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

Children should have a village, not just a couple as parents in ideal world. Burned out parents hedding for divorce is not better for child as a single mother with strong support network.

The NHS funds lots of things that aren’t life threatening. Not treating them can cause more cost further down the line.

If it makes you feel better OP, many lesbian couples can’t get it on the NHS either. We live in Hertfordshire and I have many lesbian friends with children - not a single one via NHS because either (a) the policy of the local NHS trust doesn’t actually allow it; or (b) the doctors insist that the women must have been actively trying for two years even though they can’t, so again they can’t get it. In my experience, based on where we live, it’s a myth that lesbian couples can get NHS funded IVF.

Have you read some of the threads on here on how difficult it is to be a married parent?

It is a medical issue. Common issues for women who struggle to conceive are PCOS which can increase your risk of diabetes and endometriosis which can make everyday life horrible. NHS treats medical issues and I don't see why IVF shouldn't be offered in order to overcome those issues. Yes I am aware it isn't life threatening but the resulting mental health issues could be with suicidal thoughts etc maybe even suicide.

Yeah but the article says the government has committed to fund the treatment they need to prove infertility. But single women still have to pay.

Sadly the NHS is rife with inequality when it comes to IVF and fertility treatment - not just for heterosexual couples/same-sex couples/single people but in terms of location and the postcode lottery.

Seeing some comments here about who should and shouldn’t be entitled... Why should heterosexual couples with fertility problems be entitled to it on the NHS, but not same-sex couples? What’s the difference? Ultimately it’s two people wanting to have children with bodies who can’t achieve it.

I say this as someone with skin in the game when it comes to fertility treatment - I feel like the NHS has bigger fish to fry at the moment, unfortunately… but I’ve read that as a population, we need more people, not less, to care for an aging population so funding fertility treatment might be one way to help towards that.

I agree with you OP, it is very unfair.
I have fertility problems, I would be unable to conceive without medical intervention. But because I am single I do not qualify for any NHS treatment. If I picked up a random stranger man off the street I would qualify. It's ridiculously unfair.

Yes. NHS was interested in my periods being painful and heavy as a 10 year old - GP used to even cancel my appointments last minute as ‘not urgent’ but that was the time when my being put on the pill and thyroxine might have prevented damage to my ovaries and womb. PCOS and Hashimotos has destroyed my ovaries, my womb (lining is too thick) and my entire hormone profile to the point where thyroxine isn’t enough. I need steroids and aspirin and heparine just to conceive.

Bit of a sweeping statement ! Why's that then ?

Why would it possibly be funded? They're not saying you can't have IVF, just that the HEALTH service won't give it to you for free because it's in no way a health problem?

It is a bit unfair, but the NHS is very stretched and this really isn’t a priority. I’d rather the money was spent on life threatening problems. Maybe once it is in a better state with better funding things like this can be revisited.

YABVU.
IVF is a wonderful technology, but it is expensive and stressful and the NHS has to limit who they are willing to provide it to.
In an ideal world I would like to see free IVF being completely abolished, but it being offered at a subsidised rate to more people (couples, regardless of gender, and single people who could love and care for a child as well as any couple).
I accept that many won't agree with this, and also accept that free IVF has allowed some couples to have a child they wouldn't otherwise have had.

I think IVF should be for couples who can use their own eggs and sperm. I don’t agree with egg/sperm donation, it’s not in the interests of the child.

However, we allow egg and sperm donation, then it makes no sense to me why single women can’t get treatment.

Nobody should get IVF on the NHS. Having a child isn't a right, or a medical need, it is a want/desire, it's not life threatening physically to be infertile. If conception cannot be achieved without intervention and it's something you desperately want, you save up for the treatment.
I'm mid 30's and childless with PCOS, so i'm not unsympathetic to fertility struggles, but the NHS isn't in a state to be paying for none essential treatments when there's people dying of treatable conditions due to lack of funding.

If it helps, this will probably change in the future. So many women stay single for longer and we need more children for an ageing population (from a government pov). All you can do it start saving and get a decent loan when you’re ready to do it.

NHS is for medical problems. A heterosexual women who wants a baby but chooses not to have sex with a man can't expect IVF!

Not to mention the right of a child to have a father and know where 50% of their genes come from!

Well, the government is happy for single people to adopt babies or children, so that can't be the rationale.

It's about cost. It saves the country money if single people adopt, but would cost it if they were to receive IVF.

The NHS spends a lot of money on things that aren’t immediately life threatening (eg arthritis / mental health care and vaccinations). By your logic we should stop all that too. Ivf treatment can’t be considered by itself - most of the time it’s needed because the NHS fucked up somewhere well before the couple needed to ask for it. Before the NHS funded ivf many people were suing the NHS to get the money to pay for it.

Heyhoherewegoagain
I agree with this. Whilst it’s very distressing if you’re affected by infertility, amd I’m not minimising the psychological effects, it’s not life threatening. The nhs was never really meant for things like this, but when it was set up no one could foresee the advances which were to come in fertility issues.

I don’t care if you’re heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual, bisexual (with genuine apologies if I haven’t covered anything), having a child is not a right

The NHS was never set up for a lot of things . Unless you have been through the agony of infertility and all that goes with it then it is easy to say it's not life threatening. Of course it isn't life threatening but then neither is a boob job which can also be funded by the NHS.
A better system should be in place so it is not such a lottery as to what treatment you receive dependant on your postcode. I appreciate limits need to be put in place and a criteria needs to be met , much like many things in life.
'Having a child is not a right ' WOW ! Is this from a person who ... has children / doesn't want them ? Lots of treatments offered on the NHS would fall under the category of not ' being a right ' !

@babybirdsmomma many 'boob jobs', as you call them, are not funded by the NHS and they have to be for specific reasons if they are.

IVF should be subsidised, not free.
Also, it is true that having a child is not a right, no matter how much people don't like the sound of that.

IVF is very expensive for a treatment that still doesn’t work most of the time. There is a value for money argument for not providing it on the NHS. I speak as someone ttc in the early 90s and it was virtually impossible to get IVF on the NHS then if you had unexplained or male factor infertility.

Good for you however many others with PCOS will probably feel differently! Correct me if I am wrong but have you started TTC yet? As once you in are in the years of nothing happening you won't feel the same way.

Well surely that's why the OP is contrasting single person IVF with same sex couples IVF? Because in both cases the child may end up with a mother(s) and no father in the picture?

I'm not justifying either the payment of IVF for a single woman or the non payment of IVF for two women to be clear.