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

But in either case the woman having IVF treatment doesn't have a medical condition - their issue is choice of partner
Yes, one has a medical condition, the other Durant. That's the difference.

Yes I know it's because of his medical condition that I am getting treatment.

I'm saying that it is inequal that I can get this but a same sex couple can't, because the impact of a partner not being able to produce sperm is the same, whatever the reason for that - be that because of a medical issue, or because of their sex.

Whether both or neither can access it, it should be the same. Currently, there is inequality. Hence they are looking at changing this and giving more funding to same sex couples, and I agree with that. I would also agree with it in principle if they took it away from me, although I'd obviously then be out of pocket by a lot of money - because it would be equal.

What I don't agree with is the inequality and this daft idea that because it is 'medical' it makes a difference. The fact is that a lack of sperm means you can't conceive, whether you are in a same sex or heterosexual couple, and should be treated the same.

Why don't they use sperm donation,?
Fare less invasive and much cheaper

@nutellacreppe, again, one can't produce sperm because of a medical condition, the other can't for biological reason.

That's all what it comes down to.

I hope you got the support you needed. I also think that even attempting IVF can in itself be as much of an emotional burden as the struggling to conceive - so much hope, time and sometimes money, and it often doesn't work at all.

I think that it should be equal.

My partner can't produce sperm so I am getting NHS funded treatment with donor sperm.

If my partner was female, we would have the same issue.

In that scenario, it would not be my choice to be gay. I would want children just as much.

Whether you allow both or neither, it needs to be equal.

I think this is more of an argument against you getting the treatment for free, rather than in favour of same-sex couples getting it.

You're right - it doesn't make sense for massive nhs resources to be spent on someone who has no relevant health issues.

I have friends who had children via ivf due to male factor infertility (one nhs, one private) but the difference was that they were able to use his sperm, so their children are biologically both of theirs, and the ivf treatment made that possible.

In your case, the nhs is spending thousands to get a fertile woman pregnant by a fertile man. It is nonsensical.

Yes and my argument is that it is not right that that's what it comes down to. It is favouring heterosexual couples.

And at the end of the day, the NHS obviously agree, as they are reviewing the funding for same sex couples.

I'm saying that it is inequal that I can get this but a same sex couple can't
I agree that there is inequality but it is not medical inequality, it's biological inequality.

What I do find very wrong is that an infertile woman isn't entitled to treatment if her partner has a child already. THAT is medical inequality based on social circumstances and that shouldn't be for the NHS to make. If one person with a medical condition is entitled to treatment, another with the same condition should too, and yes, that should include single mums with infertility.

Yes and my argument is that it is not right that that's what it comes down to. It is favouring heterosexual couples
No, it's favouring the couple with a medical condition, who is who the NHS should treat equally.

Perhaps so, however, if you had been on the journey I have been on, you would know just how difficult it has been. Infertility is one of those things that is very hard to explain to someone who has not been through it, and very hard to understand until you have.

If your friends were not able to conceive via IVF, if the male factor issue was severe and it didn't work, they may well have decided to move onto using a donor.

Whether or not the NHS should help with funding that is certainly a debate - but it needs to be the same, regardless of whether the potential parents are in a same sex or heterosexual relationship.

IVF should not be on the NHS for anyone. The taxpayer is on the hook enough for NHS spending and should be spent on other things.

If you want a child go private.

I am going to duck out of this thread now - I have said all I have to say and will be repeating myself from now on. Interesting debate and opinions.

Offering "treatment" for infertility as if it's an illness is bizarre to me. It's not an illness it's just tough luck.

And at the end of the day, the NHS obviously agree, as they are reviewing the funding for same sex couples
That certainly doesn't mean they will make a change to the criteria. These criteria have been 'reviewed' every few years since IVF has-been funded over 20 tears ago. The policy has not changed much since. They will need to be legally challenged before they go based on gender discrimination.

I'm close enough to my friends to know they'd already decided against the donor route if ivf didn't work.

I agree 💯 that there needs to be equality between couples of same/different sexes and for exactly that reason, I don't think it should be available for anyone where it's not actually treating a person with fertility problems.

Because once it's provided free for same-sex female couples, there's an instant claim that same-sex male couples are being discriminated against, and before you know it, there will be surrogates and donor eggs provided on the NHS for male-male couples. And it will end up being vulnerable women who are exploited to provide this.

Having also been on the waiting list for eating disorder treatment for 5 years and counting, with an ED with a mortality rate of around 10 percent, I can't really get my head around the nhs paying for fertility treatment for people who don't have any fertility problems.

Absolutely. It is 100% homophobic.

Why are you even comparing nicotine and IVF? What a bizarre comparison.

It is a medical issue. You sound like a compassionate person. Let me guess I bet you concieved with no issues.

There is no doubt that facing challenges in becoming a parent can significantly impact mental health. As can many other life challenges. I tried to conceive for 13 years before adopting. I was on the waiting list for IVF and was offered it eventually but decided against it and went for the adoption route. I am also adopted which shaped my thinking.

I appreciate I am a product of my own experiences, as are we all. I have come to think that the NHS is too thinly spread and should be focusing on core issues. I don’t think any IVF should be funded by NHS. I don’t believe that anyone has a right to have a child and don’t view infertility as a medical problem that requires to be fixed.

Yes, if you want to have biological children and can’t, I accept that is life changing, but life is hard, and the state should not be responsible for trying to provide solutions to all problems. I accept that the NHS disagrees with this and does see Infertility through a medical lens. But patients who can’t have children are not unwell. It is a lifestyle choice.

I work in mental health and there are much worse things in life , than not being able to have children. I accept this is devastating for those impacted but it shouldn’t be for the state to solve.

Don’t be silly; there are all manner of people having babies who couldn’t afford IVF

It can very much be part of an illness. Endometriosis can cause infertility, for example. And in some cases infertility could have been avoided had the woman been offered treatment for endometriosis sooner instead of having to jump through hoops and suffer excruciating pain for an average of seven years just to get a diagnosis.

Infertility is often the result of illness (e.g. PCOS) or treatment for a medical condition (e.g. infertility post chemo). If a heterosexual couple of reproductive age are having regular unprotected intercourse over a period of years and they have not conceived that is a sign that something is biologically wrong. Apart from normal decline associated with age, you can't draw an artificial distinction between infertility and illness as though they have nothing to do with each other.

Why is one worthy of IVF and the other not? The result is the same, they cannot physically have a child with their partner.

I’ve read the NHS guidance more closely. The point isn’t, as I understand it, that the NHS offers IVF for any same sex couple who want a baby - IVF is only available to people with fertility problems regardless of sexual orientation. But the issue is that you have to have been trying unsuccessfully to conceive for 12 months to be eligible for NHS IVF, but same sex couples/single women can’t try to conceive like straight people can, they have to spend huge amounts of cash to even demonstrate their eligibility.