...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?

YABU. it is a medical problem and has a medical solution, perhaps you think they just hand them out? let's just ignore the willful ignorance of the hurdles couples have to go through to even get offered IVF and the lottery around the amount of funded cycles and transfers.

OP, what are you going to do then?

No children? Pay for it privately?

But what about all the other ways the tax payer helps people who can't afford children to have them like state schools and child benefit? I would be inclined to say that that is different because it is done to benefit the child but not the parents. But others may argue that it is no different because it nsebtivises people who can't afford children to have them anyway with the expectation that the high earners will subsidise their reproductive choices.

Agree @BadTasteFlump - I htink it should be means tested, and there should be a sliding scale of payments.
But then I also think this about state schools - only the poorest should get it for free.

Whatever about funding IVF in general, the postcode lottery is totally unfair and should be eradicated.

As for not funding maternity care Pregnancy and childbirth can pose very serious health issues, sometimes life-threatening, for women. Not to mention their babies. Nor to mention the many threads of debilitating birth injuries women suffer that we see on MN.

Copperbonnet No I don't, my tubes had to come out several years ago. Not sure how that answers my question though, why do people need to have a child. I can certainly understand people want them. I cannot understand how they need them though, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain?

If you really want children you will find a way to have them.

I assume you'd remove child tax credits as well then? If you really wanted to be able to afford to raise a child you will find a way to fund it also, by that rationale?

(I'm £50,000 down on failed IVF. No NHS funding for me. No baby either)

Sorry for crap English....

It's because ideologically and morally it would be wrong if IVF was only an option for the wealthy. The government has made a decision to level the playing field.

Infertility is devastating for many couples. IVF might not be a medical necessity but it does fit into the overall scheme of human wellbeing.

As yesbarry said what if infertillity causes a couple such anguish and depression they need antideppressants and therapy long term? Surely that would cost the nhs longer term than if they had ivf that worked? Im not saying you are wrong op just im not sure what i think on this subject.

Due to the spectacularly low success rate of IVF it should absolutely not be funded by the NHS. There are plenty of cancer drugs for instance which are not funded due to their low success rate. The NHS should be used to treat existing illness, not to bring new life into the world and the added complications that potentially brings e.g. greater need for specialist baby care due to the higher instances of multiple birth etc etc.

Devils advocate - but what if infertility was causing someone so much anguish that their MH was suffering and they were depressed? Should it be funded then? No. Even if someone is so mentally distressed by not being able to have a child, IVF does not bring guarantees and therefore is not a cure for said mental anguish. Added to which, having a baby is not a magical solution to MH issues. If their MH is such that they feel they have to have a baby then they are likely not suitable candidates for having a baby in the first place. Treat the MH don’t attempt to put a plaster over it. If the IVF is unsuccessful (and evidence points to the likelihood that it will be,) the MH issues are still going to be there and they will still need treating on the NHS. Added to which, evidence points to a higher rate of post-natal depression in women who have IVF

"At its highest success rate, IVF is 32% successful"

No that isn't correct. The success rate in some clinics is over 50% per cycle for younger women and around 85% over 3 cycles.

Spiteful I’m very sorry to hear that, it must be hard.

Having children is a biological imperative.

Not having children is a recently acquired luxury and privilege it’s not the other way round.

I read in the news today that they are now going to be doing womb transplants. What a total waste of time and money when there are so many children needing adoption. They are also going to be offering more to trans patients like laser hair removal which is not given to women with illnesses which cause facial hair. I got really sick before Xmas and had to get other people involved and fight for drugs just to function. Drs try to avoid giving out thyroid meds due to the cost. If money is now the issue, he nhs has to stick to the essentials of saving lives. And yes, people do get new boobs on the nhs, I know one person but it was not like it stopped her from going out or she felt suicidal, she just wanted to 'look better', not good when reductions are refused and people are in physical pain.

Obviously there are higher priorities but the pain and devastation of infertility can cause severe mental health issues which can cost more than IVF itself. Admittedly it doesn’t always work but for some couples it has a great chance of working. In the grand scheme of things IVF is relatively inexpensive compared to a lot of things the NHS pay for.

As someone who would not have a child without IVF I believe it should be funded because it enabled us to be parents (although it was a self funded cycle!).

I believe that all areas should offer the same numbefof cycles. The fact that some offer one and others offer 3 is very unfair.

For anyone who has mentioned that they do not agree with is IVF/are against it I’d be really interested to hear why when it gives so many desperate couples the chance to be parents when they might not be able to be otherwise....

I assume you'd remove child tax credits as well then? If you really wanted to be able to afford to raise a child you will find a way to fund it also, by that rationale

I think many people would like to see an end to tax credits, children should be the responsibility of the parents alone not other tax payers. We have become a society of wanting things but letting somebody else fund them. There's little self responsibility left.

Maternity care has to be free at the point of use, women are going to get pregnant and not all of them will have the money to fund their own antenatal care and delivery. If it isn’t paid for then presumably that means women giving birth at home with no medical care and maternal and infant mortality returns to the levels it was in the early 20th century. Even the US pays for low income mothers to have their babies via Medicaid.

I actually think of infertility as an illness and think fertility treatment should be funded as a treatment for said illness but I could not disagree more with the ‘why is mmaternity care free’ argument.

I agree, OP

"At its highest success rate, IVF is 32% successful"

Have you read the HFEA league tables?

That's a national average across all age groups

Go to a top clinic if you're aged under 37 and you might expect up to 70% chance of a live birth per cycle

Where are you getting that stat from?

ARGC don't take NHS patients but top clinics like CRGH at UCH do and they have significantly higher success rates per cycle than that!!

Yes where do you draw the line? Should no fertility treatment be funded? If that was the case I might not exist (was conceived with clomid). Infertility is a devastating medical problem, why is it less worthy of treatment than type 2 diabetes which as someone else has pointed out is one of the most costly things and is mainly caused by lifestyle choice?

"If their MH is such that they feel they have to have a baby then they are likely not suitable candidates for having a baby in the first place"

So IVF is best for those who aren't really bothered either way? I disagree.

What a total waste of time and money when there are so many children needing adoption.

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.

if a child is a lifestyle choice, as pointed out by many posters, what do you think.ablut child benefit, tax credits etc and were you happy to receive it to bring up your lifestyle choices?

I don’t know.

Yes infertility is an medical condition however ivf doesn’t actually cure infertility the person is still infertile. An actual cure 100% should be funded but ivf isn’t a cure.

Maternity care has to be free at the point of use, women are going to get pregnant and not all of them will have the money to fund their own antenatal care and delivery.

Back to the point I made earlier though.

They don’t have to find their own antenatal care and delivery... abortion is free