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

I don't believe IVF should be on the NHS either. I think NHS should be for lifesaving stuff.

I don't think you have a 'right' to have a child at someone else's expense.

So should you have the right to smoke at somebody else's expense?

HAven't got time to read the whole thread, but, FWIW, I agree with your friend, OP. I don't think IVF should be available on an already-stretched-to-the-limit NHS. I'd much rather the money was spent on life-saving drugs and research tbh. Not sure it's got anything to do with being left-wing, though. However, I'm speaking as someone who had no problems conceiving, so don't have any personal experience of not being able to have children.

harimo, do you think the nhs shouldn'tr do hip replacements or cataract ops then:?

The problem with means testing IMO is that we do (most of us) pay for the NHS, just not at point of service- why should a rich persons piunds entitle them to less service (and am not rich myself, so not personal interest IYSWIM- I am in fact a Carer married to someone whose career took a big hit from redundancy lastb year making us officially poor- I also have a complete family)

SPB I think some things are more important than others, that's all, and I think that life saving treatment and innovative drugs that cure people and prevent death should be the priority. fwiw if I were to run the NHS I'd divert all resources to children and young people and anyone who smokes, drinks would not be treated if their condition was preventable and anyone over a certain age, ie very very old, would have palliative treatments but anything more such as surgery would be a waste of resources. But I am slightly extreme [runs away quickly]

"until you have had fertility issues you really don't understand the sheer desperation and heartache involved. "

Yes, but does that mean the state (and henceforth taxpayers) should pay to try and solve them ?

The majority of people who raise an eyebrow at fertility treatment on the NHS are usually people who have conceived without any problems or have yet to try to conceive. Therefore they are ALL Darwinists and apt to trot out the 'survival of the fittest' line. Nature has decreed that they can conceive without problem so therefore they're entitled to their children. Sub fertile couples should just suck it up and be "better prepared" as someone on here mentioned. Tell me, how do you get to be "better prepared" for childlessness.

I'd wager a bet that all the "it's nature's way" camp on here have never spent a morning in the waiting room of an IVF clinic. It's a clear, stark metaphor for despair. As for the oft-trotted out "well you can always adopt, there are thousands of unwanted children out there desperate for homes" ever tried to adopt? For a start it's not always guaranteed that you'll be accepted. Plus, there's not a warehouse of babies out there that you can just go and pick your baby up from. You are talking children from very difficult/traumatic backgrounds. No one suggests to fertile couples that instead of effortlessly banging out a couple of children they should look into adoption instead. Surely it's just as 'selfish' for them to have a child when there are heaps of unwanted children out there? Nope, instead let's use the good old infertile bunch to mop up the problem. After all, it's there fault/God's will/'Nature's way' that they can't have babies....

What if you can have babies but you're married to someone who can't. I'm "pelvically perfect" according to my consultant but I'm married to someone with severe male factor issues (not his 'fault' - just pure bad luck really). Do I dump him and go and find someone with perfect sperm (who might be a total tw*t!) and dodge Darwin's bullet that way?

You get one 'go' at IVF on the NHS. It's not handed out like a box of smarties on a whim. YOu've got to jump through hoops and often meet fitness (weight/non smoking) criteria. And yet IVF/fertilty treatment becomes the whipping boy for all the NHS woes. I agree that the NHS isn't a bottomless pit but no one questions treating the overweight or smokers? The NHS isn't just about life-threatening illness. What about the £600 million a year that is wasted in missed appointments. THat would pay for a fair old whack of operations/midwives/oncologists, etc.

To all you naysayers I'd just say you wait until your daughter or son can't have babies or is married to someone who can't have babies. I'd like to see you trot out the "it's nature's way" line then. I promise you it will stick in your throat.

There are many drains on the NHS but IVF isn't one of them. The NHS is a health service, funded by tax payers, and covers the broad spectrum of medicine and clinical treatment. That isn't just restricted to life-saving treatment and shouldn't be. Health, medicine and treatment is much broader than that so it's right the the services offered by the NHS reflect that. Why shouldn't someone look to it for assistance at their point of need when they've paid into it and will continue to pay into it. I didn't use the NHS for my fertilty treatment - the waiting times are prohibitive in my area and I had savings so we used those. But I'll always staunchly defend the rights of those to receive that care on the NHS should they need it.

Having a child IS a right. It's a biological right that sometimes, due to the subtle and cruel nature of biology, is unfairly denied to some who deserve it just as much as the next man or woman. Those that decide that this is some form or arbitrary 'Natural Selection' are more often than not those that have just hit it lucky reproductively or in the selection of their reproductive mate and are sitting high and smug from their safe ground. It's all down to luck you know? Not some superior genetic make up on your part.

