To think some older women having tax payers funded ivf are hypocrites?

[Spiderbug]

There seems to be a substantial group of people who are ok with calling teen mums a waste of their tax money but then leave child bearing too late and expect the tax payers to foot the bill for their multiple ivf cycles which costs the tax payer up to 100 million a year.

Hypocrites!!!

I agree, and not just IVF. I think there are some tough decisions needed until we can do the essemtials properly.

Congratulations, you've saved 0.1% of the NHS budget.

There needs to be more focus on who is getting contracts to provide things and on stopping big pharmaceutical companies charging extortionate amounts for life saving medications, rather than taking away medical procedures that can help people physically and mentally.

The pain and desperation is why women (and men) need to be realistic about fertile windows. IVF is not a magic bullet and waiting until your mid 30's is playing russian roullette with your fertility.

Where do you draw the line.
Drink too much and fall in the rod, nope no treatment
life time of smoking and get lung cancer no treatment

Arguably it’s also wrong to use novel medications that aren’t medically necessary. If you experience hair loss or gall bladder or pancreas complications from wanting to be a bit thinner, shall we assume you will be paying privately for that treatment too?

Well my original point was it’s hypocritical that there are people out there who judge teen mums for wasting their tax money but then have the nhs pay for their ivf instead of paying themselves. Live by your beliefs I say.
Im not having a pop at everyone that has ivf on the nhs just the ones that have it after moaning about teen mums draining their tax money. When ivf costs the nhs somewhere between 70-100 million a year.

Which is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount spent on people who being children into the world naturally in completely wrong circumstances . Your posts are emotional and completely lacking in logic , and attacking a very small number of people . Most of those mums who needed ivf probably never criticised teen mums .

I am being clear. The illness should be treated. So you treat someone. Becoming infertile is not in itself an illness, it’s just a consequence.

Plenty of people would either not know or care.

Wanting a baby down the line is a separate issue

So are you a high earner?

And actually I’m agreeing with half of your point about IVF.

However it’s possible to disapprove of teen mothers sitting around for five years before they have contributed a penny AND older People having IVF.

So about 0.1% of the NHS annual budget.

Oh well that’s nothing 🙄

I spent the night in a hospital corridor a couple of years ago and it was that bad that I would have to think twice about being admitted again, regardless of the cause.

This post is bonkers! How do you know these women having IVF have insulted and moaned about teens having babies and wasting tax money??

Also the difference is that presumably a 40+ woman has probably paid into the tax system for 20 years or more. A teen is unlikely to have paid any tax when they get pregnant. Also the 40+ woman has likely got a career and savings and so doesn't need accomodation paying for etc.
It's not a very good comparison.

Also IVF isn't only for older women, often it's other fertility issues that can happen at any age. Issues with the mans sperm etc.

Why on earth would I go to the GP about hair loss due to WLI? I'd just stop taking them. And the private doctor I see about them is also a surgeon, so I assume any issues, I'd see him. But given that millions of people take them daily and the only effects for the huge majority are improvements to their health, I'd say I'm actually saving the NHS money. Certainly, I no longer need BP meds, I'm no longer prediabetic, so there'll be no insulin cost.

Not quite the same for IVF.

Compared to around £67-88 BILLION for benefits/welfare each year?

Sorry, but the IVF figure is a drop in the ocean in comparison.

What you “quoted” was only them talking about their individual circumstances though, didn’t see anything targeted at younger mums.

That’s different - they’re self inflicted illnesses but still illnesses. IVF is purely to give someone a child. That’s not the same.

We need children though. There's been several years recently where the birth rates are so low schools are halving their intakes. So the next generations are incredibly small, comparatively. Meaning in 14-15 years time, people going into training for the jobs being vacated by the older generations will be greatly reduced.

Surely ensuring society can continue to function and we have enough people to become doctors and nurses and farmers and all the important roles we need in the future is useful and important? And IVF can help that, but if it's priced out of the average persons reach, they won't do it.

I couldn’t get pregnant because my husband had a medical condition (not self inflicted) and IVF was the treatment

IVF won’t solve those issues.

To me it’s akin to gender affirming care. Nice for the recipient but not a necessity. When we don’t have a social care system that’s strained, because there’s so many children in it, and when the NHS is functioning well, I think there’s a place for that discussion. Until then, I think it’s not something we should be funding

I didn't say solve. I said help. It's making the issue worse to say "no, you people willing to procreate are not allowed because you need help".

And helping people build a family is absolutely not the same as gender affirming care but this is not the place to get into that debate.

It’s an incredibly expensive, medically unnecessary procedure. It’s like plastic surgery, or gender affirming care.

Building a family and creating people who contribute to society is not akin to cosmetic procedures....

The NHS spends far more on treating obesity and all the diseases related to that (cancer for example).

You have specifically selected IVF even though alot of people having IVF will have been trying for years and years before it becomes an option or something they would put themselves through.

Smoking, alcohol, obesity, lack of exercise cause far bigger problems in the NHS, so if we’re going to single out groups seeking treatment, surely people who abuse their body should be on the list first?

Or those who never turn up for an appointment and waste it? A charge could be introduced tomorrow for that but no government is strong enough to do it. I work in healthcare and everyone I work with supports a penalty charge for not turning up. I’d happily have that money go back into the system to pay for a couple desperately wanting a child.

Why have you specifically gone for IVF when there are far bigger issues with the NHS?

Why are they guaranteed to contribute to society?