...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?

Les

Haven't checked on this thread for a bit but wow the the tone has changed,

LIVIDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Ummm 6.5% pay rise.....don't even go there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And get your facts right!

LIVIDDDDDD

Helena if you'd read the thread you'd have seen that various aspects of the NHS budget have been discussed as debating points - in particular the use of maternity provision (if children are a choice). The point that is being argued is that the NHS is a universal service and it's a really really difficult one to start determining who is and isn't deserving of treatment. So I certainly wasn't intending that to be an obesity-bashing post, and I'm sorry if I offended you.

I can't see that IVF provision will be available on the NHS for much longer, most CCGs are cutting back wherever possible

I never had NHS funding for our IVF, and I do understand that the budget is limited, of course

I'm simply trying to offer a counterpoint to the arguments that are continually trotted out by people who conceived their DC about how children are a privilege not a right - except a privilege they're happy to take NHS funds for when having and raising their children

There are no easy answers and I imagine it won't be long before IVF is only available for the privileged few who can afford it. And forcing couples to go abroad for cheaper - and less regulated - IVF, with all the risks that carries.

I would urge you to read the thread to understand the context within which that post was posted.

Next time you need a nurse.....tell them that to their face.

Maternity care is different, there's potential the mums and babies lives at stake whereas not getting pregnany isn't harmful to anyone. If you made maternity care payable it wouldn't stop people getting pregnant, they would just have babies at home regardless of the risks. The mother has a choice, the baby doesn't.

There lots we could cut from the NHS budget and small charges that could help at point of use. Cosmetic surgery, ivf, damage caused by drink, drugs etc. There should be a nominal charge to see a doctor and prescriptions shouldn't be free unless for conditions where the person would die without the medication. The NHS is amazing but people take advantage of it for their wants or when they don't want to pay for something. I've seen appointments wasted just to get calpol or headline lotion before as god forbid the parents go to the supermarket and buy it.

whereas not getting pregnany isn't harmful to anyone.

Um yes it is. Have you ever looked into the psychological impact of infertility or the rates of depression and anxiety which are higher amongst women with infertility? Clearly you haven’t or you wouldn’t be spouting such ill informed nonsense.

depression is also incredibly high in mothers directly because of pregnancy and having a child, so depression from infertility doesnt just trump that argument.

I think some of the money going to IVF should be given to research the reasons that IVF appears to be required so much now. Why is infertility so prevalent I mean.

Seems to me, and I could be wrong of course, but our mothers, aunts and so on seemed to have kids (and many of them!) no problem, although I am sure there was a cohort who could not have children either.

Just saying.

Peacefulbanana I didn’t say it did trump that argument. I was just refuting the incorrect state that that not getting pregnant isn’t harmful to anyone because this isn’t true.

Not so, keyboardkate there were women who didn't get pregnant in the past, they were referred to as 'barren'. Some queens of this country couldn't have children, of course it was always the woman's fault back then.

It probably is more common now, but that would be because we're having children later, and women's fertility drops in their late thirties. There's no mystery.

I also think we talk about it more now. Historically, infertile women suffered in silence and shame.

Keyboard there has always been infertility in the past it was less talked about and probably less obvious . Infertile couples often adapted as there were more babies and the process was less formal. People are starting families later so declining fertility due to age has in impact -when I was born in the 70's most parents were in the early or mid 20s.

I accept that infertility was taboo back in the day. In fact I heard a relative of mine say to a female relative who didn't have any children to "take off the tights in bed love" So I know a lot of it was directed at women. Different times I think, not pleasant none the less.

My mother had my brother at age 41. My aunt had her two children at age 38 and 39 respectively. That was thirty or so years ago.

Infertility because of age seems to only happen these days though, whereas fertile women were giving birth well into their forties back in the day.

I am not trying to goad or be disrespectful, but there has to be a cause.

Perhaps you are right, maybe it is spoken about more these days.

Dangerous sports injuries?
Any couples I know it’s the men with the problem

I believe plastics in the environment play a role. Maybe companies that produce plastic packaging should be funding infertility treatment, alcohol producers-alcohol related treatments, snack producers-obeseaty related care etc etc. And drug companies not be raking in billions, some sort of clawback.

I think some of the money going to IVF should be given to research the reasons that IVF appears to be required so much now. Why is infertility so prevalent I mean.

I think that would be a good idea but I’m not sure there is the will to solve the causes. The amount of sugar in our diets has something to do with PCOS because it is linked to insulin and pre-diabetes. Though unfortunately it can’t be cured by just stopping eating it. And male factor infertility has a lot to do with environmental factors. But despite knowing this not much is done to combat it. It affects a minority and the will just isn’t there.

Infertility because of age seems to only happen these days though, whereas fertile women were giving birth well into their forties back in the day.

Not often their first child though?

BTW younger women have fertility issues too. I was 29 when I first started ttc, certainly not over the hill and not an age where difficulty might have been expected.

I was 29 when i found out I had low ovarian reserve which felt young, but biologically i guess it is quite old. my parents and grandparents/their friends were pregnant from 18 - 22 ish

I think some of the money going to IVF should be given to research the reasons that IVF appears to be required so much now. Why is infertility so prevalent I mean

There have always been couples for whom 'it never happened'

Clomid has been around since the 60s, and Steptoe and Edwards began their research into IVF in the 60s

Most couples who couldn't have children just didn't ever get access to treatment

Barren women were shunned and treated with suspicion

There is significant research into infertility already. I have myself taken part in it. But I had to pay for it - it was at an NHS hospital, part of the Tommys clinical research centre, but the tests were self funded. I paid £570 to have womb biopsies as part of a major research programme investigating the role of the womb lining in infertility and miscarriage

our mothers, aunts and so on seemed to have kids (and many of them!) no problem

Well, yes, inherently our mothers were all able to have children! (Though not necessarily no problem - stillbirth was much more common in the past, and miscarriage almost certainly was too) If you research your family tree you'll almost certainly find women who were married but didn't, though - maybe not within a generation or two (so within living memory), but they'll be there.

Infertility has always existed - and it's always been incredibly difficult for at least some of the people going through it. I vaguely know someone who researches infertility in the early middle ages, and he has examples of couples who committed suicide. It isn't some self-indulgent modern thing to be devastated about it as someone (not you, I know, keyboard) suggested upthread. The story of Sarah and Abraham in the Bible is another good example of this (though also one of the first recorded examples of the incredibly annoying 'stop trying and it'll happen!' meme)

bananafish81 I also had the Coventry tests done, leading to a bit of a moment of black humour with DH - I grandly announced 'I am donating my womb to science' when I found out about the tests and thought they might help us and he said 'doesn't science want the good ones?'

Speaking of black humour OH and I often referred to the fertility clinic as the futility clinic.