...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?

Talk, I don't disagree with it but don't believe it should be funded by the NHS. It's a want not a need so should be self funded. If a couple badly want a child then they would find the means to fund it. If they weren't prepared to do that then obviously the want for a child wasn't that great in the first place.

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

Have you adopted any of these children or is it just something you think others "should" do?

I don't agree that having children is a "lifestyle choice." This isn't a nose job we're talking about.

The NHS should fund:

medical problems; failures of normal body functioning

that are not directly self-induced

that are not too expensive.

IVF therefore easily fits the requirements. Three rounds of IVF will cost less than one badly broken leg, FYI, since no hospital nights are involved. You can then have a debate about whether age-related infertility, or IVF for gay couples, should count -- is homosexuality or gender dismorphia a "lifestyle choice"? Is eating and drinking and smoking till you have a heart attack enough of a choice that the NHS should leave you to die in the street? What about skiing, or running marathons?

Actually you could debate whether birth control and childbirth should be covered if that's a lifestyle choice.

YABU. I can’t imagine the pain of infertility. No, children aren’t a right but it’s easy for people who have children to assume somebody who can’t should just learn to live with it. It is a medical condition so I don’t have any problem with it being treated on the NHS. I also think all treatment should be available everywhere or nowhere, no more postcode lottery.

If I was going to ban anything it would be breast augmentations and other cosmetic procedures (not reconstructions) but I suspect the money saved would be miniscule. Or they could be offered at a little above cost price as a money maker as somebody said above about IVF.

I work in a Clinical Support Department in the NHS and despair sometimes when I see invoices for stationary and so on at vastly inflated prices. This is where the NHS could save a shitload of money without cutting any services.

OP I would turn around your question and ask why infertility should be something singled out to not be treated by the NHS?

The NHS doesn't stick to only treating life-threatening conditions. It treats acne and cleft lips. It provides all sorts of treatments and equipment to help people live lives that their conditions would otherwise make impossible. What is it about infertility that should make it different to someone wanting to be able to walk instead of stick to a wheelchair? Or to run instead of just walking? (Both things the NHS will try to do for patients if their condition makes intervention a possibility). We provide allergy medicine for people who choose to put themselves in situations where their allergies might be exacerbated (lifestyle choices!
Imagine wanting to live the sorts of lives most people can! The cheek of it!). We treat self-inflicted illnesses.

I can see an argument that we currently put too much emphasis on physical health over mental health and ought to reorganize our priorities to focus more on mental health. And that might lead to cutting back on several physical treatments, possibly including IVF. But I think that should be a fair and rigorous review that doesn't just push infertility into a corner simply because so many people have had to cope with it in the past and people think women, in particular, are somehow self-indulgent for wanting to have children.

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

Are you suggesting compulsory abortions for women who can’t find their own antenatal care, LadyLucille? Just want to be clear.

As someone who has had IVF successfully I find the arguments that children are a lifestyle choice bloody insulting along side the you could adopt argument. If it applies to me why not people who can conceive naturally? Why didn't you adopt? As other people have said where do you draw the line? Why give benefits to people with children if it's a lifestyle choice? These points are insensitive and unless you have experienced infertility you are have no bloody clue.

YAVBU. Do think there are other things that shouldn't be paid for, lung replacements for lifetime smokers, emergency surgery for drunk drivers who have wrapped themselves round a tree, CPR for those whose heart has stopped after a cocaine binge? If so, what's the point of the NHS at all? It's ridiculous to think there is some sort of straight choice between cancer treatment and IVF

Reading all these replies saying that something wrong with my body should not be funded by the NHS makes me feel physically sick. That's not an exaggeration. To be honest I shouldn't have opened this thread, such is the level of effect this will have on my mental health. I'll hopefully be able to shake off the negative thoughts within a few days but knowing there are people out there who don't think I should have treated for being incapable of conceiving naturally makes me so incredibly sad and takes me right back to the darkest moments of my infertility.

There something wrong with my body. Something I had absolutely no control over. I didn't need medical assistance because I smoked, drank alcohol escessively or took drugs, it wasn't for cosmetic reasons. There was something wrong with my body. It was treated and now I have two absolutely incredible children. Yes people can choose to have children or not, but people do not choose whether to be fertile or not.

I work for the NHS and will support healthcare accessible to all until my dying day. That includes those who 'deserve' it and those who don't.

If it were as simple as that the NHS would stop public funding for diabetes. The truth is by getting rid of NHS funding you are making UK IVF expensive & so everyone who can afford to will go overseas.

Well I didn't say it was a lifestyle choice, but I've never agreed with the principle of child benefit and tax credits - particularly child benefit which wasn't even means tested for years. And no, I haven't received any of them to bring up my DC.

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

Are you suggesting compulsory abortions for women who can’t find their own antenatal care, LadyLucille? Just want to be clear.

Nope.

If they weren't prepared to do that then obviously the want for a child wasn't that great in the first place

Seriously? I couldn’t find thousands upon thousands of pounds to fund IVF, most people don’t have access to that kind of money. Having money available is nothing to do with how much you long for a child, it just means you are richer.

