to be a bit annoyed about a friend that thinks woman should not be allowed to have ivf on the nhs?

[CarrieDaBabi]

this friend, she is 33, and is planning on trying to start a family in a years time.

she said she doesn't agree with ivf etc and if it doesn't happen she will just accept its fate/not ment to be

then she went on to say she doesn't think that woman should be allowed to have ivf on the nhs.
i was a bit and
at her comments and attitude

she is nornally very left wing

i said, i thought women only got 1 go at ivf on the nhs and i think it should be avavlible on the nhs as its something that could cause depression pyschlogical issues

and that your on dodgey ground ruling things out as where would it stop, fat people people who drink or smoke not being able to get treatment
or people with depression not getting treatment.

to which she replied depression os an illness, i know it is, i said but not being able to have a baby can make you depressed

i felt really shocked at what she was saying

why did you choose not to adopt?

I have an NHS IVF daughter. She's a miracle and my life!
Having said that, I don't have strong opinions about whether the treatment should be available on the NHS. I'm just glad it was.

DF: It turned out to be a crap marriage.

Am currently looking into that mentoring thing with older children

Though I have to say - I am very sad not to have borne children, but it hasn't ruined my life. There are advantages.

Ah
sorry to hear that.

I want a child but I am determined that if I don't have one it won't ruin my life. Though sometimes it feels like it will, I know it really won't.

FWIW I always said I wouldn't do IVF but I am glad I have been given the chance.

I don't think the NHS should fund cancer treatment that will simply prolong life. What a huge waste of money for someone who's only going to die in the end anyway.

Londonlottie, as a mum to a child with diabetes I wish people would think before they announce that diabetes is not life threatening..Type 1 diabetics in this country are always being persecuted by idiots who speak without any knowledge of what they speak about - my daughter has very nearly died on three separate occasions because her treatment wasn't correct .. Insulin is one of the most dangerous drugs in the world ..
Diabetes is very much life threatening and life limiting - but you go ahead and dump it in with broken limbs and counselling ...

and I know you ll come back and say that you just said diabetes - but thats the probelm - people just say it - without knowing what they are talking about..
Please don't.

I think this thread demonstrates exactly why medical experts and not the great British public are charged with making these decisions. And thank God for that I say.

I think its quite interesting actually that a lot of people who have had various forms of fertility treatment aren't more vocal about wanting there to be no restrictions on cancer treatments .. None of us may have actually had cancer ourselves yet but lets face it, those of us who have been overloaded with hormones and endured many cycles of hormone treatment are more likely than the average woman to actually need those cancer treatments in the future...

Duritz - I thought there was no definitive link between IVF and cancer. Though it has been a few years since I looked.

ANyway I think no-one has said that cancer reatment should be restricted only that if you are going down the "life threatening illnesses only" road then you should logically also exclude treatment for:

ingrowing toenails
piles
most ENT problems
gall stones (unless causing infection)
kidney stones (unless causing infection)
broken bones (unless potentially life threatening)
60% of GP's appointments
add ailment of your choice

Not what Ive been told.. however, I happen to think that my children are worth the risk as Im sure most of us do...

I think people should have to pay to see the GP = just a small charge - it happens in the states - a co pay - used to be 10 dollars for us and it would make people think before they use the GP for colds and d and v and stuff..

Thing is, a hell of a lot of people just wouldnt understand that would they ?

I think that's probably fair, but I don't think people should then be charged for repeat appointments made at GP's instruction. With my DH and his GP visits for high blood pressure, arthritis, depression, etc., not to mention the ongoing prescriptions, we'd be bankrupt! But I suppose he shouldn't be going at all should he - well perhaps for the high blood pressure, but the other two aren't life threatening. (Still no one has come back and answered the repeated questions about their own use of the NHS).

Oh, and I didn't mean what I said about cancer treatment btw, I was just making a point. Hope that was clear.

Lol Gaelic .. I'll answer your question - I use the GP when I have checked out everything myself, have contacted NHS direct etc and if I'm still worried then I book an appointment..
I'm also one who needs regular appointments for high blood pressure - depression and ealry onset arthritis and a blood clotting issue so I'd be bankrupt too..

I think however, even if the charge was just a fiver, it would put off some people from going if they had to put their hand in their pocket.. too many people just make an appointment when a trip to a chemist would do the job..
I HATE going to the GP - I have to be quite scared before I give in and go !!

You weren't one of the posters I was targetting with my question, but thanks for being candid. I also hate going to the GP and avoid it at all costs - in fact the only time I'm not terrified of going is when I'm pregnant and have another life to worry about. The distance alone acts as it's own deterrent for us (30 mile round trip) as well.

"I think people should have to pay to see the GP"

they do already.

Lol.. you know what I mean ..and I am one of "them"

So you think as well as paying taxes to fund the NHS everyone should also pay a charge on top for each visit? I don't know, I do think that is unfair on a lot of people. I suppose people who choose to go private are already doing this.

They pay prescription charges. What's the difference? If it stopped the timewasters and the idiots who want antibiotics for a cold then that's surely a good thing? Perhaps you should pay the equivalent to a prescription charge. If you subsequently do need a prescription - and by definition are not a timewaster - then you get it free.

why is it unfair on a lot of people..?
surely its fair or unfair equally - everyone has equal access to the NHS - that's the point of it.

Of course it's unfair on everyone, but not everyone would suffer as much IYSWIM?

In fact, rather like some people would suffer rather more from an anti-IVF policy than others. And suffer a great deal more than someone paying a fiver to see the GP. Aren't we going around in circles?

Indeed..But that's life innit ?

Well I've already voiced my opinion on this thread ad nauseum. I think it's the case that almost everyone on here who would deny treatment to a woman with a serious medical condition would also baulk at the idea of paying to see the GP about their ingrowing toenail. That's Mumsnet innit?

She is entitiled to her opinion, even though it may offend some people.