...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?

who was conceived by private ivf.

I think IVF should be funded if it is because the eggs were removed before cancer treatment, but there is too much of the idea of having children being a right today. Maybe there are reasons why some people just should not have children.

I also believe sex changes should not be funded by the nhs, and certainly should not be put before life saving treatment.

The nhs is there to save lives, not to give people everything and anything they want.

How much does the NHS actually spend on ivf in comparison with other spending?

I don't know and I'll bet you don't either but I'm willing to guess it's a minuscule proportion of the overall budget.

So you'll need to withdraw other stuff - what will you choose? Nothing that would impact your family presumably.

I've read this identical thread on MN a dozen times - it's always the same. If you can't afford ivf adopt or foster.

I'm assuming that those who don't meet the criteria have to pay and go private , maybe if the NHS offered it at for a not for profit price than this would be a reasonable balance. Though I have no idea how much the cost of ivf would be so maybe still to expensive .

I think some people do NEED to have a child.

However, IVF is so expensive I'm not sure the NHS was designed to provide it on demand.

I'm not sure what the answer is...higher taxes? Not offering it at all? Like I say I don't know, but it does seem a luxury when there are so many other needs and demands on the NHS.

so should it be means tested? and not offered for free to those whose earnings/savings are above a certain level? would this free up enough money to ensure everyone who qualified for it and wanted it could have IVF treatment - the same amount across the country.

Two close friends have had IVF, one couple went down the adoption route after their NHS treatment failed, and the other are saving up to have another round privately.

YABU. Infertility is due to part of the body not working as it should, so it falls under the remit of the NHS
I agree.
Before cutting IVF I would cut

• any type of plastic surgery (with the exception of facial if consequence of an accident)
• funding of dieting programs, slimming world etc, gastric bypass

I hate these threads. I hate the way they bring out the 'IVF on the NHS means we're not curing cancer' bullshit.

There's a million and one things that could be canned and the money funnelled into cancer care and research but they're not. IVF is not preventing cancer being cured. If it is, then so are lots of other things!

The postcode lottery is wrong. There should be research into what the most effective time to offer IVF if it is to be offered, and how many rounds and then it should be the same everywhere.

I could understand an NHS without IVF funding but I am glad it has offered it in the past. This is largely because I benefitted. Yep I'm selfish and mostly seeing things from my point of view, just as most on this thread are doing.

Children may be a want rather than a need, but it is desperately hard to watch everyone else in the world have a child when you can't - because it is for many of us a biological imperative. We're designed (even if not all of us do) to want children.

If we can't, it'll be because of a medical problem. While the NHS is offering treatment for various lifestyle-related problems and while it offers medicine that many could self-fund, I think it's perfectly reasonable to offer some IVF too and get around the medical problems in question. Children who are born will eventually become tax-payers and contribute to society. We will need them with an ageing population.

That being said, I think I would've saved up for it eventually, but my chance of success would've lowered with every passing month. Thank you NHS for my children!

IVF is incredibly anti-woman anyway. My friend is going through it and as her husband has low mobility, deformed sperm, they want to split the egg and inject it with sperm because even in a dish his sperm us too week to get to it. I mean bloody hell how is that not ethically dodgy? Not to mention all the drugs they’ve stuffed her full of before announcing they can’t peoceed because if his sperm (they should have checked first)

Why does the adoption argument always get wheeled out in these discussions. It is not the same.

If we are to take a crow-bar to NHS-funded IVF then I think we should also reconsider transplants and other treatments for serious illnesses caused by and large through people's lifestyle choices.

I think the current system despite its faults works on reasonable ground.

@hugitout - what an utterly idiotic post. The cost of the child is ON TOP of the cost of IVF. Duh

duchy - i don't think you understood the post ..

duh

IVF is incredibly anti-woman anyway. My friend is going through it and as her husband has low mobility, deformed sperm, they want to split the egg and inject it with sperm because even in a dish his sperm us too week to get to it. I mean bloody hell how is that not ethically dodgy?

Er, that's a completely standard reason for fertility treatment. ICSI for male factor infertility (the most common reason for IVF BTW) is completely standard. The whole point of IVF for male factor is to do ICSI. How is that ethically dodgy? There would be no point doing it if you weren't to do ICSI!!

Or we could all stop expecting a Scandinavian public services system on an American tax system, pay more tax and have better medical care, schools, infrastructure and so on. Or you go to a private system where the rich prevail. Plenty of medical treatment is the result of lifestyle choices. Or this is a groundbreaking one, we make sure tax legislation is appropriately targeted at MNCs and there will be more money for everyone!

