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

They need to stop boob jobs for 'mental health' reasons, if anything.

Also skin removal surgery and tummy tucks for people who have only maintained their weight loss for a matter of months.

One girl I know had hers 8 weeks after hitting her target at slimming world. Guess what? A year later shes now bigger than she ever was and that was wasted surgery.

he had epilepsy and strong medication impacted fertility

Isn’t that exactly the type of situation that should be without question assisted? It’s hardly his fault he has epilepsy and I fail to see the difference your age makes. If he’d met you at 25 you’d be entitled to help?

surely any fertility support would initially focus on him and possible solutions to assist his sperm in conception before looking at you? Aren’t you arguing against his access to fertility treatment due to medical need rather than your own?

In years gone by it would have been a done deal but it doesn’t have to be nowadays and isn’t that a wonderful thing?

Oh god, not another thread about this. Always brings some very nasty people out of the woodwork. I think we've had all the "why can't you just adopt" "it isn't a human right to have a child" "nobody ever died of infertility" crap that we need.

Of course IVF should be funded. It is a treatable medical condition. I'd much rather pay more tax to boost the NHS so that we can actually afford to treat everyone. That is supposed to be the point of the NHS.

They need to stop boob jobs for 'mental health' reasons, if anything

I can happily conclude though anacdoteal data of the number of women unhappy with their breasts and common sense that this is a minuscule problem comparable to shining your taps while there’s a steaming turd on the bathroom floor.

It just doesn’t happen to the extent people seem desperate to believe.

I don’t think IVF should be cut, no.

I am however quite surprised at the comments suggesting a lack of IVF would cost the NHS far more in mental health services. It wouldn’t, simply because MH services have already been cut to the bone. People have died due the lack of any help available and this has been going on for years. Of course it’s not a topic that the papers can parse in such a way as to cause outrage so it goes largely ignored.

Frankly I don’t believe that IVF costs 8k (I’m using this as it’s the same figure everyone that has it, including me 7 times, seems to pay.

Where I live though the NHS successfully saves money on the 1 IVF cycle permitted, which I agree is usually a waste of time on its own, by creating such a preposterously long wait list that women already facing a vanishingly small window of opportunity are forced into the private system.

At 8k a pop, people are getting very rich out of IVF.

Because after 35 my chances of conceiving and then going on to have a healthy birth considerably decrease - just down to age.

IVF is hugely important to lots of people and IMO every area should offer three cycles.

Fertility decreases but it doesn’t disappear. Your situation isn’t because that is the problem though is it? Pregnancy and birth don’t really come into the argument any more than a naturally conceived pregnancy tbh

Your dp is the leading person needing assistance but as it’s very much a two person job your body is integral to the whole process.

It’s one thing to argue you should take responsibility for knowledge of the biological limitations of your own fertility but you seem to be arguing someone else’s rights away and then doesn’t sit very well with me tbh.

I am always keen to hear what NHS workers themselves see as waste . Surely the people at the heart of it would know best ?

My main one is prescriptions . I perceive savings could me made there . I also wouldn’t mind paying a small charge for some services too . Small !

Is emotive but having read and seen the genuine anguish caused by unfertility

I do question though how effective IVF actually is

The guideline of 40 is based on clinical evidence. Reducing it to 35 would be an arbitrary age choice based on cutting spending.

Getting pregnant by the wrong man or too early in a relationship or when you are not ready for a child is also likely to cost the state money.

goodbyeeee

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

this

I’m too exhausted from the last thread to pick over the same arguments. Sorry OP, I know there is no law on searching the forums before posting I picked up the guardian in the supermarket and saw the headline ‘ivf services slashed’. I felt physically sick. I got the nhs treatment and I am lucky enough to have had a child at 41. to anyone going through this at the moment.

Former NHS worker.
I do feel NHS trusts need to be consistent with each other.
In terms of IVF, minimum of two rounds.
However, I do feel the NHS needs to start charging for many services whilst still keeping them subsidised or at cost.
In terms of treatment such as cosmetic surgery, I don't see why the NHS can't offer these services at not-for-profit rates.
I'd also like the UK to model other European or Canadian systems rather than adopting a US style approach.

Getting pregnant by the wrong man or too early in a relationship or when you are not ready for a child is also likely to cost the state money.

This

The NHS could save millions by improving and slimlining their systems. Some of the paperwork procedures and procurement systems are archaic and shockingly wasteful. One hospital trust in Essex made adjustments which did not impact on patient care, and saved £3m in one year.

The problem is underfunding, why pick on people that have trouble conceiving? 3 cycles is the most efficient/best outcome number - if you don’t get lucky on 3 cycles then it’s very likely not to happen. 3 should be funded.

The MH issues caused by infertility are considerable.

Similarly with the lifestyle stuff - an incentive plan such as the private companies offer, but are you really going to tell someone who’s smoked for 40 years that they can’t have treatment?

Yes -crispy I felt that my struggle to have dc were a right royal punishment after spending my 20s trying to do the right thing, get ahead at work, buy the house, be financially stable etc.

JolieFleurie

Exactly! I think that this is extremely unfair! People should not feel that they have to rush into children with whoever and without any financial security

We IVFers must be such an easy target. I have no idea why. Please read the other thread.

The problem with discussions like this is that they always descend into who is worthy of NHS care and who isn't and it gets really nasty. We all pay into the NHS and so should be able to expect a reasonable level of treatment whether we are infertile, fertile, underweight/overweight or perfect weight. This govt could afford to fund an NHS that can deliver this service. It chooses not to, so way don't some of the people who agree with services being cut, who don't think infertile couples should have a shot at having a baby or who think that people who are overweight should never receive any care at all - protest at the people who have got this country in this state instead of being narrow minded bigots who probably read the Daily Mail headlines without thinking through tgeir agenda

@Mrsfw I think ivf recipients are picked on because some people conceive very easily and have absolutely no idea what others go through. Read the thread about the cost of periods. Dozens saying periods only cost & 1.26 a month, unable to understand some women are different. Real lack of empathy.

I cannot begrudge IVF to anyone having seen one childless canny woman having a boob lift and tummy tuck at various times citing depression. She was on the game in a way

Just saw the post from the lady that has been refused because she's in a single sex relationship - this must also be regional as I have very good friends who have no trouble with fertility except that they are in a single sex relationship (and so clearly require intervention to conceive) and have successfully just had a baby through IVF on the NHS and have the right to use the rest of their embryos now to have more children. I think it's fantastic - they are truly fab parents! This sort of thing should be available to people who need it. I am very lucky not to struggle to conceive and do not take it for granted. I would also add that I have friends who've had babies 'naturally' in pretty awful circumstances and who rely heavily on state benefits to bring up their children. I'm not condemning any of these situations, I just think we should help people when they need it.

The NHS needs to cut back on the unecessary layers of management and bureaucracy

Yes this.

I also agree with stopping the postcode lottery. We all pay the same level of taxes (in each home nation) and therefore everyone should get the same offer of treatment even if you have to travel for it.

It's a service that could be scrapped on the NHS but offered at cost price for those that wanted it. Likewise cosmetic surgery for boobs, stomach stapling, gastric bypass etc.

Then look at other cost saving measures, staffing, services, procurement etc,

The NHS should treat illness not wants.