To be annoyed at IVF comments

[Strawberryshortcake28]

My IVF was cancelled due to CV which although was devestating I completely agree and understand money and resources need to be better spent elsewhere

What I am annoyed about is the comments I have been hearing about how it shouldn't be available in the first place on the NHS and it is a waste of money

Infertility is a disease! Caused by all different health issues imagine not being able to have your own DC
Imagine trying every month and getting your hopes up for years and years to be disappointed month on month

Imagine watching all your friends have their dc and think you'll never get the chance and feeling like you have nothing in common anymore
Imagine waking up every Xmas or mother's day with no DC to spend it with

Infertility has been the hardest experience of my life and made me severely depressed IVF gives me hope .

Yes you can go private and pay for it yourself but not everyone is in the financial position a lot of couples spend thousands on treatment with no DC at the end the NHS could be their last hope give them one more shot
Yes adoption may be an option but not everyone can be approved or is it an easy process

Aibu to be angry ?

I'm interested by this comments about how "having a child is not a right". I agree it isn't a right in the sense that nobody can grant everyone legal rights to something which may not be physically possible.

When we talk about rights we might talk about human rights, such as the right to life, the right to a fair trial, the right to a private and family life, the right to freedom to practise your religion etc. We might also mean things like consumer rights or employment rights which are granted to us by law.

Publicly funded IVF isn't about people's rights to have a child, because sometimes with even the best will in the world, excellent medical care and a bottomless pit of money, it just won't be possible.

Publicly funded IVF is about people's rights to medical care. It is medical care that is aimed at treating a medical problem and thereby improving the patient's quality of life. I don't think there is any great distinction to be made between medical care which treats the cause of the problem and medical care which treats the symptoms. If you mend someone's broken leg, you are treating the cause of the problem, and with good medical care and a straightforward recovery you should be as good as new afterwards. If you give someone medication for chronic arthritis or Parkinson's disease, or if you supply an amputee with a prosthetic limb, you aren't treating the cause of the problem but you are treating the symptoms and helping the patients to live a better quality of life. If you allow an infertile couple to access IVF treatment and they successfully have a baby, you aren't treating the cause of the problem but you are treating the symptoms (childlessness). Looked at in that way, IVF is a better return on investment than treatment for many chronic illnesses because if successful it treats the symptoms permanently. The couple will still be infertile but being fertile only matters if you want to have a baby. There is no need for lifelong medical treatment for the post-IVF couple in the way that there is for people with chronic illnesses, whose symptoms may be alleviated somewhat but will still have to live with their illness for the rest of their lives. In that sense, successful IVF treatment is just as good as mending a broken leg. It may be treating the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem, but it does so so successfully that the cause of the problem is no longer relevant.

So back to rights. If funding for IVF is about a right to healthcare rather than a right to a baby, do we consider that we all have a right to healthcare?

Rights are not fixed in stone. Rights are fluid and vary considerably over time and in different countries. In some countries people have no right to healthcare, and it is only available to those who can afford it. In Northern Ireland women don't have the right to an abortion. In Saudi Arabia women have only just gained the right to drive a car or vote.

Rights are man-made (quite literally "man" made, in a lot of cases) and depend entirely on where and when you live.

So if you believe that in the UK in 2020 everyone has the right to medical care, why should that not include IVF?

@SirChable👏👏👏
Epic post ❤️

May I just add;
Cost of the NHS per year = £140.4 billion.
Cost of IVF on the NHS per year = £68m...

So if you believe that in the UK in 2020 everyone has the right to medical care, why should that not include IVF?

That's a ridiculous argument. They are lots of things that fall within the definition of medical care that are not provided for free on the NHS.

As mentioned earlier, I think the question that should be asked is "Do the benefits to those who successfully conceive via NHS-funded IVF justify the price tag?" which I think another poster said was £68 million/year. I don't think that the NHS should take into account the life years that will be gained by the child who is the result of the IVF as NICE apparently do - the focus should only be on those who already exist. Perhaps the cost is justified due to MH benefits; I don't know as I don't have the data.

