To not disagree that IVF should be further restricted to save money

[Banana8080]

NHS England is considering reducing IVF offer guidelines, some areas offer 3 cycles (the current recommendation), while others offer none.

Current age limit is 40 years, strict BMI and trying to conceive for at least two years.

While infertility can be devastating, I myself have just had treatment (private) followed by a mc, it’s not critical/life saving. I’m sad but I left it late (37) even though I knew the risks.

Am I being unreasonable to say it’s ok for NHS to review guidelines, maybe reduce upper age to 35, one cycle etc. And this money goes to critical care - cancer, more nurses etc etc

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/29/ivf-cycles-restricted-england-nhs-advisers-ignored

I left it until after I was 35 when I knew that was the watershed age, that is my responsibility.

Difference is that cancer kills, infertility doesn’t.

Looking at the news this morning,I’m a bit shocked at what else they’re talking about removing, like D&Cs for heavy periods. I know so many people who’ve had serious relief through this. They’re on about removing arthroscopies for knee arthritis, again, surely necessary? There was a fairly extensive list. All very worrying.

Difference is that cancer kills, infertility doesn’t.

This is always trotted out. The nhs treats all sorts of non fatal conditions.

I was answering a specific question comparing fertility to cancer.

I believe Scotland offers three rounds regardless of what health board area you live in, and I'm very proud that my country offers that.

As to whether it should be on the NHS or not, I firmly believe it should. If we are going to pick up the costs of people spending their lives smoking, taking drugs and being heavily obese, then I'm not sure how one can begrudge IVF for people whose bodies aren't working the way they should through no fault of their own.

I'm bitter I admit. But as someone who who has been refused nhs help as I'm in a same sex relationship with a private arrangement then I couldn't give a shit if they scale back. Perhaps they could stop Scotland getting free ivf whilst they're at it.

We should stop boob/nose jobs, providing special equipment for obese people, ivf treatment, giving out prescriptions for anything you can buy over the counter.

You chose to leave it, others might not have met their partner until they were older.

It’s an easy thing to attack and provides a nice distraction for people to focus on as the government slashed the NHS to the bone and ontinues to privatise our healthcare.

I'm bitter I admit. But as someone who who has been refused nhs help as I'm in a same sex relationship with a private arrangement then I couldn't give a shit if they scale back. Perhaps they could stop Scotland getting free ivf whilst they're at it.

While I really sympathise with you, bringing other people or services down is never the answer. We should be raising things up. Also healthcare is a devolved power so 'they' can't stop Scotland doing anything. Scotland provides IVF for same sex couples so I think your ire should be better directed at the hash being made of the NHS down south and the inconsistent postcode lottery of health trusts. That's the real problem, not taking things away from other people.

Some boob jobs should still be offered though what if you are in a car crash and disfugured serverly tough titties the NHS saved your life you need to fund the recontruction of yourself.

Or you had your breast removed because of cancer tough we wont be funding implants as woman having breasts is not important....

As someone undergoing IVF I agree that the criteria should be strict - BMI under 30 (I have pcos, it's a bitch to loose weight with, I struggle with MH, I have a BMI of 30 and I am quite clearly o erweifht but not unhealthy so I believe this number IS a fair expectation) under 35 is also probably reasonable due to the drop in fertility after this and age of trying being a choice, no previous children for the person who has the fertility issues, definitely no smokers (duh).
HOWEVER I think that the recommended 3 cycles should be provided to everyone - we had one NHS cycle. It nearly killed me (hospitalised on a drip for 4 days, ambulanced back in the day after discharge, pneumonia as a result of OHSS lasted 1 month, plus 8 month recovery) and I didn't get pregnant. It will now cost me approximately £8k a round.

Husband is infertile because of an operation he had as a child, I am infertile because of pcos. We started trying at 26 and 28 years old.
We're either getting a loan or remortgaging to pay for round 2, which is likely to put me in hospital again.

Why not adopt? Well maybe we will - but adoption is NOT as easy as being given a healthy happy baby, and you cannot pursue both avenues at once. I personally won't adopt as a last resort - it's something I feel you have to want to do in order to be fair to the child. My husband isn't sure he could provide the correct home for a child who has experienced trauma, and it's not a decision we would take lightly.

