival of the fittest’ when you point out that potentially that sort of logic might mean that they and their families could be labelled undesirable for the gene pool.

Because they’re not actually that keen on the idea of ‘survival of the fittest’ and optimising the gene pool when that might mean their genes aren’t in it.

Funny that isn’t it.

When you look at all the money spent on things such as alcohol addiction and drugs use both of which are lifestyle choices it then seems completely unfair not to offer support to people who want to have children but cannot de to infertility. There are so many people out there who have children but do not really want them or don't care for them adequately. The state therefore has to put a lot of money into caring for these children. I don't for one minute think that adoption or foster care is an alternative to having your own children as it certainly is not. Given the money that goes into society through other means, I think financing IVF (as long as there are restrictions in place as there currently are) is not an inappropriate use of money.

Our entire welfare state is based on removing the element of genetic luck from who gets to be born and who gets to survive. Almost the whole NHS and entire body of medical science is geared towards overcoming the disadvantages we are almost all born with or inflict on ourselves.

Why is one tiny, tiny corner of it objected to so much? Well it’s because the majority of people don’t need it and the majority of people are selfish.

Some really weird posts on here.

I wonder how many of those that are against ivf are actually driven by religious beliefs.

My 85 year old DGM was against us having it because she said it went against nature and we may have a disabled child ffs.

We went on to have two perfect children.

The reason it’s funded is because it gives quality of life and is cost effective. The NHS pays for many things that improve quality of life.

I've reported surferjet's comment because it really was in poor taste. This isn't a subject where it's appropriate to mock posters.

technical point, but 'survival of the fittest' was dismissed as not having good evidence. Darwin's revolutionary idea was 'survival of the most adaptable'. And we are, arguably, making ourselves less adaptable in general - bending the world to fit us in preference.

You're right of course, that the logical conclusion of the evolutionary argument is genetic engineering. And if you were to be purely logical about it, that's what you'd do for the race to prosper (bearing in mind that you would genetically engineer ideal workers, ideal thinkers etc).

But most of us accept that individuals have a greater value than simply what they can offer to the prosperity of the species, hence the abhorrence of the eugenics argument.....But also hence the difficult discussion we are having here where we don;t want to afford everything, but there is disagreement on the relative worth of different treatments.

I know this is a very serious & emotional thread, but I've literally laughed out loud at some of your posts

Not sure what is most worrying, the fact that you're idiotic enough to laugh at someone's post on this topic or post about it.

How fucking unkind.

@LadyLucille your comment 'Parenting an adopted child is nothing like parenting a birth child

It is not the job of infertile couples to adopt all the children waiting' disgusts me.

The second part I agree with, adoption is a choice. However the first... so highly offensive. I have an adopted sibling, neither he nor my parents care whose uterus he came out of. Your comment is so so so wrong.

Well firstly, I said "Parenting an adopted child is nothing like parenting a birth child" - I didn't say it was better or worse.

Secondly, I'm a parent to two adopted children and a birth child, so I do have a little experience in this.

Thirdly - I suspect the vast majority of adoptive parents would agree with me, especially those that have adopted in recent years where children who are adopted almost invariably have suffered abuse and neglect and suffer developmental trauma as a direct result.

So, I'm afraid you can take your offence somewhere else.

Children are only taken from their birth parents as a very last resort these days. And if there is another family member who can take them that is usually the preferred option.

hence the abhorrence of the eugenics argument.....But also hence the difficult discussion we are having here where we don;t want to afford everything, but there is disagreement on the relative worth of different treatments.

But the eugenics argument is being used repeatedly on this thread as a justification for denying this treatment.

We absolutely correctly find the eugenics argument abhorrent when it’s applied to the reproductive rights of those who are sick (physically or mentally) or disabled or even just not very bright or physically strong.

Yet it’s completely socially acceptable to wheel out the eugenics argument as an argument that it justifies not funding IVF because the infertile are not worthy of joining the gene pool?

Because, as is always the case with people who use eugenics arguments, they only ever use them against groups they know they will not be part of.