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

I interpreted the post differently.
Same sex couples and single women presumably have the same issue - no male to fertilise the egg. So, if same sex couples need assistance to conceive, why shouldn't single women have that same assistance?
I’m guessing the OP didnt think through that actually hetero couples may also have exactly the same issue if the man is sterile.

Thsts how I interpreted it too I presumed OP hadn’t thought about straight couples sometimes using donors. That’s why I agreed with a pp that I only think IVF should be available to couples who can use their own eggs and sperm.

Like a few other posters, I don't think the NHS should be doing IVF at all.

What about contraception?

on the flip side though - we do loads of things on the NHS which would be categorised in a similar way. Knee replacements or hip replacements, for example. Not life threatening just a preference to be able to walk further with no discomfort. I’m not arguing as I don’t have a settled view on this (more exploring your argument) but do you think your argument still stands when we consider the other things we find on the nhs?

Children conceived by IVF have two parents - how is it different to a child who never knows their father for whatever reason. A single woman choosing IVF has really wanted that child.

I have, what is no doubt, a very unpopular opinion on all of this which is IVF should not be available on the NHS. It's another example of the sense of 'entitlement' that exists across our society. Having your own child isn't a right. There are many children who need homes but remain unwanted in care.

Well it’s hugely different. Firstly she’d need to have a number of one night stands either each month around the time of ovulation or every 2-3 days and would have to find someone willing to not use protection each time. She would be opened up to the risk of STDs (including some which may be life threatening and/ or pass on to her child) or even potential violence or sexual violence at the hands of these men she does not know. The man she conceived with would, if they found out about the child, have the possibility of asserting parental rights. Plus she’d potentially be having sex she did not want and why should any woman have to do that?

By contrast with IUI she’d be safely using a screened donor in a controlled medical setting, fully consenting to the process and at a far far lower risk to her health. Her child could, if a UK donor was used, contact them at 18 but the donor would not be able to come into her child’s life before that and try and take an active parenting role.

I’m not a single parent by choice and I’m not 100% sure how I feel about donor conception as far as the rights of the child go but I can fully understand why women don’t want to just have lots of unprotected sex with strange men.

I think there is a difference to be fair. With a mixed sex couple they need ivf due to fertility issues with a single woman or same sex couple they don’t necessarily need ivf due to fertility issues but because they are lacking the sperm and need a donation.

@Londonscallingme I would say a hip replacement is more of a medical need than having a child!

Having kids is a want, not a need.

All this whataboutery is infuriating.

This isn’t abortion or immunisation or knee replacements or whatever.

It’s ’should the state fund fertility treatment for people who simply just don’t want to have sex?’

It is not discrimination to decide that the state simply should not.

It doesn’t matter whether the NHS funds completely different stuff or whether it’s life threatening or whatever. That’s all a distraction.

" no rubbish man in the background messing up the mother and her kids with his behaviour"
You might go through ivf at the expense of the tax payers on the NHS and give birth to a little boy ! Would you be disappointed then ?

I believe IVF should only be available on the NHS to those who have a medical issue preventing them getting pregnant. Not having a partner, or not having a partner equipped to get you pregnant is not an medical issue in my opinion. It is just not how people get pregnant, pregnancy requires a man and sperm, choosing not to have that present is not a medical issue regardless of your sexuality or relationship status.

If someone without a medical need chooses to acquire some sperm and pay for their IVF that is their choice and absolutely fine. I just don't believe the NHS should fund it.

But okay for the straights?
For what it’s worth I don’t know ANY same-sex couples who got IVF on the NHS apart from one couple who were able to prove that there were fertility issues with the woman who would be carrying the child because of cancer treatment she’d had.

'Not having a partner equipped to get you pregnant'

... So if a man has a medical issue that prevents him getting a woman pregnant, should he and his wife be entitled to fertility treatment?

No, because single parent families are a bad thing, broadly speaking. I'm not knocking those who are in that situation through no fault of their own, but it absolutely shouldn't be something to aspire to. If you can't afford IVF, you can't afford a child (I actually don't think IVF should be funded by the NHS at all, so there's that)

Nobody should get IVF on the NHS.
Nobody should have IVF full stop

I think I would agree but no one died from not having a hip replacement (the the poster I was responding to talked about people dying from life threatening conditions due to lack of funding), and I suppose my broader point is that nhs provision is not wholly aimed at keeping people alive, it’s often also aimed at improving quality of life, which I suppose could extend to helping people have children.

I thought IVF was only given to those who have a medical need. If you just need sperm isn't that called artificial insemination?

I don't think the NHS should be funding IVF to anyone with the service/ the country's finances as they are.

Unofpr - I agree but I would add a lesbian woman could do this too if she wanted

I’m gay and don’t support IBF for ANYONE who doesn’t have a fertility issue. Not having sperm because you’re single or 2 women doesn’t count as far as I’m concerned. Go buy some.

But they don’t currently fund - you have to hit different criteria to get nhs funding. There are only 4 ICBs in the UK that fund this.

It was a policy but not mandatory guideline

However by not funding it, it’s leading to risky practice like home insemination by unknown donors off Facebook and gumtree. Sperm alone costa £1000-1500 and the. The procedure and meds on top make it very expensive (as someone who is pregnant in a same sex couple by legitimate means).

If they could help support or subsidise it would improve the health of both women and babies! I’m not saying it should be free - but maybe means tested to help support people?

Of course if there is a male fertility issue they should get IVF, that is a medical issue.

Not being a man is not a medical issue.

I hope its the hardest hat imaginable! (I agree)

Artificial insemination (IUI) has very low success rates - can be as low as 8% each time, even if the woman is fertile. IVF has much higher success rate and some people opt for that straight away, or after trying IUI a few times and it not working - IVF can actually work out cheaper in the long run than multiple rounds of IUI.

But he's 'not equipped to get his partner pregnant' as per your definition.

Why does it matter whether the reason for that is medical or the reason is his sex?

People cannot help being gay.