There are other things I'd stop before NHS IVF (right to buy, most cosmetic surgery on the NHS, gender reassignment surgery on the NHS) but I'm still on the fence.

As mentioned earlier, I think the question that should be asked is "Do the benefits to those who successfully conceive via NHS-funded IVF justify the price tag?"

Given that the "price tag" of a cycle of IVF is a drop in the ocean in terms of the overall NHS budget and that the outcome is completely life changing for those who successfully conceive, I'd say the answer to that question is a blindingly obvious yes.

Given that the "price tag" of a cycle of IVF is a drop in the ocean in terms of the overall NHS budget and that the outcome is completely life changing for those who successfully conceive, I'd say the answer to that question is a blindingly obvious yes.

No. That's not the right analysis IMO. It's not a question of what proportion of the NHS budget is spent on IVF. The question is how many people successfully have NHS IVF babies and would any negative health outcomes for those people cost more than £68 million in total (ie both in terms of the cost of treating them for any MH issues but also eg lost productivity at work etc).

As I say I'm on the fence. I'd normally be inclined to just look at the NICE guidance but if they are considering the benefits to the child who is born as a result of the IVF then that is fundamentally flawed in my view. They do not suffer by never existing.

The question is how many people successfully have NHS IVF babies and would any negative health outcomes for those people cost more than £68 million in total (ie both in terms of the cost of treating them for any MH issues but also eg lost productivity at work etc).

I don't agree that that is the question though. I don't think you can put a price on giving someone (or most often two people) permanent relief from the torment that is involuntary childlessness.

Someone may live the rest of their life with depression or indeed PTSD as a result of their infertility and not actually cost the NHS very much other than perhaps the odd prescription for prozac. Or someone might kill themselves because they cannot bear it any longer (like the husband of a PP on this thread) and never cost the NHS another penny.

Does that mean that because a round of IVF treatment may (or may not) be more expensive than the impact on two people's mental health and quality of life, it shouldn't be funded?

If you don't think quality of life matters at all, then why give someone a prosthetic leg when they can get around on crutches?

The NHS funds all sorts of things which are aimed at improving people's physical and mental quality if life, and most of them are uncontroversial.

The French healthcare system offers free fanny yoga for all women who have had a vaginal birth which is aimed at restoring pelvic floor function to combat incontinence and improve sexual pleasure. I think we can all agree that this is absolutely not necessary, and yet on Mumsnet there are constantly threads complaining about how women's post-natal health is chronically neglected, and every time this subject comes up you can guarantee that someone will bring up the French fanny yoga and complain that the NHS doesn't do that. Funny how we all tend to believe the health service should fund things we personally want to be able to benefit from.

Incidentally, the French social security system also funds four rounds of IVF.

If you want to attempt to put a price on it, let's say a 35 year old couple has a successful round of IVF which costs the NHS £5000. The couple have a child and both live until they are 80 years old. They have each gained 45 years of relief from the pain of childlessness, which means it has cost the NHS about £55 per year (or just over £1 per week) for each of them.

(And it may also mean they are less of a burden on the state when they get to the age of 80 compared to a couple with no children to look after them.)

@Flashesofrage

I've had 5 miscarriages and then 2 ruptured near fatal ectopics and now have no tubes left which is why we are doing IVF

@Wolfgirrl and many others talking about age. Some as if it’s the sole reason for IVF to be needed.

FYI

www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2894/fertility-treatment-2017-trends-and-figures-may-2019.pdf

• 65% of women having treatment (whether private or NHS) in the UK are under 37.

• ~60% of all IVF treatment in the UK is private, self-funded.

All the data is freely available online.

@FlashesOfRage

The only problem is that I would say most women I know age 37+ are going abroad for treatment so aren't counted in those statistics - I would think if they are then the statistics may look quite a bit different

@flashesofrage

The first image says increasing maternal age is partly to blame for an increase in the number of patients requiring fertility treatment.

