Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that IVF woman suing ought to be b***** grateful?

54 replies

intolerant · 27/08/2008 17:52

In the news today. She claims that the health trust took an unnecessarily long time to ascertain that the fertility problem was with her DH, by which time her own eggs were too old. She was therefore given donated eggs, and is now pregnant with a baby boy. So, if she wins her case, and her health trust pays out, how many other women will be denied IVF treatment at all due to lack of funds.

OP posts:
Turniphead1 · 27/08/2008 18:03

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Shitehawk · 27/08/2008 18:06

Story

Nagapie · 27/08/2008 18:10

In the same way that those people are denied access to life saving drugs by their trustsbecause of financial constraints ...

she is bl**dy lucky that she has got the result she has wanted

babyignoramus · 27/08/2008 18:10

I can't help but think her poor DS is going to read this story one day and feel terribly rejected. She should be grateful the technology exists at all, plus she was lucky enough to get it on the NHS rather than having to pay thousands.

Nagapie · 27/08/2008 18:12

Oh goody the DM - why am I not surprised at the slant this article has taken!!!

cheshirekitty · 27/08/2008 18:12

What a selfish woman she is. The next time NICE have to say no to a drug because of expense, just remember this selfish, old cowbag.

shelleylou · 27/08/2008 18:14

I may sound quite harsh here but if she didnt want another womans baby why have the IVF then maker a big deal about it

babyignoramus · 27/08/2008 18:15

Shelley, that's exactly what I thought too - how can she sue for something she presumably gave her consent to??

shelleylou · 27/08/2008 18:16

she did give here consent to as she went for IVF privately in spain and remortaged the house

findtheriver · 27/08/2008 18:18

babyignoramus - I agree. In fact everyone in the couple's families is now going to have read that the mother would prefer a child which is genetically related. I think going public on this could backfire on her big time.
She wanted a baby, she clearly was not able to conceive naturally, and thanks to modern medicine will now become a mother. What a selfish, ungrateful attitude.

handlemecarefully · 27/08/2008 18:27

I think the point is being missed. The Trust needs to be held accountable for why it took 6 years to establish the true cause of infertility as it seems that they may have some clinical protocol / procedure issues. I think this is a very valid reason for complaint.

It is a shame though that the only effective way of doing this (holding the Trust to account) is through litigation.

TheCrackFox · 27/08/2008 18:30

If she is upset about having a baby that is not genetically hers (DM words not mine) then why the fuck did she accept donor eggs. There are long waiting lists for donated eggs and I am sure another woman might have been a bit more grateful.

If she wins it will be money diverted from patient care into her bank account. She sounds thoroughly unpleasant.

llareggub · 27/08/2008 18:30

COmplaint yes, I accept. But to claim financial compensation in this situation is immoral, in my opinion.

andiem · 27/08/2008 18:30

agree with handleme they paid for private treatment in spain because they waited 6 years without anyone checking her fertility status when they got to the top of the list it was too late for her
I would be aggrieved too not sure I would go on so much about the genetic aspect though if she was so worried about this she shouldn't have had the treatment

andiem · 27/08/2008 18:31

she didn't have eggs from the uk she went to spain there is no waiting list in many spanish clinics

morningpaper · 27/08/2008 18:32

This is really about whether the trust followed the correct procedures or not

The rest is all irrelevant as far as I can see

ImnotMamaGbutsheLovesMe · 27/08/2008 18:32

I find it very hard to be sympathetic towards her tbh.

Original poster
intolerant · 27/08/2008 18:35

She has benefited from the treatment in that she is about to give birth to a baby. So it seems more than a little churlish (and money-grabbing) to bite the hand that has fed you, AND ultimately deny others (maybe) the chance that you have had.

OP posts:
andiem · 27/08/2008 18:36

intolerant she paid for private treatment so she did not benefit from any treatment the pct offered in fact if they had followed the correct procedure she may not have needed the private treatment at all

I'm not her by the way

Original poster
intolerant · 27/08/2008 18:37

Correct procedures or not, she must surely consider the consequences of the action she's taking. There's a finite amount of money to go round, as we keep hearing of from NICE, and I don't think those denied treatment (IVF or whatever) will consider it irrelevant.

OP posts:
andiem · 27/08/2008 18:39

I'm sure she does but at the end of the day they could be found to be negligent whilst I personally wouldn't sue them for money they should be made aware of and held responsible for their lack of care when they were on the waiting list

Nagapie · 27/08/2008 18:39

I find it amazing that the NHS/trust are going to be responsible for the delivery and health of the baby and mum, but if a cancer patient decides to get help out of the NHS they lose all rights to treatment...

spicemonster · 27/08/2008 18:41

There is insurance to pay for this surely? I don't see why she should have any less right to sue the PCT than someone who was wrongly diagnosed or had the wrong kidney removed. What does it matter what service it was?

And why should she be grateful that she's remortgaged her house to pay for treatment privately?

morningpaper · 27/08/2008 18:42

No the NHS is NOT covered by insurance, that is a commonly held belief.

But it was either negligent or it wasn't. It is about procedure, not rights or anything else.

ElfOnTheTopShelf · 27/08/2008 18:43

I think regardless of the slant of the article, 6 years to be diagnosed it a bit beyond the acceptable in my book.