...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?

Someone told me, to put things into perspective, the cost of extending someone's life by a few months at the end of something like cancer can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The NHS budget is 120 billion GBP, and it is estimated the IVF bill is 400 million (i.e. 0.3% of the budget). It's not a huge portion of the budget

Maybe interest free loans for every round would be a way around the cost, that way down to the couple and of it fails then the money is still paid back and not taking away from things the NHS actually needs to provide rather than someone's wants/wishes. It would have to be compulsory payment though like council tax rather than the student loan system where people just sit waiting for the debt to be wrote off.

Painkillers aren't a cure for arthritis, nor antidepressants for depression, they are treatments for symptoms. Childlessness is a symptom of infertility, which stops you from having 'normal' choices we all expect.

I actually know 3 young people who have had cancer before 22 so are infertile. As far as I'm concerned IVF should be available on the NHS as it isn't their fault they ended up with cancers. One nearly died before she got treated due to a shit GP who didn't believe her. (Their siblings are fine btw so the cancers were due to chance.)

Incidentally most of the couples I know who had IVF were self-funded and some went abroad to get cheaper treatment.

Agree OP

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.

We can't have children. As I said in a PP we spent in the region of £50k on failed IVF. People will glibly say 'well you can always just adopt', and say what great parents we would make and how much love we would have to give

Yes but that's not what SS care about. We wouldn't be able to adopt because DH was abandoned by his own father. I have chronic health conditions. No family close by. Self employed. Too old. List as long as your arm. Oh and depression from infertility and miscarriage doesn't really make you an attractive prospect either! The 'why don't you just adopt' comments are invariably made by people who have no personal experience of adoption.

Someone told me, to put things into perspective, the cost of extending someone's life by a few months at the end of something like cancer can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Yep that does put it in perspective. We really to embrace more palliative care, hasn’t it been shown that the outcomes and quality of life for people are so much better? extending someones life by a few months seems less worthy to me than IVF.

As far as I'm concerned IVF should be available on the NHS as it isn't their fault they ended up with cancers.

And other reasons for infertility aren't also anyone's fault either

Maternity care is preventive as childbirth is risky. You would end up with poor women and their children dying or suffering because of it.
Not great in a civilised society.
Not the same as IVF
If mental health is the issue then that's what should be treated.

However now we have developed a technique that can help people I think we should. But not lesbians or single women perhaps that can get pregnant but rather the NHS paid for a procedure.

A child costs more than 10 grand a year to have. So if you want IVF take a year to save for it. Mental Health issues - don't get me started on that, great if your mental health issues are sorted by having a child. I really hope your child doesn't have mental health issues because access to help/treatment is a f**king nightmare. And I say this as a person with private health insurance willing to use it if someone will advise route forward.

I think everyone who needs it should have one free shot at IVF, but not at the expense of people who are already here. If we can'f afford cancer treatment to save lives then we can't afford IVF. It all depends how much money the NHS has - I don't know the answer to that.

001 I'm not sure. I'm in my 20s so I've got time to figure it out. I know adoption is an alternative, but I'm not sure it's a substitute.

It's incredibly tough, the choices about what should be treated. It us worthy of debate but I would not underestimate how complex decisions are.

There is plastic surgery for disfigurement, mental health treatment, treatment for addicts, for being overweight, health promotion, drugs to prolong life. These are not strictly disease treatments or cures, but something that we as a nation feel should be available.

Prescribing makes up a huge proportion of costs, with much going to greedy pharmaceutical companies. I'd say that over prescribing for more minor depression/infections etc is one area that could be tackled.

IVF is a tricky area, We have decided as the NHS that it is important to offer the latest medical interventions that can increase fertility. We see the ability to have a child as a high need.

However funds are not limitless. It's a tough call. The real crisis facing the NHS is the huge increasing elderly population.

I have a beautiful intelligent 26 year old daughter conceived through ivf, she is a speech and language therapist helping people with learning disabilities. You know, a proper tax paying member of society I produced.
The reason for needing the Ivf was due to me having a burst appendix as a child that was misdiagnosed, I remember being really sick and in hospital for months.
So some people's opinions seem to be it's ok for a woman to produce many children, not pay a penny, but it's wrong to need a little help. Not getting in to the subject of the members of society who actually don't parent that well.
Where do we draw the line as a society if we go down that route, the child who is unable to do anything for themselves due to serious disabilities, are they a waste of money. To me a society is judged by how it's treats its vulnerable.
I wish I knew the percentage of nhs money that went into Ivf but I know I waited over two years at the time, so I would guess it's very small.