At the end of the day infertility is a disease which cause multiple mental health issues as well as physical health complications.

I know celebelly you're right. I'm just so mad at the NHS at the minute.

It's a really unfair system that living a few miles on the 'wrong' side can disbar you from treatment that someone else can get. The entire thing needs an overhaul as it's so fragmented and top heavy and wasteful.

Nope. I think we should be paying more in taxes to fund the NHS properly as well somebody competent (ha!) reviewing back office structures (supplies anyone?) before we look at cutting provisions.

There are lots of conditions and even non-conditions that come under NHS remit. Eczema isn’t going to kill you but we treat it, pissing yourself isn’t going to kill you but we treat it, we fund dietians for advice about diet to people without conditions (IBS, constipation, minor weight loss needs) that indicate a massive clinical need and could arguably be done through independent research, we fund surveillance for people without symptoms but who fall into risk categories with sometimes expensive and time heavy investigations or provide testing for people who again have no symptoms but a strong family history, menopause isn’t going to kill you but we treat it. The list could go on and on.

I agree with all of the above. There has to be a limit somewhere but that doesn’t mean flat out denial of any treatment.

I’m ignorant of the costs of ivf medication but I do wonder whether there is a middle ground for the NHS to provide the expertise of the patient funds the medication. Not ideal but not a complete withdrawing of availability.

That was exactly my situation - when I said I waited I mean I waited until I met the right man, at 34, and turned out he had epilepsy and strong medication impacted fertility.

.... my point is it’s my responsibility/my life, I could have had children younger if I’d prioritised it over waiting for the right man. I didn’t, I waited, and now the public purse is willing to pick up the tab and I’m not sure they should.

But the public purse picks up the tab of all the people who have kids before they are ready and who need housing and benefits to survive, so I'm not sure that's a great argument. So if you wait until you're in a position to be able to afford children without help from the state, you get punished by the state for waiting?

You make a good point!

So do you think the NHS should only offer life saving emergency services? There are lots and lots of things that don't fit that criteria that are offered within the same ball park; antenatal care, postnatal care, contraceptive care, menopausal care, just to name a couple. Before we even get started on things that are caused by lifestyle choices around obesity, smoking, alcohol, substance misuse. I've not had IVF we were very fortunate to not need it, so my view isn't skewed by personal circumstances, but why is IVF always the first thing people bash? Also in terms of mental health it can be life saving for some people.

Completely disagree infertility is an illness like any other and also a devastating illness.

I disagree with a PP up to a point regarding nose jobs- I had septum deviation and I had a medically necessary operation to fix it.

Used to get constant colds and sinus infections so I expect it's fairly cost effective to continue offering them.

People are living far longer than they used to when the nhs was first set up. Medical advances mean far more diseases are identified and treated which is amazing. However, the nhs in its current form cannot keep up with demand. It needs radical reform including a complete revamp of managerial positions. Why so many mgrs without medical experience trying to run hospitals? The amount of waste I used to encounter doing medical sales is astonishing. Whole rooms of equipment purchased but not fit for purpose.

Also banana, you waited to find the right man. I didn't. I started trying at 26 (I did wait until I had a stable, well paid job). It is categorically not my fault in any way that I can't conceive.

If the NHS hadn't responded to my lack of periods by suggesting an implant and had investigated this earlier I would have started trying before then! If my husband had been told that the operation. He had would cause infertility he'd have wanted to try earlier too...

Maybe you shouldn't take the NHS treatment if you don't think you deserve it, but for me this is something that affects my life every day and is going to have serious financial implications. A fair chance is all I really want.

YABU. There was a very similar thread a few weeks ago where lots of very experienced and knowledgeable posters explained why this argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3269544--to-ask-why-the-NHS-funds-IVF

Yes and if you’d prioritised having children quickly over with a responsible man you wanted to have children with you might have needed more benefits or help from the state in other ways to raise them, thus also using up taxpayers’ money.

The whole thing is a distraction tactic.