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

wannaBe, that's horrible that you can't adopt because of a disability! at all the red tape etc

I am blind lb.

YANBU. Many couples having IVF on the NHS have paid national insurance contributions for years. They could well have a medical condition that is preventing them from conceiving naturally.

How many couples are having children and have never paid a penny into the system yet they constantly drain it?

How many overweight, smoking, drug-taking people drain the NHS.

However, what I would say is that the rules (if they havent already) should be tougher. The success rates for women overweight or smokers is much lower. Money shouldnt be wasted on people who cant help themeselves.

FWIW, I had successful IVF, not on the NHS though, we were lucky enough to be able to go private to avoid the 3year NHS waiting list. Not everyone is in a position to do this though.

Sorry wannaBe . I have a blind colleague - he seems to me to be a very competent parent and hold down a job and everything

Seems absurd to me to exclude someone on that basis.

Aren;t disabled people allowed to adopt children? I didn't know that.

Anyone know who "judges" your disability to tell you whether you can or not?

Sorry that;s off topic.

As for the IVF - I have to sit firmly on the fence - I can see both sides of the argument TBH.

I broadly agree with OPs friend. IVF is expensive and has poor success rate.

NHS just doesn't have the resources does it.

And there as many people here just as devastated to have to stop at 1,2,3 whatever many kids because they won't be happy until they have one more.

So even if successful, IVF won't necessarily ease the pain of infertility.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, so YAB a bit U.

I think IVF should be available on the NHS ideally - infertility can be horrible, but if budget cuts come, I think it would be relatively easy for the next government to remove free IVF given the divided public opinion on it. It is an easy target because the scars infertility leave are emotional rather than physical. No one would dream of leaving a snowboarder with a bad break in their leg without treatment - there would be outrage, but because emotional issues are less visible there can be a perception that they are less painful, less debilitating.

Well put, MorrisZapp. I agree.

'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.'

I also agree with this. Many people here have a strong sense of entitlement regarding the NHS, IMO.

I do, however, strongly disagree with this postcode lottery business.

And with the inherently misogynistic idea that women have IVF because they deliberately delayed having children in order to have a career.

Many women like myself didn't have children until their 30s because of the large numbers of twat, immature excuses for men near our own age were still too busy acting like 17-year-olds in a Skins episode.

I would be interested to see how the OPs friend feels in another 5 or 6 years, if she's not been lucky enough to conceive yet. I think when you're actually facing infertility, you see things from a different perspective.

For me the bugbear with IVF is also the low success rate.

I do wonder if some people also put off TTC with the thought that well, we can always have IVF.

I agree that infertility is a medical condition-so surely that means that if possible, the cause should be fixed?

The question then is how far do you take the fixing?

'I do wonder if some people also put off TTC with the thought that well, we can always have IVF.'

I think that's a myth sold by DM types to perpetuate misogyny.

I agree expat - I've never heard that. The only people I know who have had IVF had been trying for years to conceive and started in their 20s/30s.

I think I agree with ladybiscuit- indfertility is nsoemthing not working, just the same as my dodgy knee doesn't work.

Adoption sadly isn't an option for many becuase of great variability and tight rules (in some palces you can't adopt at X age but in the other place the cut off is the same....) and if IVF were looked at as a budget saving measure I would want adotopn rules reviewed drastically.

I know if Dh and I had not been lucky enough to conceive naturally we would have been devastated as it we both felt a very real need to be aprents and indeed I ahd ended one relationship with someone who didn't want children. The get pver it vibe simple would not have worked for us. We would ahve adopted but were lucky enough to meet in our twenties and within the age bracket, many are simply not so blessed.

perhaps waiting until your 34 to start try for your first, when she wants at least 2, is a bit risky as her fertility will be decreasing.
but she is intelligent and sure she realises that

Carrie, it's possible, too, that she's aware of this risk and willing to deal with the consequences.

Or, if she changes her mind, she's willing to do what it takes to self-fund IVF should she need it.

Oh but I agree with the rules being tightened for amedable at risk groups (smokers etc) - I am overweight btw so would fall into that group, not being an unaware observer or anything!

My friend had IVF becuase she knew her dh had a low sperm count and didn't want to wait years of ttc (complicated story involving potential grandparents who ahd seen one daughter killed in horrendous accident and were desperately controlling / attached to surviving DD and very vocal in their desire for a grandchild) but in thatc ase the aprents paid for the couple to go private- no NHS incolvement.

I know of no other similar cases.

That couple conceiveed first cycle and a baby naturally two years afterwards but still feel it was the right decision.

Agree pjmama.

As someone who has suffered infertily and now has twins after 3 attempts of IVF (paid for privately by us, we count ourselves VERY lucky that we were able to do this) I think OPs friend is being very harsh. I understand why she might feel this way because unless you are suffering from infertility you have no idea how it makes you feel and the person that you become changes beyond recognition.

As for accepting that it is fate and its not meant to happen ......... I met lovely lady at an IVF support group who was going down the IVF route because she had been diagnosed with cancer at a young age and the chemo had left her infertile so she was using donor eggs. Should she just accept that she got cancer and therefore could never have a child?

As others have said I think your friend may change her mind if she has her own fertility problems, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

I'm sure it's devestating for some, some do come to terms, as wannabe has.

And to me I always have to think: imagine how devestating it would be to be told that there's a drug out there which can help you in your struggle with cancer, but you can't have it.

Or your child can't have a certain prosthetic on the NHS because of cost.

Where do we draw the line? IVF is very expensive and has a low success rate.

Infertility is - in most cases - linked to an illness, no? Pcos, endometriosis, closed fallopian tubes, odd shaped uterus, to name a few.

