...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?

In my area infertile couples get one round of IVF funded only, and only if neither party already has a child. We were told we'd need fertility treatment, and saved for a second private round if needed. In the end we didn't need any intervention at all, but friends of ours had their one round and it didn't work. They both have always worked full time and paid taxes, no higher education, they own their home, have never had any hospitalisation or serious medical issues other than the fertility treatment. They've never claimed a benefit between them but are not what you would consider high earners. Why should they not be entitled to one shot at their own biological family? Given how much others take out of the state system in a constant basis, not due to a medical condition but due to choices.

Succinctly and accurately put googlegoggles. The lack of compassion on this thread is fucking appalling.

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

Here's the ARGC stats on hfea for under 35, for example

Pregnancy rates and live birth at 74 / 63% per egg collection

@zeebeedee it costs a lot to means test. Someone has to go through all the bank statements and wage slips and request more information about what that transfer on the bank statement was and it’s even harder if one person is self employed and then you’ve got to have a system in place for fraud. You’d also have to decide whether single women doing ivf would be more likely to have it funded (due to generally having less income than a couple) or would they have a higher bar to pass. It would most likely be cheaper to offer it free to those who need it than to means test it.

The NHS treats all kinds of things that aren't medically necessary. IVF always comes in for a bashing, but it is just one of many things that are provided. It's not medically necessary to reconstruct a woman's breasts after surgery to remove them following cancer. It's not medically necessary to remove excess skin following weight loss surgery. Where do you draw the line? I do think though that if IVF is going to be provided it should be the same for everyone countrywide. The current postcode lottery and pick'n'mix rules aren't fair on anyone.

Meh, if ivf wasn't available on the nhs then my beautiful, amazing nephew wouldn't exist! My dsis and dbil did pay for a second round out of their own pocket and now have a "complete" family (paraphrasing my sister there) with their lovely twins as well (2 for 1!).

I think ivf should be available on the nhs. I also think the nhs should be better funded so people could have more rounds of it as well (I know of one couple who had 7 rounds of it before conceiving their child - that's a huge amount of money to spend).

Not had time to RTFT...

Why should people with fertility problems at the initial conception stage be ignored by the NHS, yet if a women struggles with the letter stages of reproduction ie carrying to term safely, the NHS will provide full care for her and her very expensive premature baby, for as many pregnancies as she wishes to have?

It really should be all or nothing. The nhs won’t treat secondary infertility yet it’s been proven time and again the psychological impact is similar to primary infertility. It would be better if for example everyone had the right to 2 attempts or even 1. But then the nhs is so strapped for cash it is rapidly having to move to a life saving service so it probably won’t be long before ivf is no longer available

Just out of interest do you think the NHS should fund say dialysis for kidney failure through alcohol abuse? Yes it’s a medical need the kidneys failing but the person has ‘chosen’ to drink themselves to death? Or lung cancer treatment when the person has ‘chosen’ to smoke 40 fags a day since they were 12?

Yes perhaps having children is a lifestyle ‘choice’ but I didn’t choose to be infertile and have done nothing to create infertility problems so why don’t I deserve a chance at my ‘treatment’ too?

Where does the line get drawn tho? Do we then say somebody involved in extreme sports - nobody needs to do them & everybody knows the risks - must fund their own medical care? What about people who smoke & get related illness? Or are overweight & get related illness?

Infertility is devastating to so many people, the impact on MH can be catastrophic. And to tell somebody they can simply adopt? Really bugs me. Why should it be down to couples who, for whatever reason, cannot conceive naturally, to take on unwanted children? Why is that never bandied at people who can conceive & choose to have their own biological child? Not even considering how hard it is nowadays to be approved for adoption!

I'd rather taxes went into funding IVF than into some lazy MPs back pocket, but that's another topic..

@kikisparks that sounds about right. I remember 'back in the day' when I was having mine that the chances over 40 were extremely extremely low.

I was 'lucky' and started trying at 27 so was only 30 by the time I had IVF. I forgot to say in my post I had two rounds for my first child and paid privately to have frozen embryo transfer for my second. I actually do feel very lucky.

