...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?

PurpleDaisies good point.

Greenpea, actually yes. I particularly think people having 3 or more children incredibly selfish and short sighted.

Self employed. I do think it should be means tested. That’s my opinion. We all have one including you!

Self employed

Self employed people still pay tax.

OP - my comment was not directed at you personally.
I was talking to all the posters who have been lucky enough to conceive with no problems but that think those of us not that lucky shouldn't get help. They can't understand how we feel because they have not been in our shoes.

If the infertile people should not be helped to have children because of over population then perhaps we should limit everyone to one child only? Families with 3+ kids are increasing the population more than my two!

Sammylou, totally agree, although if I was to make rules for a day I'd say 2 child maximum per couple (one to replace each of you).

In that scenario, I'd make IVF available.

But under the current laws of have as many children as you like, I think IVF is adding to an existing problem.

But under the current laws of have as many children as you like, I think IVF is adding to an existing problem.

Come off it. The number of children born by IVF this year is minuscule compared with the number of babies born without it.

Rixera but people with infertility may not even be able to have one without help.

My question was, if you didn't suffer from infertility, would you be willing to have no children to save the planet? Would you feel so strongly about it then?

That isn't the same as saying 'no more than three'.

Greenpea yes, I know, and that is painful, but that is reality. I think everyone should be limiting the number of children they had. As I said upthread, I planned on adoption. When I want to grow my family (and am more financially secure) I will still be doing so by adopting.

Come off it. The number of children born by IVF this year is minuscule compared with the number of babies born without it

Exactly. Should we sterilise couples once they've had their one child?

rixera you didn't answer my point about the proportion of births that IVF represents. It’s tiny. Insignificant to the number of children born as a whole.

I think having IVF on the NHS in a country that is massively overpopulated is bonkers. We should be doing everything to get our population under control. I wouldn't rule out incentivising not having children.

But it's only minuscule in comparison! And no, I don't think you should be sterilised, honestly I don't know what we could do to prevent people breeding at ridiculous rates. Perhaps a percentage out of pay for more than 2 children to cover the costs of health care and education? I don't know- all I know is that I could not bring myself to keep populating this planet just because I want to.

But it's only minuscule in comparison!

Exactly! So why stop funding it? It’s insignificant on a population level.

Again, I was told I was infertile and found out I was pregnant at approx 4 months in. I will not be having any more and feel guilty for having one and facing the problems of competing for housing, jobs etc.

And it's not wholly down to the aging population (though I'll not be putting myself through torture to extend my life over 80). So many families where I live have 3+ children and there are difficulties with school places. It's a fact- and people complain about it, yet are not helping by adding to their families just because they want them.

It wouldn’t impact me if IVF wasn’t funded by the NHS. I’m infertile (PCOS) but fairly wealthy. I could even afford to have unlimited treatment in the US at full price. The same goes for any disease I have really. I don’t need to rely on the NHS for anything. If my future child has Cancer I could whisk them away to the top facilites in the world without a thought even while a poorer kid with the same Cancer dies (Blood Cancers for Indian people are difficult to treat here due to lack of bone marrow matches). By restricting NHS treatment what you are really saying is that poor women with PCOS or other conditions are not as worthy me to obtain treatment and if this type of thinking then pervades to other diseases all you will see is poor people dying or killing themselves. Rich people like me will be fine.

So think very carefully before spouting such absolute bollocks on this thread. Infertility is a disease like anything else and deserves to be treated.

Why did you have any children at all then rixera?

I've not trawled through all the pages so i may be repeating other posts but there needs to be a radical look at what the NHS funds generally. At its inception it was to provide health care for the sick, not to deal with infertility, vanity cosmetic surgery, self-inflicted conditions such as drugs dependency, alcoholism etc.. For the little we pay, those who pay anything at all, we should not expect all these other services that in many cases relate to poor life-style choices to be funded and I speak as one who needs to lose a lot of weight but that's down to me. Wanting bigger breasts, flattened ears, smaller nose should not be presented as mental health issues, they are on the list of 'Learn to live with it'.
Life isn't 'fair', those who can afford private treatment will pay, in the same way that they will have bigger houses and flashier cars.
There is far too much waste in the NHS, they don't need half the number of admin posts, why do they need 'diversity' admin for example, just another case of bending the need to the pc brigade. If anything not directly aimed at patient care were eliminated there would be enough money to go round.

On the costs side £10k over 5 years would be about £180 pm, I'm sure having a child costs that much. I once worked with someone who had 3 failed cycles of IVF, I think at least one was funded. She very much wanted a child but her husband would not adopt as he did not want a child that was not biologically his, I felt that was mean spirited of him. There are a great many children who need homes and are waiting to be adopted.

staysafe do you have children? Are they adopted?

@Rixera- popping out a child and then telling infertile couples they shouldn’t do the same is a bit thick. Lets hope your child never needs infertility treatment.

@StaySafe - did you adopt instead of having kids then? Or is that kind of head in ass thinking you displayed only for other people?

To those who asked about my child...
Again I was diagnosed as being infertile. By a doctor. In a hospital.

I was told I could never have children and being told then that I was pregnant was actually a nightmare. I'm sure for many people here it would be a dream come true but I was unprepared and terrified.

If the same thing happened again I'd have an abortion. We all need to take responsibility for our fertility as painful as it is, not just consider having as many children as you want because you want them. I'm far more worried about my child facing struggles ever getting a job or a home of her own than a baby.

And the fact that the number of IVF babies isn’t significant to the whole population? The fact that you yourself think people should be allowed two children to “replace themselves”?

My endometriosis is a medical problem. Why shouldn’t the nhs help me to have one of my two allotted children?