Would a drug be available on the NHS that only worked for 32% of people? Would it hell

You might want to look up the NNTT for statins, most antihypertensives, aspirin for strokes, etc. 32% effectiveness is excellent.

I love all these comments ‘they should adopt’. Unlike the quick shag around the corner from the chippy, being approved to adopt is a long and drawn out (and not guaranteed) way to have children. As an adopted child myself, who had infertility, unless you’ve been there, either adopted or with fertility problems you really are speaking from a place of no knowledge. My longing for my own biological child, the only thing in my world genetically linked, it gave me the strength to go through 5 miscarriages, 2 x IVF and the loss of a twin (not disappearing - loads of blood and nearly lost both). Whilst the NHS treats smokers, alcoholics, people who do dangerous sports for fun, diabetes because of poor eating habits, and while I still pay taxes that partially go to fund that ‘around the corner from the chip shop, baby daddy unknown, then I think some funding should be offered where needed. We paid for our IVF, but surely having children shouldn’t be reserved for the wealthy or reckless?!

A child costs more than 10 grand a year to have. So if you want IVF take a year to save for it.

Pretty sure my baby did not cost £10k in the first year of life. You are oversimplifying things in a rather offensive way.

Badtaste but if they earn six figure salaries then they are paying a lot in to the nhs. Do they really not deserve to get help from it when they need it? It’s like paying into an insurance policy and not being aloud to use it. If it’s means tested where do you draw the line? It’s ridiculous and means they have to pay twice, in their taxes and then with private healthcare.

If that’s the attitude going forward then I’d rather scrap the nhs althogether and have a private insurance system - and I work for the nhs - it has to be available to all.

I hate the attitude that everything should be means tested in this country, alienating and losing the goodwill of the very people that make things like healthcare, education etc possible. I much prefer the Scandinavian system where everyone pays in and everyone gets out when they need it. i.e unversal childcare for all etc.

Free IVF cycles aren't funded by the NHS, they're funded by the privately funded cycles provided/sold by the NHS. To explain further, in my NHS Trust, the IVF clinic charge the same for a privately funded cycle as private clinics do, so they make a profit per funded cycle; it's not provided 'at cost'. Since the success rate of each cycle is around 30 percent, most couples who have been unsuccessful on their first attempt will have at least one more attempt that they have to fund, not to mention any cycles to try and conceive subsequent children.

Oh fuck off.

It's always infertile women who are shamed

Let's get rid of the abortion for those too fertile
Let's get rid of c sections
Let's get rid of all the other stuff... that fertile people are using the NHS for
Let's force people to abort after 2.4 children

We wouldn't. Why? Because it would be madness. But yeah let's shame the people who have no opportunity to drain the NHS for those things...

Nobody does IVF just for fun. And a heck of a lot of resources will be used funding the mental health support of infertile women.

I have kids - but suffer conditions that cause infertility- my condition probably costs the NHS more than it ever did during pregnancy when not pregnant in admissions I'm told are necessary.

It's not simply sitting there hoping to fall pregnant!

The price should be reduced to make it affordable to couples. With the advanced in medicine it shouldn't be as expensive as it is.

I don't agree with much of what the NHS deems as necessary. If it is to survive it will have to start streamlining sooner rather than later.

I don't think it'll continue much longer, sad though it is. Brexit will probably do massive damage to the NHS - there will have to be major cutbacks, and I suspect IVF will be one of the first things to go.

Although I have seen how distressing infertility is for a close friend I still don’t think the NHS should fund fertility treatment for anyone at all. I believe that’s children are a privilege not a right
However I acknowledge that as some one who got easily pg 3 times I’m very fortunate and not everyone is.

I agree with those who have said if you can't afford private ivf (at least 1 round) you can't afford a child . For those who say you don't just have 10k lying around - saving up for 2-3 years makes a monthly outgoing to savings of 200-300 a month which is far far less than it costs to raise my daughter.

I’m of the impression, western countries offer IVF treatment so that those who want it receive safe ethical care. The consequences of not offering it is sextuplets that need NICU care and more expensive maternal management.
Some simple infertility treatments should be free of cost; sperm for IUI, all the blood work and necessary scans, even the meds. A small equipment fee or fee towards research innovation might be reasonable.