AIBU to think it's unfair same sex couples can get IVF on the NHS but not single women?

[CateB78]

https://news.sky.com/story/fertility-inequality-how-single-women-are-facing-ivf-discrimination-and-financial-strain-12996293

Nah...I read it properly. I stand by my point.

Do you mind me asking why?

@MrsSkylerWhite Because I wasn't asked to immediately fork over £6k when I gave birth to my son. I can afford to have him because I pay for the things he needs over time, like everyone does. Private IVF is an upfront cost most of the time.

@vivainsomnia I am getting treatment on the NHS because my partner has no sperm. We are using a donor and have had various interventions, IUI and IVF.

To me, it seems simply irrelevant whether the reason for my partner's lack of sperm is a medical issue, or whether it's because they are female.

Either way, the fact is that my partner has no sperm and we need a donor to conceive.

Why should someone get treatment in the former situation, in a heterosexual relationship, but not the latter, in a same sex relationship?

It's the same situation and the same treatment - it should be both or neither.

You could argue its unfair on single men or same sex couples.

but that’s the point, as heart breaking as I’m finding TTC I truly believe that not everyone is meant to have children and that’s life, as distressing as that is. There’s plenty of other ways like adoption/fostering.

the NHS is on its knees and can barely cope with medical emergencies let alone IVF which I stand by my statement is a luxury and not a necessity.

This is a slippery slope argument though as of course wanting something desperately and be unable to have it can impact your mental health but the NHS can't afford to fund every desire that we have just in case we decide we can't carry on without it. This is especially true in the context of an NHS that is struggling to fund genuinely life saving treatment and to support people who are struggling to cope with severe mental health disorders.

If I can get treatment in this situation, then someone in a same sex couple in this situation should also get treatment
We are back to saying it is not medically the same. Your OH has a medical condition which means you can't get pregnant from him. The reason why same sex couples can't get pregnant is not medical.

That's all what it comes down to. The NHS doesn't get involved with non medical ethical matters.

TheBirdintheCave

We built up some savings in advance of starting our family, it just felt like the sensible thing to do. Had we not been successful, we would 100% have spent them on treatment. Could you not do the same?

Your OH has a medical condition which means you can't get pregnant from him. The reason why same sex couples can't get pregnant is not medical

But in either case the woman having IVF treatment doesn't have a medical condition - their issue is choice of partner.

Just to play devil's advocate here the starting point in most cases is also male and female parents and there could be an argument that a child has right to that.

If you are single, want a baby and don’t fancy paying for fertility treatment, the answer is to find a man who wants to conceive a child with you.

I agree, but the same should also apply to a same sex couple - find a donor and pay for the treatment.

NOBODY should receive IVF on the NHS unless there is a medical reason they cannot conceive naturally.

Absence of a male is not a medical reason.

Right. But the article could be wrong and I'm talking about what is being worked on. As a female in a same sex relationship currently going through the process to try and get pregnant, I am following this process very carefully. I have written to my MP, written to the ICBs. The movement is for single women as well.

They reached a decision last week that they were moving towards fertility equality but it will take some time (perhaps a year).

You are missing the point.

It's not a medical intervention.

I am the one having the treatment and I am fertile and healthy.

My husband has nothing to do with the procedure, doesn't even have to be present, and his medical condition is not being treated. The treatment and outcomes are absolutely no different than if he was female.

You have a couple who cannot conceive because one partner cannot produce sperm. You are treating a fertile, healthy woman by using donor sperm. It is simply because he is male that we are allowed this treatment on the NHS, and that is unequal. If we are allowed this treatment then a lesbian couple should also be allowed it.

What? Why not?? I'm very curious as to why you would think this.

Personally I've always thought fertility issues must be so difficult mentally and physically and these families deserve all the help they can get.

What are your thoughts on ex smokers receiving donated lungs or ex alcoholics receiving livers or drug addicts new heart valves?

I had to lose my reproductive organs to save my life. A parent at work, when I returned, blurted out that in my position she’d rather have died than not be able to have kids. People really do think and say things like this, out loud!

I think the nhs is funding donor conception it should be available for all, because that’s not really a treatment for a person with a medical condition it’s a replacement.

It's not the same though is it. With a M/F couple there will be some medical fertility issue, whereas with SS, singles it's just a biologically impossible situation - it's wanting something that will never be possible without intervention.

@vivainsomnia

1. My partner should be able to produce sperm but can't = NHS funded fertility treatment.

2. My partner can't produce sperm and was never able to = No NHS funded fertility treatment.

That seems pretty messed up to me.

People don't choose their sexual orientation. They are what they are.

Both partners can't produce sperm. Both couples can't conceive. They should both get treatment or neither.

So how do you propose same-sex couples have children then?

You are missing the point
I'm afraid you are. It's because of your OH medical condition that YOU receive the treatment. If he didn't suffer from it, you wouldn't get it either.

You can debate that considering the only solution in your case is a donor, and it is therefore not a direct treatment on your OH, you shouldn't be entitled to it which indeed, is arguable, but not the other way around: that because you (you and your OH) are entitled, same sex couples should too.

Same question to you, how do you propose same-sex couples have a baby? Why is an opposite sex couple who can't concieve together more worthy than a same-sex couple?

@MrsSkylerWhite Your question was how can people afford children but not IVF which is what I was answering. You don't need savings to have and raise a child if you have a good wage coming in every month as no one ever asks you for a lump sum of thousands of pounds. Savings would be nice of course, but not necessary.

Sure I COULD have saved up money before having my son but it would have taken us years to save the amount a round of private IVF costs. I was 29 when I first met my husband so we didn't have the luxury of time to save.

Do you think lesbian couples who are both healthy and fertile should be able to get treatment on the NHS then? You are getting it because your partner is medically infertile?

It’s such a complicated subject. All I know through personal experience is that the NHS made it possible for me to have my child and that was life changing for me and I will be forever grateful. It’s really not as simple as fertility treatment shouldn’t be funded for anyone as it’s not life threatening, the pain of the thought of never becoming parents is unbearable for some and really affects your whole life. In an ideal world where money was no object those that craved becoming parents and would make a loving family for a child would get that chance.