Therefore I can't see why IVF shouldn't be available on the NHS.
Also, the nhs (and many other public health systems in Europe etc) are stretched mainly because we live longer lives, and modern medicine can now treat conditions that weren't curable 30 yrs ago. Not because of couple needing assisted conception.

Plus, I suppose that the nhs would be more reliable to advise you on the right course of treatment to get pg?
Won't private practices suggest the more expensive treatments?

ALL medical treatment is expensive, and not necessary.

It would be cheaper for the country to allow couples to have IVF, and to 'ban' all cancer treatment, regardless of the age of the patient & their chances of survival. That is a logical, mathematical certainty.

So, let's pick on the cancer sufferers, for 10 years, their deaths will balance out the new births from IVF, AND save money for the rest of us.

Problem solved.

In 10 years after that, why don't we decide that not treating a different group of patients will be best, i don't know, let's ban ALL medical treatment for children under 5, or why don't we say we won't treat people from different ethnic groups?

Any of the above ideas would get rid of 'unnecessary' treatment and save money, I think we should all take turns in being victimised.

Other money saving ideas could include - not giving free education to poor people - after all, there's plenty of stats to show that they don't benefit as much as the middle classes/rich people do, so that's another waste of money.

Or anyone over the age of 70 should be banned from drawing a pension, getting treatment, living in a home. etc etc.

Personally, I like to think that we live in a caring society, where everyone is treated with equal rights & we don't invent spurious arguments to exclude certain groups from medically necessary treatment. But if you want to make up ridiculous & insulting reasons to exclude people, let's share that around, and not pick on just one group.

ExP we are frequently told that the boys can't have X or Y because of money (never life saving drugs- IMO they should always be a priority- I am Peachy btw, always forget I changed name)

Tonmorrow we have yet another in an endless round of meetings about getting more money for them, education this time so different budget, but is often health.

I don't think even once has the sorry we can't give you (OT, SLT, free nappies) been accompamied by a wish for others to suffer instead, and I do think childlessness can sometimes cause that.

I've worked for Macmillan (paid, and not as a nurse,am no angel) and realise that there are life saving drugs being denied to people but rather than focus on IVF I'd much prefer it if silliness such as attending GP on first day of a cough, or for a cold, as is reported to cost NHS seriosu cash, were addressed for the funds instead.

Having sold our home to fund our IVF and had the agony of years of infertility I do think it should be on the NHS.

Why should only the rich or people who have houses to sell be allowed to have a chance?

I worked with somebody at the time I did my IVF who just didn't have the money or anything to sell,witnessing her additional anguish was awful. The unfairness of it all was just dreadful.

We don't choose to be infertile some/not all make choices that cost the NHS billions,smoking,obesity,drug dependancy etc. Why should the NHS constantly be picking up the tab for that but not a very limited programme of IVF for people who are otherwise very healthy and lead healthy lifestyles?

Adoption is absolutely not the right thing for many,many people.I have several friends with adopted children and they are all of this opinion.

I got told by several doctors that my getting pregnant would save the NHS a fortune as being pg can clear up many problems ie endo,pcos,depression etc. Also it can give you added protection against some cancers and one day my dc will save the gov £1000s in care bills should it be needed.

All that aside dp and I have paid £1000s and £1000s in tax over the years why shouldn't we have got something back when we need it?

Op I'll wager your friend will feel very differently should she suffer the agony of infertility for several years-I once said that too then I actually stared being childless in the face for several years.

Surely life is about quality as well as prolonging life?
And part of quality (for those who want them) is having children.

As for the disability/adoption thing - that's ridiculous! Is anything being done about that, any campaigns?

wow - this is an emotive one...

I have a history of infertility and am prevented from adopting because I had a serious episode of post natal depression 14 years ago .. I think that that is totally ridiculous but thats another argument..

I knew I was likely to have issues having children as I have endometriosis - my husband and I wanted a family more than anything and so I left university to start trying to get pg with clomid and various hormone treatments and surgery and hubby worked fulltime while he finished his degree ( with a very very supportive boss)

I have had ten mcs and two livebirths .. I have never qualified for ivf on the nhs and the thing I find hard to deal with is the amount of women I know who delayed having children til 40 years of age and now expect the nhs to sort it out for them ..
I just feel that there's no personal responsibility there - a child is not a right - and if you put a career first, then you take that risk that you may not get both ..
We did it the hard way, taking the view that we wouldn't ever be able to buy a child, so we chose that as our priority ..
It was incredibly difficult finacially and times were tough - but I have two gorgeous children - but I had to sacrifice a career for that ..

I have a "friend" who has just had a baby, at 41 .. She told me she didnt even think about children til she turned 40 ..then she turned straight to ivf as in her own words " time was short "

My issue with her is that they thought they were entitled to nhs funding and they got it ! This is a couple who own a second home and various cars ..and have a hugedisposable income..

In an ideal world, then I would love all health issues to be covered - everything - but this is not a perfect world and people need to grow up and take responsibility for their own lives..
IVF on the nhs should be only available to those who cant afford to do it otherwise..and
also funding for NHS should be lower down the list than illnesses which affect children and adults already existing.

I speak as a mum who has to pay out privately for healthcare for her child because the NHS doesnt fund the treatment for her condition..
Why on earth does my well off neighbor get treated but my little girl doesnt ?

And yeah - adoption rues are too strict ..dh and I would LOVE to be able to adopt but are not allowed ...

we have a huge house with a great garden and just want another child..

Oh and before anyone jumps down my throat - dh and I managed to have ourfamily without the help of benefits .. there were many weeks when we lived on beans on toast and many weeks when my mum bought ds' nappies ..but we got there..

I get angry when i see people saying well we werent in a financial position to have a baby til now ( at 40 !!)

Utter crap..thats just people wanting it easy in my opinion..Life is not easy .