...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 as old as time:

Genesis 30 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
30 4,9 Rachel and Leah being both barren, give their maids unto their husband, and they bare him children.

1 And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister, and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+30&version=GNV

Any/ all "extras" from our treatments were donated to research - as our issue seemed to be getting fertilized eggs to make it to blastocyst stage I'm not sure if we were any use as our embryos weren't deemed freezable.

As one PP has pointed out, back in the day a lot more infertile couples adopted babies and kept that secret, unlike today when we're required to be open about it (a change for the better I hasten to add). There were fewer couples staying married without having a family, because as well as adoption, childless couples used to offer homes to nieces or nephews who had been left orphans. (My DM was brought up by her childless aunt and uncle after her parents died when she was 10 years old.)

And basically, infertility just wasn't talked about.

Clumsy analogy but if you need a new heart the NHS endeavours to help. If you lack fertility maybe it should too? I know the latter isn't life or death, but it's still a failure of organs.
I don't know though. I don't know the costs to the public purse nor to the individuals if forced to accept failure. Difficult

Yes you're so right, bananafish81 and then when Rachel gave birth to Joseph, she said, 'God has taken away my disgrace.' And then tragically she died in childbirth having her second son Benjamin.

And basically, infertility just wasn't talked about.

It still wasn’t in the 90s when we were ttc.

Lizzie not to mention the matching of "girls in trouble" with infertile relatives/family friends in the days before adoption was formalised. She would pop off to stay with said Auntie/cousin to "help" them

I've long believed that IVF shouldn't be funded by the NHS. I feel awful to say it, but if there are mental health issues, then they should be treated as such, and IVF wouldn't be prescribed to treat mental health issues. I'd say exactly the same for cosmetic surgery, too. Reconstructive surgery and other things, such as breast reduction, have therapeutic benefits, eg the relief of severe pain and individual cases should be considered on their own merits.

I certainly believe the NHS should not be funding any form of assisted conception for any person who already has a child. I was shocked to read a post earlier in the thread about a couple who each had children with previous partners, but not one together.

Ultimately, having children is a choice. Maybe, as a half way house, the NHS could offer IVF at cost price, including the cost doctors' & nurses' time. It's still not going to be cheap, but at least no-one would be profiteering.

Ultimately, having children is a choice

Only if you actually HAVE a choice

Ultimately, having children is a choice.

It’s a choice if you have working reproductive organs.

The success rate of IVF does not look promising for all those availing of it. And of course it is the woman who has to inject and do all the procedures. Men just have to masturbate and produce sperm.

My younger sister died of ovarian cancer and she went through four rounds of IVF. She always said she thought the IVF procedures caused it. We will never know. She is dead now may she RIP but it is so sad that she thought that.

I suppose my life experiences have led me to this pass. But good luck to everyone trying to conceive. And please do not think that IVF causes cancer. It was just something my late and dearly loved sister said.

I haven't cost the NHS a penny in contraception for the last 15 years. If I'd been fertile presumably you wouldn't objected to the NHS funding a coil or even the snip for DH?

Oh and BTW her IVF treatment was privately funded by her and her husband.

I am probably still in shock that she is gone. My apologies if I offended anyone or anything. It is just all spilling out now.

I really don't think you should comment on this if you're someone who had no difficulty having children, because how can you possibly understand? It's not a mental health issue as such, although it is possible for it to affect a person's mental health, in much the same way as being made redundant or bereavement can do that. Infertility is a medical issue, and it can be treated in a lot of different ways, IVF is mostly only recommended once all other avenues have been explored.

DH and I had one cycle of IVF, which was all our HA offered. It wouldn't have worked for us to have more than one anyway. We then went down the road of adoption, which worked out happily for us. No HA offers more than 3 cycles. Those who have more cycles go private.

I obviously don't know the figures, but I would be very surprised if the cost of IVF on the NHS overall is more than the amount spent to treat patients with health problems caused by misuse of drugs or alcohol or tobacco.