Talk I said why I don't agree. They won't spend £6 per year to manage my medical condition that affects me on a daily basis and will stop me worsening and probably causing significant costs to the NHS over time. Far cheaper and more sensible to look after me now at minimal cost (and far, far less even over another 40 years of life than even one round of IVF) than pay a fortune to look after me when I am older.

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

Adoption is about giving a child a home, not an infertile couple a child

Reasons why infertile couples have been rejected as adopters

Too old
Not the right ethnicity
Not the right religion
Don't already have children
Self employed
Both partners work
Rent not own
Have debt
Any current or previous mental health issues
Any current or previous physical health issues
Have a dog
Difficult childhood
No family close by
Not enough outside space
Not enough bedrooms
Any previous relationship issues

Most parents wouldn't get approved to adopt their own children!

A friend is going through the adoption process and most of the couples in her cohort have dropped out because the process of being torn to shreds by social workers was so emotionally gruelling

Also you can't adopt and be TTC at the same time so by the time you've given up the dream of a birth child you might well be too old to adopt

The support given to adopters is woeful and the number of adoptions that break down is heartbreaking

See, I'm totally fine with being tubeless. I needed the salpingectomy. What I cannot understand is the "biological" argument. If it really is a biological imperative them why am I totally OK with things? Why are several of my female friends and millions of women all across the world happily childfree?

I'm on the fence, but slightly leaning towards the system currently in place. I am very aware that I was fortunate enough to conceive my children more or less when I wanted to, despite having a medical condition which can cause fertility problems. Therefore I have no real issue with my taxes helping someone less fortunate, although I do understand the issue that public funding is finite.

Maternity services should absolutely be available on the NHS. Women will get pregnant. It is a fact of life. It will happen no matter what the state of public finances. It just will, and pregnancy and childbirth can and do have life threatening complications.

But for NHS funded maternity services I would not have been born alive. Subsequently, neither would two of my three DDs.

As for the suggestion up thread that if you can afford to have children you can afford to fund IVF - what complete and utter bollocks. Presumably written by someone to whom £11k is simply pocket money!!

It should be funded because it is a medical issue. I would rather see NHS funding a couple IVF than the money being spent on people's self inflicted illnesses.

There are plenty of parents, indeed plenty of parents on MN, that don't get child tax credits or child benefit.

Yabu. I do think postcode lottery is unfair and should be a universal entitlement across the board. Some get no shots in a situation where others get 3. I say that as someone eligible to get 3 tries and very grateful for the option if we need it. We could remortgage our house or something for the £30k+ for 3 goes but infertility is agonising as it is, I think to add significant financial pressure to everything else would be inhumane. I can say for certain I’d be for it even if it didn’t affect me.

There is something about TTC and your period coming every month and hope draining away as everyone around you gets pregnant at the drop of a hat that’s heartbreaking, meantime you’re maybe going through painful procedures and having nasty side effects, taking unpaid time off work for appointments, having to schedule sex and no longer being able to just enjoy it when you want to, getting needles stuck in you, drinking disgusting herbs, trying all different supplements and special lubes, taking your temp every day and peeing on sticks all the time and crying yourself to sleep as your heart is absolutely breaking that those who haven’t been through it won’t get.

Watch the documentary One More Shot. It’s in the USA where ivf is self funded and the central couple have to make some really devastating choices as a result. The finances are talked about a lot and are a major issue. Many on lower incomes (not even talking on benefits, just ‘working class’) just don’t get to have a shot at being parents at all.

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.

For me this is a valid argument. I appreciate that success rates may be higher in some women than others, but overall are still very low versus the cost. Many medical conditions are not treated unless there is a clear need, so infertility should not be any different.

Most parents wouldn't get approved to adopt their own children!

This is shocking, isn't it? I used to work with a chap who was turned down for adoption; he would have made the most lovely dad. His wife was lovely too. Seemed no rhyme nor reason behind the decision; they could have offered a fabulous home and life for a child. While - absolutely and unequivocally- you need to vet prospective parents, I do think the test should be "what concerns would we have if the child were already within this family?". I think the bar for removing children from families should be lower as well; I know a social worker and a paediatric surgeon and they tell heartbreaking stories of kids who have been badly neglected but not abused quite "enough" to be taken into care.

I don’t think IVF should be state funded. I think contraception and abortion should be state funded.

There are plenty of parents, indeed plenty of parents on MN, that don't get child tax credits or child benefit.

Of course there are. But some posters are arguing that if couples can't afford IVF then they can't afford children. By the same rationale then anyone who can't afford to raise a child without tax credits should presumably also not receive them

@Unsureneighbour I probably shouldn’t have opened the thread either. This is AIBU and probably a bit too harsh to cope with when we’re on this end of the issue having to deal with/ dealt with fertility issues. I’m glad you were able to have your 2 wonderful children and happy for that to be the sort of thing my taxes pay for.

I personally funded my own IVF (and am still in debt because of it). Through my IVF journey I was lucky enough to meet many amazing women online and horrendous mental health problems caused by infertility were commonplace. One even committed suicide because of it.

Unless you’ve been through years of infertility you cannot comment on how gut wrenchingly awful it is. I did consider whether i could go on living without a baby. My MH problems are now completely gone as I have my baby.