By your stats, 42% of women needing IVF treatment are under 35. That means nearly two thirds, 58%, are over 35.

I'm not judging anybody, or attaching any meaning to those numbers. They are what they are. I certainly didnt say age is the sole reason people need fertility treatment but there is clearly a link.

@Wolfgirrl If 42% of patients are under 35, they probably didn't leave it too late to start trying. If you're under 35 you have to have been trying for a year with no luck before you can even get blood tests, let alone IVF. Factor in those kind of waiting times and I think you'll find that quite a few of that 58% started trying long before they turned 35.

@peperethecat yes - I started ttc at 29, waited 18 months before seeking medical advice, it took us another couple of years of going back and forth to gynae outpatients, waiting for appointments, waiting for a laparoscopy etc before we got anywhere near a fertility clinic. I was nearly 34 before we got to a (private, NHS not doing what we needed at that time) clinic.

@peperethecat

That is true In my case....started trying age 31 after getting married - had one miscarriage at 12 weeks then did go on to have DD, thought we'd broken the curse of pregnancy loss but then have gone on to have 7 losses and no permanently infertile

I don't think the statistics reflect that I would think "most" people paying privately for IVF are actually going through secondary infertility (hence why no NHS support) - that also means we tend to be a bit older than those undergoing primary infertility

sorry meant to put "taking clomid" after "waiting for a laparoscopy"

Sorry for your losses.

I'm currently dealing with my fourth loss and trying to weigh up whether IVF is worth a shot or not.

I've got no dog in this fight since I'm not entitled to NHS treatment at all.

80% of women in all age groups will conceive within 2 years naturally if they don’t have a health issue.

^*I met DH at 28. Was married and ttc by 29. And DH and I have never used contraception in our 30 year marriage. So I’m certainly not one of that 80%.

All this talk of age related infertility feels like victim blaming.*^

I feel the same. My DH and I never used contraception. We got married when I was 33 and we TTC right from the start but without any success. We did IUI twice and IVF once. It was me with the issues whereas there were no problems with my DH's sperm.

In the end we applied to adopt; DD1 came to us at age 1 when my DH and I were aged 44 and 40. We have 2 DDs now aged 11 and 8, who are birth siblings, so it worked out for us but it was a long and very painful journey.

Yes you are right to be angry. I haven't read the comments on here but I can bet there's one or two mumsnet trolls on here. Please ignore them if there are.

My heart goes out to you. Although I didn't have IVF I have a condition which means a miscarriage is highly likely. I always knew about it because it's an inherited disorder. The mere fear of not having a baby terrified me.

I will happily contribute to a system that helps people like you. Keep your chin up. There will be a rainbow around the corner for you I can feel it x

It certainly is the worst disease out there, imo. The most natural human function is to reproduce. That's what all living things are designed to do. Not to fulfill that primary function is the ultimate disease.

Total bollocks - I think having childhood cancer is pretty bad, or being deaflblind. There are diseases that leave people in chronic paid, immobile and unable to have ANY sort of joyful normal life. Infertile people can still see, have friends, be independent, get a job, do everything normally. You don't need a child to survive or be able to have a good quality of life.

Also, your comment implies that people who simply don't want children, are somehow defunct and faulty.

*chronic pain

You don't need a child to survive or be able to have a good quality of life.

Just because you don't doesn't mean other people don't.

How close the polls are here, basically 55/45 in favour of NHS IVF funding, and this on a parents forum, has really depressed me.

And I expect 95% here had an NHS birth and pre/post natal care.

Once again, feeling isolated and alone.

@peperethecat
I'm sorry for your losses too

We decided to do IVF so that we wouldn't wake up in 5 years time with regrets that there was something we could have tried and didn't or wondering "what if" for evermore. Yes we ll be paying these IVF loans off for years to come but if it doesn't work we will be at peace with that and will be able to move on without regrets x

You don't need a child to survive or be able to have a good quality of life.

This may be true for some but it’s very subjective and you can’t force people to feel this way.