Some posters on this thread seriously lack empathy.

The NHS broke me so it’d be nice if they’d fix me.

I find the grief of infertility hits not just at the obvious times (seeing happy families out and about, family get togethers with cousins and their children, and my aunts and uncles enjoying being grandparents, seeing bumps and buggies, on what would have been the due date of our babies if we hadn't miscarried) - but at other times

When I see news stories about neglected children

When I read on MN about shitty ex partners who have treated their family like crap and don't pay for their kids

When you do IVF, one of the legal forms you have to complete is called The Welfare Of the Child form

You have to complete a questionnaire to assess your suitability to procreate

You have to disclose any physical or mental health issues and your clinic has to sign off on whether they believe you would be fit parents

If you're fertile, you can get knocked up as many times as you like without the state signing off on it

I read about deadbeat Dads and it breaks my heart that because my womb doesn't work, my darling DH, who would make such an incredible father, can't become the parent he so desperately wants to be.

The infertile couple who are putting themselves through the physical, financial and emotional agony of IVF in the hope of bringing a much wanted child into the world, are the ones who are vetted as to their suitability to procreate. Whilst arseholes who happen to be fertile can bring as many children into their world as they like.

There's no answer to this, it's just one of the many deeply painful things about involuntary childlessness

Keyboard I can't remember all the details now because it's 8-10 years ago but I can't recall any mention of increased ovarian risk but I think there was some debate if breast cancer rates were affected - HRT was under scrutiny for this at the time. But I did have to be up to date with cervical screening to have IVF.

I'm neither for or against IVF on NHS.

But if I had an elderly patient who needed social care and a family needing IVF. It would be a heartbreaking choice but I'd choose to put the money in to care for the elderly person.

All the pharmaceutical companies and medical device companies need to be taken to task. The prices they charge the NHS for basic stuff is outrageous.

The people who agree to contracts with these companies then need throttling too.

Then maybe we could have money for everything

@lesemajeste - yes, of course I know people born through IVF can have jobs! I don't see how that connects to what I wrote at all? I'm really sorry if it sounded like I was arguing against the existence of children born through IVF or anything like that. I really was just pointing out that education taxes are irrelevant to the debate because none of us pay them for the purpose of educating our own individual children. We all, whether we have 18 children in state school, use private schools or have no children at all, pay the tax so that we can have an educated workforce made up of everybody's children.

Thanks for the answers of the likelihood of a certain gender. Sounds like it's just coincidence about the number of daughters on this thread (earlier part at least).

Having a child is not a right I agree, but neither do I think the spending on other areas in the nhs is a right. Some spending on some operations ie weight loss surgery, or where there has been years of substance abuse is my opinion less a priority. Resources are limited - and therefore choices have to be made. In general I would say that IVf babies are likely as a group to be better cared for and more wanted than any other subset.

In general I would say that IVf babies are likely as a group to be better cared for and more wanted than any other subset.

I think that’s a really unhelpful thing to say. Children conceived from unplanned pregnancies can be just as loved and wanted as IVF babies.

In general I would say that IVf babies are likely as a group to be better cared for and more wanted than any other subset.

Based on what? The fact it took longer to have them? Cost more money? As Purple said, your comment is unhelpful.

I've seen so many posts on here about people who have been successful after IVF and that's great, but what's upsetting is the part in their post when they talk about the dark time in their life when they wondered what their purpose in life would be if they weren't a mother. It's incredibly sad that people still think like this. If anyone is struggling with infertility, please remember that a woman doesn't have the sole purpose of bearing a child and you aren't defined by whether or not you're a mother

@GrumbleBumble

Thank you. As I said it was just something my sister said and stayed in my brain. But grief can do mad things to you too.

Best of luck everyone in your journey.

If anyone is struggling with infertility, please remember that a woman doesn't have the sole purpose of bearing a child and you aren't defined by whether or not you're a mother

I know that. It doesn’t stop me from wanting children.