...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?

LadyLucille why is maternity care free then?

At its highest success rate, IVF is 32% successful. That's appallingly low, and for that reason alone, I don't think it should be funded.

Would a drug be available on the NHS that only worked for 32% of people? Would it hell.

It's a heinous industry making millions for private clinics/drug companies from vulnerable desperate people.

Public money doesn’t grow on trees it comes from the public. I’d rather my taxes went to funding IVF than trident.

I agree with Iggi

There are all sorts of ways to look at this though.

If you think having a child is a “lifestyle choice” and IVF shouldn’t be funded why should childbirth and maternity services be funded?

If you take the tack that “children are expensive and if you can’t afford ivf you can’t afford a child” then how if that different from “children are expensive and if you can’t afford to pay hospital fees you can’t afford a child”

I live in the USA, hospital fees for giving birth are something like $10k. A C-section is about $15k.

Explain to me why those should be funded and why it’s any different?

Nobody NEEDS a child.

Wrenika I’d be interested to know if you’ve ever suffered infertility yourself?

I am on the fence about IVF to be honest. However, I do think that whatever the rule is, it should be the same everywhere, rather than vary by region! That isn't fair at all.

I don't believe gender-reassignment surgery should be available on the NHS. If a woman can't have a boob job or laser hair removal, why should a man? It's purely cosmetic.

I'm neither for or against but if I had to make a decision between an elderly person receiving care or a couple having IVF. I'd go with the care for the elderly person.

The NHS is down to brass knuckles and tough decisions are needed BUT

I'd far rather the medical companies charging over priced medication, equipment be taken to task.

Or the gazillion IT computer systems were millions are wasted need to be taken to task.

The people who agree these ripoff contracts need to be taken to task.

Then maybe we can healthcare all round rather than deciding what interventions should be given or not.

You would not believe the disgustingness that is the conpanies ripping off the NHS right left and centre

Surely by the same logic, as pointed out upthread, we shouldn't fund maternity provision either?

I think consistency across regions of Britain is important, but don't have any issue with the general principle of helping people who are infertile but want children whether that be with treatment for the underlying condition, or (if needed and reasonably likely to work) IVF.

(Fortunately have never had any need to use any fertility services myself - though I remain very grateful for free NHS maternity and contraception provision...)

At its highest success rate, IVF is 32% successful. That's appallingly low

That's the rate per cycle. The success rate per cycle when TTC naturally isn't any better.

It's recommended that couples have 3 cycles of IVF, which makes the chance of pregnancy higher than you quote.

I work in the nhs in an area which people don’t seem to be able to help themselves. Arteriopaths - people that need bypass grafts etc, That carry on smoking even after their surgeries. Type II diabetics are one of the biggest cost to the nhs and this is a largely preventable condition.
So I don’t resent people getting help conceiving. It isn’t just ivf. There are lots of other treatments which are not as expensive before you get to ivf. Do we withhold them too?
I don’t agree with paying for treatment if you already have a child though.

If you aren’t funding IVF, where do you draw the line?

I had infertility due to Ashermans syndrome, following ERPC for a miscarriage. I needed surgery to fix that so I could conceive again. Should that have been funded, or should I have been told that my infertility wasn’t a medical problem? How about PCOS, should people be given treatment for that?

Why are vasectomies covered by the NHS? Why is contraception covered? Why is maternity care, bariatric surgery, bunion surgery, acne treatment, physiotherapy for things like sports injuries?

LadyLucille why is maternity care free then?

Not sure what you mean.

The point I’m making is, why is it ok for people who are able to conceive without intervention to make use of maternity services ‘on the NHS’, but people who need help to conceive shouldn’t be able to make use of the NHS for this?

Smacks of some people pulling the drawbridge up...

Copperbonnet Why do people need to have a child then?

Don't worry OP, I don't think it will be funded by the NHS much longer.

I strongly disagree with IVF being available on the NHS. I suffer from a condition that affects my daily life. Minimally, but it's constant. I will always have it. It will worsen as I age, I am likely to have dementia (in fact my memory is already deteriorating and I'm 44) and could potentially cost the NHS a lot of money when I am older.

An injection once a month would pretty much remove the issue and at least prevent the dementia worsening. It would cost £6 annually. £6. They will not fund it. I am not an isolated case, there are hundreds of thousands of us with the same condition. If I lived in Europe, I could get the injection monthly. The NHS will allow it once every three months, which is simply not sufficient. I supplement this myself will pills, which I pay for, although these are not so effective.

I don't see why I am denied treatment at £6 per year for something that would significantly improve my daily health, but would be given IVF.

YABVU. It's a medical issue that often leads to other medical issues when people are devastated. And nobody chooses it. Yet doubtless you wouldn't deny treatment to, say, someone injured doing an extreme sport?

However based on stories told by friends and posts on here it does seem that it's a bit inconsistent - if that's still the case, each trust should follow the same rules IMO.

Interesting question and I think that there needs to be a much wider debate about what the nhs is for. Picking on one specific example is always going to be difficult because there’s always an exception where you could argue it would be absolutely justified. I think as a society we need to have a debate about what we want the nhs to do and then move forwards from there.
To those saying the nhs provides funding for all healthcare this already isn’t the case. There’s lots of examples of treatments that are available but aren’t approved by nice. If wanted on the nhs they have to be specially applied for, and are often turned down.

Well if you want to be long term about it, many children grow up to be tax payers and we have an aging population. They also encourage consumer spending as well. I can see sound economic reasons in developed country with a low birth rate like ours why you would want to fund infertility treatments.

Do you have children Spiteful?

I'm really surprised by the number of people who don't think IVF should be funded by the NHS. I've said this for years and it's a very rare person who's agreed with me. It saddens me that people with cancer can't get lifesaving treatment and we spend money on people who aren't ill.

YABU. & I speak as someone who has four children.
How much does the NHS spend on scanning pregnant women? paying for tests to check for Down’s syndrome & then paying for the termination ( if that’s what the parents want )
Is it the NHS’s job to provide all women with a perfect baby?

I think the current system is fair and I am more than happy for my taxes to pay for IVF for those that meet the current criteria under the NHS.

I do think some posters might not have RTFT... or even the entirety of the opening post! I understand infertility is a symptom of a medical issue because I am affected.

wrenika

"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"

I presume you have no infertility in your immediate family.

Ideally the NHS could pay for everybody's medical needs, but since it can't, I do struggle with the idea that money is going into IVF when some cancer drugs, for example are deemed 'too expensive'. I also know wealthy people who have had IVF on the NHS, and that didn't sit well with me either when they're on six figure salaries and could easily afford to fund it themselves. But then when the same people have had other medical treatment on the NHS it didn't seem wrong at all.

It's much cheaper to fund contraception than deal with the effects of not doing so!
So it's much cheaper to fund pills or the depo or coil, than an abortion, or birth, and possibly also adoption, social services etc if the child is really unwanted.
Or, worse still, deal with fixing the effects of back street abortions.