To ask if people today don’t agree with ivf?!

[Yaerry]

or am I just naive? Watched the new documentary about Jean Purdy and I’m surprised there was so much push back at the time. It’s made me wonder if one day surrogacy will be more accepted? I thought ivf was just a standard thing now that wasn’t controversial.

Me. And several people I know. None of whom would think of burdening the NHS with fertility treatment at the expense of those who are desperately sick and can’t access the drugs or treatment they need.

In the UK there is no donor anonymity any more. Donor conceived children can get their donor’s name and last known contact details when they turn 18. The anonymity law changed in 2006.

it is bypassing a part of the reproductive process that doesn’t work right.
The woman still has to grow the egg, implant the embryo and carry the baby etc.
It is like a split for the part of the process where the egg and sperm join together. It is still only maybe 30 percent effective in those that qualify so the NHS own guidelines say people should be entitled to 3 rounds if they qualify

I presume one of this couple had children already. NHS funding is dependent on neither of the 2 people having children already.

Or watched someone they love go through it?

I think anyone who hasn’t been in the heart breaking position of needing IVF can shut their mouth on the subject and keep it shut. But I start round 3 in January and I’m out of patience.

Just curious, is your objection just to IVF on the NHS or does it include privately paid for IVF?

Exactly - can the NHS afford to carry on treating stuff that doesn’t kill you? Theres a case for everything else being private/insurance funded and the NHS just doing A and E, cancers, heart attacks and the like. Let the private sector deal with the routine hip replacements etc.

They can but it isn’t as straight forward as just being given the details. They can write to the clinic where the donor donated. The clinic then contacts the donor and the donor has the right to decline. The child will not be given the details if the donor declines.

No you don't. You have what LOOKS like a viable embryo. I have been implanted with top grade embryos that I miscarried or that just didn't take. Actually, my successful rounds were with lower grade embryos. You know nothing when it comes to ivf, from my experience (8 full rounds).

Yep, and that. The NHS is not the panacea for all ills. That was never what it was designed for. When we have got to the stage when drugs and treatment which can save lives or make the quality of life very much better are being refused because of cost for those who could benefit, then we have to look again at what we are prepared to fund via the NHS. Facilitating having children was never the intention, and certainly not at the expense of those refused life saving drugs. How would you feel if someone you love was condemned to an early death because they couldn’t afford the treatment denied to them on the NHS ?

So, a child is a child, then. Not your child. You'd never say, or think, my child, then?
Interesting. Sounds very 1960's hippy. 🧐

I know quite a few people who go to other countries for egg donation who have no such laws.

As for adoption, I strongly disagree with closed adoptions. I think they are profoundly damaging to children.

Very best of luck with it and I really hope it goes well for you.💐

To hell with anyone else's judgment and narrow mindedness.

Can you, hand on heart, tell me that the only reason you didn’t pursue IVF was because you wanted to spare the NHS the cost? The time, pain, inconvenience, stress, misery, hassle, uncertainty, unpredictability wasn’t a factor in your decision? And you were 100% desperate to have a child, so that it occupied your every waking moment, and the prospect of never having a baby made you incredible depressed. But you put aside all of that, just so the NHS would have a bit more cash to spend on smokers? Seriously?

If you can afford to pay for it then fine. But while the NHS is refusing life saving treatment to some, it shouldn’t be funding IVF to others.

Fair.

Well IVF could be donor egg donor sperm, so you really would have to distinguish that from people using their own to capture the scale of agreement.

I've never been the victim or connected with the victim of a serous crime like murder/rape etc. I still know the death penalty is wrong for perpetrators of those crimes.

Suffering from infertility does not negate the immorality of exploiting vulnerable women and putting their health/lives at risk.

Yes, absolutely this. I also looked into the possibility of fostering / adopting when we were struggling to conceive - it's vanishingly rare to just get passed a healthy, happy newborn to shape and nurture as if you'd had them yourself. It's a totally different ballgame. Another horrible thing I heard about, which apparently isn't that uncommon - Couples foster a baby, with the view to adopt. They care for and bond with the baby. Then the birth family - who often have a lot of issues for example with drug addictions - decide a few months in that they want the baby back. Literally don't know how anyone comes back from that 😥

Yes. Those of us who have grown up relying on the NHS because of chronic illness or disability, in my opinion have a far more realistic idea of what it should and should not be asked to fund. I have spent a lifetime in and out of hospital and have seen people who could have benefited enormously from treatments that were denied on the NHS because of cost. It’s not about cash spent on smokers or those with unhealthy lifestyles - it’s about denying treatment to those in desperate need because the cost of those who want children no matter what, has to be factored in. It’s the epitome of entitlement and not what the NHS was designed for.

Personally, I don’t think IVF is something that should be prioritised in an overstretched NHS. People who can’t get pregnant aren’t ill (unless there is another condition) they just can’t get pregnant. That’s okay. Children are not a right. You can live a happy, useful life, possibly even as a parent, without ever getting pregnant.

The issue around destroying embryos is, afaik, massively reduced now that process has improved. Far fewer are stored and many couples will have them all implanted over time.

But none of this is relevant to the issues around surrogacy.

this was me. I could not get my head around that viable embryos might be willing destroyed. I couldn’t get my head around donation either I could not imagine donating my embryos and potentially having children I might not know.

I know this is controversial, but I don't believe that IVF is treatment that society should be spending funds on (private or public funds). I can't voice this out loud in person, as both family and friends have gone through successful and unsuccessful attempts to conceive by this route. I don't think it's necessary for society.

According to the HFEA website, the donor does not have the right to decline. That’s the whole point of the removal of anonymity. The first cohort affected by this change in the law turned 18 in October last year. Donor conceived children turning 18 before October 2023 can’t find out their donor information unless the donor consents. Those turning 18 after October 2023 can get their donor’s name, date of birth, country of birth, and last known address.