I think natural conception is only 20% per month.
The ivf successes are squewed because people continue until sucessful. And some people are unexplained so could have something ivf doesnt fix.
A lot of people i know were successful on first round. I stimmed 3 times for dc2 but only had 2 EC, so even then was 50% successful and only 3 for 2dc so 66%.
Definitely end the postcode lottery.
Whilst it seems ivf costs only say 5k some people are trying multiple times.
Ivf is the consequence of effective contraception. Hopefully now it's clear ivf cant fix everything and how much fertility declines more couple will choose to ttc younger. As it is a huge waste/stress etc if it is just needed due to age. Plus with mc rates increasing.
Imo all those saying it shouldnt be funded should consider their weight (and maybe smoking etc habits) and how expensive it would be to treat. Im guessing more than the 5k for t2d and maybe high blood pressure.
So i suggest increasing the price/tax on sugary foods even more and possibly cigarettes and alcohol. This may have knock on effects of decreasing weight related infertility and pg issues.
Also in uk they are trying to implement SET which im sure affects success rates but does save nhs money on twin + pg. Surely private clinics are less likely to implement this? And that is more expensive than the original ivf.

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

What statistic are you referring to? I've googled HFEA and the table I'm looking at says the highest IVF success rate is 29%, for women under 35, less than than that for older.

(DW had a number of cycles of IVF at a London NHS facility, costing us a few thousand each time. They told us 38% success rate when I asked. That might be their average success rate, but when I googled afterwards I found out that the industry-average age-adjusted success rate was 12%. We would have gone to plan B much sooner if they'd told us that.)

Of course YABU. If having a child is a choice, not a right, then we shouldn't fund everything else to do with having a child (maternity services etc). To those saying they could just 'adopt or foster', so can those with children - stop being discriminatory.

The WHO define infertility as a disease - it deserves the same medical funding as such.

Whilst we're at it, the NHS should also properly fund investigative procedures prior to IVF. Too many cases of infertility are left at 'unexplained infertility' without further investigation.

We see quite often with male factor infertility that patients are referred straight to IVF rather than funding something as simple as Tamoxifen.

We should also see a commissioning review, to take into account that different CCGs are commissioning IVF at eye-wateringly different prices. Quite often private patients are paying a premium on IVF services, so that clinics can provide a cheaper commissioned rate to the NHS.

There are so many issues with the way infertility is treated in England.

@OptimisticHamster the research has been done- see the NICE fertility guidelines, recommends 3 rounds under 40 and one aged 40-42. Must have been trying 2 years. This seems reasonable to me and has been adopted where I am. I think the postcode lottery is horrendously unfair.

I wish I could take every ignoramus who thinks all these children are sitting waiting around to be adopted by infertile couples and bash their heads into the offices that deal with adoption.

There's so much red tape and bloody good reason why those coping with infertility have to wait before even thinking of this route - adopted children are not the answer for infertility

Very very strong stable parents with great support networks who are able to cope with very complex needs are the answer to adopted children

In this country there's not even that many kids! I think when I considered if I could there was about 6 kids in my borough and about 50 prospective parents in the room learning about the adoption process.

I quickly realised I couldn't meet the children in questions complex medical needs... many parents terminate if aware of complex medical conditions. It's just totally incomparable to a biological child

i think it should be funded 50% by patient with strict criteria applied nationwide and 2-3 cycles max

I need ivf because when I was a child pcos wasn’t routinely treated by the NHS. If it had been I wouldn’t have needed it. Younger women who get prompt diagnosis and medication when they start their periods rarely have to face the level of ovarian destruction I have.. SAME applies for endo.

The NHS provides physio for sporting injuries, which could theoretically be said to be self-inflicted. Because you don't have to play sport, do you?

Should treatment be denied to them? Of course not.

Reproduction is a basic function of the human body. Why shouldn't the NHS attempt to help people who are suffering because their body is failing to function as it should?

I agree with you, OP.

The NHS won’t pay for dementia care even though dementia is plainly a physical illness. Hip and knee replacements are deemed low priority even though people who need them have to deal with excruciating pain.

I really struggle to see infertility as a higher priority in terms of funding, though my heart goes out to people who want to conceive, and can’t.

Yabu OP and some of the posts from the thicko “you should adopt/I haven’t got a kid and I’m fine/f you can’t pay for it you should t have children” brigade are thoroughly disheartening and to be expected. Yes, let’s all round on those infertile woman and blame them for the lack of cancer drugs. This thread is like a masterclass in dailyfail posting!