Given that a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, you could argue that the NHS should exist to maintain a working (tax-paying) population. Hence children and adults of working age would receive all care that meant they would be able to work....so severe mental health problems that were keeping people off work, joint replacements, speech impediments, sight problems, cancers, heart/ lung disease etc all relatively non-controversial. But things like sub fertility, gastric bands orthodontics, boob jobs etc would be on a case by case basis at best. And then elderly care would be paid for on some kind of pay it forward scheme. I honestly can't think of any one system that wouldn't be unfair in some way.....

You have a point OP. There's an assumption that having children is a God given right.

I can understand the reasons IVF is limited on the NHS because it's expensive and life saving treatments are more if a priority. Even those are limited due to cost.

Infertility is not an illness, the NHS should not be wasting tax payers money on IVF. Its just not fair on people who are actually ill yet the state cant afford to treat them.

I can imagine infertility depresses someone so much that you should help treat the depression. But being poor might cause depression, that doesn't mean you should hand everyone a million pounds to fix it. And if that causes someone to get mentally ill then they should definitely not be having children.

UnicornFarts (awesome name, btw) - that's a very interesting point. I'm less convinced of my stance now than I was when I started this thread 🤔

I'm so confused!

Weren't we created to reproduce??

Effectively a child is a right. It's what we were made to do!

I totally agree that the current system of postcode lottery healthcare is abhorrent. It amazes me that somehow it is just accepted that different rules for something as vital as healthcare entitlement are set haphazardly and unfairly.

We need a nationally agreed NHS charter that sets out what the service will and won't fund with a properly functioning appeals service for special cases and new treatments.

Funding for IVF is one of very many difficult choices that need t be made if the NHS is to remain 'free at the point of care' for future generations. I would suggest a national policy of 3 free cycles per couple with subsequent cycles available at cost price.

There are many areas of inefficiency and waste that could save far more than the cost of IVF. Removing the CCGs would be a good start.

Walkingdeadganhirl
So are you saying people with depression shouldn’t have kids? I was left with ptsd from ds birth should I give home back?

I cannot believe I am reading this and that people are agreeing!
No words!

Where's the line though?
Should nobody have any investigations for infertility on the NHS? What about miscarriage? Endometriosis?
Other issues that are life altering but not life threatening?

Six years of infertility here, I x NHS funded DS, wasn’t my choice to have infertility, it is my choice not to smoke, keep myself as fit and at a healthy weight so that not only do I get to see my kids (naturally conceived DD) grow up, hopefully I won’t burden the NHS with smoking/weight related issues.

One of the reasons NICE recommend 3 cycles is to encourage single embryo transfer, to reduce the number of multiple births

The less NHS funding there is, the more couples will go abroad for more affordable - and less regulated- IVF, and the more high risk multiple pregnancies there will be, as overseas clinics stuff in more embryos to increase the chances of pregnancy per cycle.

More high risk pregnancies, more premature births. Which the NHS will pay for.

I assume those who believe IVF should not be funded also feel the same about recurrent miscarriage investigations? If you keep losing pregnancies, presumably you should also be denied medical help, because children aren't a God given right?

I really don’t know how I feel about this. I had a serious fertility issue that required surgery, and I went privately. I would’ve done absolutely anything to get the money to fund it myself. And when we weren’t sure if it had works DH and I discussed how we could save up and over how many years to afford X number of IVF rounds. Because I don’t think it’s really right to go via the NHS for these things (or indeed many other things eg cosmetic surgery) and I also agree with BoxsetsAndPopcorn that I am not entirely comfortable with people having children they cannot pay for without help. It’s one thing to have children with the correct finances and then things fuck up and you need help, it’s another to just have children expecting to rely on the taxpayer. Infertility is a horrendous issue though so I don’t know.

I worry about the long term implications. Ivf after cancer treatment etc is OK, but for conditions such as poor sperm mobility, what if that is passed on to the next generation? Are we breeding infertility issues that would naturally be curtailed if infertile people didn't have children artificially?

Walkingdeadfangirl - "Infertility is not an illness, the NHS should not be wasting tax payers money on IVF. Its just not fair on people who are actually ill yet the state cant afford to treat them."

Well what about illnesses that is totally curable through lifestyle change like type 2 diabetes? We spend millions on that and it affects for more people than infertility.

What about all the new cancer treatments that cost millions but only prolong life short months? Should we not fund those either?

Where would you draw the line? it is a complex situation.

Care should be universal though and not a post code lottery.