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

There is also the issue of women deliberately delaying having children in order to pursue their career, and then turning around in their 40s and looking for IVF on the NHS.

I'd be interested to hear what your friend thinks after several years of trying to have a child and then finding that IVF may be the only option.

However, not everyone agrees with IVF and not everyone would want it. I don't think it's a particularly left wing thing though, is it? To agree with IVF?

I don't know about your situation OP - if you've needed assistance with conception or not - if that's the case then I think she's somewhat tactless, but if it's just a general thought that she has, then she's pretty much entitled to it.

It is a tricky one this. In a time of limited funds it seems obvious that those funds should be spent looking after people who are already here rather than making new people who will need to be looked after - that is just reality. On the other I have watched the desperation of friends who wanted children and couldn't have them, so my softer side wants to give them hope and is happy for money to be spent that way.

No idea what is right/wrong, so shall sit on the fence on this one.

I personally would rather see NHS funding being spent on people all ready here and in need of life saving treatment, not being spent on making more people to use an already over burdened system.

lb, yes thats just what i was trying to say

"until you have had fertility issues you really don't understand the sheer desperation and heartache involved." again though every person is different. I had difficulty conceiving my first child and then was unable to conceive a second child (I was a regular on the ttc boards a time back).

And the reality is that while some people let infertility consume them, others do come to terms with the inability to have a child. I consider myself lucky. I have one child. Yes I am sad for the other child I wanted to have and never will, but imo it's better to be grateful for what we do have than what we don't/can't have. Obviously if I'd been unable to have any children I might have done things differently, although having said that when we thought we couldn't conceive at all I was going to just resign myself to not having children. But I do think it's a bit patronising to say that only people with fertility issues understand, because even people with fertility issues are individuals with individual thoughts on the matter.

And well tbh the adoption argument is just rubbish. Because adoption certainly isn't for everyone. In fact I'd say that adoption is probably more invasive than IVF with a lesser success rate as it's so hard to adopt.

OTTmum

i think IVF should be restricted to one funded cycle per couple. regardless of where they live etc.

The reality is OTTMama that adoption is not an easy route for most people, that there are not even very many toddlers to adopt and not all prospective parents have the skills or desire to adopt a severely disturbed child and most children who have been in and out of care for years have been damaged by the experience. It is hugely simplistic to say 'oh just adopt'. And it is only ever the people who have either a) not had children yet or b) been able to pop them out like Smarties who say that. IME obviously.

wannabe - I used to think that about adoption until a friend of mine was accepted for adoption recently. The process was quite complex I suppose but they were helped along the way by social services people. It took about a year all in all and they are on the verge of adoption a little girl. I don't think it always difficult or intrusive.

I think its easy in theory to have ideas about where NHS money should be allocated. But health care is also all about compassion and alleviating pain and distress.

And how far back into someone's lifestyle do we go before we decide whether they 'deserve' treatment or not.

Lots of medical procedures go on which are not life saving, but improve people's quality of life, I think IVF probably falls into this category.

I'm very left wing and I tend to agree. IVF has a fairly low success rate and is very very expensive. If there was enough money for everything I'd say fair enough, but when people are denied life prolonging drugs and up to date treatments then I think no, maybe it shouldn't be available for free on the NHS.

But then I don't live in the UK, and I believe that British people are overly reliant on the NHS to the point of having little appreciation of how good it really is.

what i have a problem with is the success rate, it seems so small for the amount of money being spent, i would feel more at ease with it if the rate was 60-70%, but its not.

really wannabe? i don't think someone who has had no difficulty conceiving can really empathise.

my situation is, my dd was concieved almost straight away thankyou god.
but if i hafn't have been able to get pg, i would have anything neccesary to get pg

now we are thinking of a 2nd, but i would not have ivf for a second personally, however suppose my feelings could change after we had been trying a while i guess

oops should be a '?' on end of second line.

You can have had fertility issues and still not want to undertake IVF in order to conceive.

We were told that there was very little chance of conceiving naturally, it was horrible but I just wasn't up for it - had watched those aforementioned friends suffer physically, financially and emotionally and watched a couple of marriages tank due to the stress as well.

Turned out OK as I got pregnant 2 years later. But during those 2 years we had decided to go down a different route in life. In fact we had gotten so used to the idea of no kids that the pregnancy was actually unwelcome at first.

morloth i decided against ivf as well.

i didn't say oh just adopt, do not put words in my mouth.
What i was saying is that if adoption rules and processes were made easier and less lengthy then im sure a lot of people would go down this route over a 20-30% chance on IVF i know i would have when i was told i had PCOS. But because i wanted to have the baby experience from a newborn i was put off the adpotion route, so i am speaking from my own experience.
You can not condem me for that!
the only reason i concieved was because i lost an awful lot of weight from an illness i had, i may not get to concieve a second, thats fine for me, and i came to terms with the possiblitly of not having any of my own children a long time ago, it took years of work and therapy, but i think if i had been offered the ivf and taken it, and it had not worked i think i would of felt worse tbh.

perhaps not, but people who have had difficulty conceiving (such as myself) might well think along the same lines as someone who has never had any difficulty conceiving, iyswim.

Orm it obv depends from person to person re adoption and much like ivf it seems to be a bit of a postcode lottery in terms of how smoothly the process runs and how much support you are given.

For me personally I would be unable to adopt on the basis I have a disability. Doesn't matter I have a biological child already who is not in any way under social services radar, or that I am a strong participant in my community, that I lead a totally normal life, have never had any serious illnesses, had issues with drugs and alcohol or been in trouble with the law. That my husband earns a good income, that we are solvent and could provide a child with a stable family life. The fact I have a disability rules me out before any of that could even be established.

So while for some adoption is the best route to become a parent, for others it isn't even an option they would be allowed to consider.

"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"

with a bit of luck she will fall pregnant easily and quickly and will never have to face up to this statement.

She's clearly an unsympathetic idiot who hasn't (And hopefully won't) experienced the pain of infertility.

Here's hoping that she does get pregnant with ease even though it will mean that she will probably continue to believe what she does.

How on earth does that equate to being an unsympathetic idiot?
People are allowed to have opinions on these things you know? They don't even have to agree with yours!

Sorry, misunderstood what you meant, my apologies. I think the adoption process is fraught with difficulties and some people (like wannaBe) who would be brilliant adopters are prevented from doing so because of a disability which in no way impacts on their ability to parent (wannaBe - you are deaf aren't you? forgive me if I've got that wrong).

Don't get me started on adoption though

DH told me straight up that he didn't think he could love an adopted child in the same way as a biological one when we were discussing it. On the surface this is quite selfish but Thank God he knew that about himself and told me about it before it went any further.

Adoption isn't for everyone.

"How on earth does that equate to being an unsympathetic idiot? "

sorry - I jmeant she was unsympathetic and lacked empathy for other people./ I retract the idiot. I think her view is idiotic but obviously I have no idea if she herself is an idiot. I apoloise.

Infertility is often a medical condition. The nhs exists to give medical treatment. Ivf is an expensive, non-critical medical intervention that can (if successful) have a very positive effect on the patient's quality of life.

I think it is right that it is available on the nhs and fair that it is rationed (the three cycles recommended by NICE seems about right).

I feel a little bit ill after reading about the woman who dropped a friend for receiving medical treatment her doctor thought was appropriate for her but that this woman didn't agree with. I had no idea I shared the world with anyone that unpleasant.