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

Actually the UK has a rapidly dropping birth rate so it’s in their interests to do anything possible to ensure people have children.

Do you have a child? Did you consider adoption? Most infertile people probably have considered it by the way. Adoption is a very different prospect to having a biological child. I was interested in it but my husband wasn’t, and I have to admit it was for good reason based on what he has seen professionally. Sadly most children in the care system have suffered trauma and there is not a lot of support for adoptive parents to assist their children with that trauma, so many adoptions break down.

Why?

If you can’t afford to pay for fertility treatment as a single woman I would question whether you have the financial means to raise a child as a single parent.

Iui by age

• Age 20 to 30: 17.6%
• Age 31 to 35: 13.3%
• Age 36 to 38: 13.4%
• Age 39 to 40: 10.6%
• Over 40: 5.4%

And a single woman would be even higher as not infertile

In 2019, the percentage of IVF treatments that resulted in a live birth was:

• 32% for women under 35
• 25% for women aged 35 to 37
• 19% for women aged 38 to 39
• 11% for women aged 40 to 42
• 5% for women aged 43 to 44
• 4% for women aged over 44

These figures are for women using their own eggs and their partner’s sperm, using the per embryo transferred measure.

But considering the costs..
Ivf 4k+
vs
iui 700+

Obviously most couples get multiple embryos with ivf - but these have to be frozen and they only keep the best ones. Or women have to put back 2 risking twins. So the costs of freezing are on top. And later transfers. But could have a dc2 this way.

So the biggest issue is likely single women waiting until over 35 or more where any success is less.

I did 3 ivf in 9months. But assume iui would have been quicker

They won’t be entitled. You cannot get NHS funded treatment if you have undergone voluntary sterilisation. Just like you generally can’t get NHS funded treatment if you (the woman) are over a certain age, over a certain weight, if either partner smokes, if you have not been together for long enough, if you have particular health issues or if you already have a living child.

I would not have dreamed of having a child without considerably more than 60k in savings. People are so entitled and irresponsible it is unreal.

He is male, he has a medical issue preventing it working.

No people cannot help being gay, but there is nothing medically wrong with them. The NHS is there to help with medical issues.
Gay or not they could get pregnant without medical intervention if they chose to do so and therefore do not need IVF.

I didn't want to adopt. I wanted to experience pregnancy and have a child with our genetics. Not that difficult to understand is it?

Are you suggesting that only people with 60k in savings should have children??

I fall into that demographic. I dont consider myself a member of an oppressed group subject to awful discrimination because of it. Then again, I’m not a professional victim.

Why would people without savings have children?

I’m not convinced anyone should get IVF on the NHS. As a general rule, it should be for keeping what you already have in reasonably good health so that you can look after yourself. It should be about need, not want. Nobody ‘needs’ a baby or a boob job or a sex change or liposuction - the NHS was never set up to do things like that. If you ‘want’ those things then you should pay for them.

How many people would be able to able to put that much away? I don't actually think you need that much anyway. Good for you you didn't need to save for your IVF plus for raising a child.

@Chris002 children who need adopting aren’t consolation prizes for the infertile. Bet you wouldn’t dare suggest adoption to a couple who didn’t need fertility treatment.

Im fucking blown away by the ignorance on here.

I often wonder why parents who haven't used IVF don't consider adoption?
The lose thousands of £ in income - put themselves through the mental and physical torment of pregnancy.
They never mention why the haven't considered adoption?

Most people wouldn't have kids then 😅

Most people would struggle to save £60k. I know I would and I have an above average wage.

Infertility bingo going on here.

I could get pregnant without medical intervention if I wanted to (I am a female with an infertile husband). Do I not need IVF?

Give over. The average wage in the UK is around £35k per year. Very very few parents in the UK have £60k socked away before their child arrives given the cost of housing.

We were extraordinarily privileged to be able to afford so much private treatment.

If you adopt you usually need to take multiple children as social services do not like to split up siblings.

You also would likely be adopting traumatised children- social services only adopt out children in extreme circumstances.

Both different prospects to birthing and raising 1 child.

Well there is a lot of clear water between having no savings and having over 60k in savings, but given that according to the ONS the average person has £17,365 in savings and this is already skewed towards the higher end by people above childbearing age who tend to have more, I think it is reasonable to assume that most people who are capable of having children have a lot less than 60k in savings.

Where do you think the next generation should come from?

IVF shouldn’t be free to anyone, and, as unpopular a view as it might be, ideally children should have a mother AND a father.

I don’t think anyone should have IVF on the NHS at present - resources are simply too stretched, it’s too expensive and the failure rate is too high. It’s not part of the NHS’s core purpose.

I am infertile, I did have IVF, I paid for it.

I personally believe that egg retrieval/sperm retrieval/embryo creation should be funded by the NHS for someone who is about to go through a medical process that has the side effect of sterilisation such as certain chemotherapy treatments.

I don't think someone should have to choose between life saving treatment and the possibility of future children when they are in that position. And from a pragmatic view if someone put off chemotherapy to have children they could end up needing much more extensive and expensive treatment on the NHS at a later date.

However I don't necessarily think IVF can be offered to everyone free of charge unfortunately and as others have said having a baby is not a right or a need.

Of course others may disagree with my senario where it should be funded or have alternative ones that they think are more important which is probably how we ended up with a postcode lottery for IVF in the first place.