Clarissimo
because thats what a civilised society - which I believe we think we are - does..

Those who have should look after the have nots..is that not the principle the welfare state was born from ?

FWIW we are higher rate tax payers now - we couldnt afford to pay for IVF easily - but I wouldnt expect the NHS to fund it for me either..I take the attitude that we are by far from the worst off in the country and would find the money somehow - and not expect to have a freebie ( yes paid for my tax I have paid in ) which could mean someone's child being refused a drug that could save their life..

It just seems a bit selfish to me ..If you can possibly pay for it yourself then do it..
dont take the opportunity away from someone else who may not be able to afford it..

Life sucks - we all need to deal with that ..

good post kitstwins
It would be possible to run the NHS as "lifesaving" only, but that's NOT what we have, and IVF is simply one of the quality of life treatments it provides. And I'd imagine most people would rather have a child when they're 40 than a new hip when they're 70!

and kitstwins ..

I made no mention of natural selection ... I havent seen that here.. and I totally agree about the desperation of infertility clinics - have been there too..( was there yesterday actually ..)
BUT have you sat and watched your otherwise healthy cousin die because the NHS couldnt afford to fund her drugs for breast cancer ?

How does the "right to have children " become more important than some people's right to life ??

and I dont agree that having children is a right - its a privilege , children are a blessing ..

Tell me about life sucking- expert on that one! (Not jpking, just booked my ten year old into anorexia clinic).

Anyway (sorry to digress)

I think morally that people who can should pay for themselves: we have refused to claim council tax benefit because we can just about cover it, so I agree with you there.

But I think banning those who can afford is hard- for a start the screening tests we have don't reliable ascertain very much: somebody on £30K for example is quite tight in London I imagine but here in Wales would be seen as pretty much rolling; it also wouldn't allow for other things that the state does not have to cover becuase of the affluence (eg paying private education fees, own pension etc) but which could elave people unable to afford treatments (maybe not sate ed and IVF but am sure IVF would be followed by other simialr treatments if people were to list).

Plus what political party atm would make such a policy given how badly they all need the vote? Am syre middle britain feels as if it is paying enough anyway

Absolutely agree with you on welfare state; as I said I am a carer so dependent on it myself atm.

Well said kitstwins!

juicy12 - you say you haven't got time to read the whole thread, please take a minute to read kitstwins post.

Kitstwins - Mother Nature says it's not.

aha Clarissimo

we are singing from the same sheet more or less...I am a carer too to my ten year old dd.. and we dont claim dla for her because we can cope without it .. and I would rather it was there to help another family who struggle more than us..
(Oh and hubby was also made redundant last year ..)

It just seems that there arent many people who think like us ..and that's what I find difficult .. We need to forget about being "entitled" to things.. We are fortunate to get what we do get ..

The NHS is stretched to breaking and hard choices have to be made .

a lot of health authorities won't fund treatments (like viagra or ciallis) for impotence

I can't get the pill I want on the NHS because apparently I want it for non medical reasons (I react badly to other pills but it's not a proven allergy so apparently it's not medical )

I can't get a prescription for omeprazole, which I need daily, for more than a month because the protocol says to only issue a month at a time for cost reasons

The NHS is cost cutting in a big way. As others were saying, people can't get life saving cancer drugs on the NHS, so your friend's attitude doesn't surprise me at all.

I do know what you mean Duritz- we have 2 with asd btw, and one with dyspraxia LOL, and the toddler seems to be similarly affected (but when we had him knowing the risk we made the decision to not claim for him if he had asd).

We do caoim DLA as we need to but only claim what we need to get by, DH was not able to find FT work so has taken on retraining and started a PT business- shjould make us net givers in the long term (hopw strange that we are desperate to ahnd over our cash LOL) but take a hit to the dignity in the short term: CTB we are paying though becuase we feel we must if that makes sense?

i think tehre re many like us though, my aprents enver vlaimed DLA or anything despite Mum ebing virtually unable to alk for a few eyars with an injury adn dad, at 65, works even with a physical disability. It's just most people who have the dignity and ethics not to claim are likely to be those who feel a need to not ask for help or tell people they have issues, IYSWIM? A hidden group.

milaMae I have my views on smoking. However, it could be argued that smokers pay a signifficant amount into the pot - just think about the level of tax on a packet of cigarettes.

Fwiw I think there should be some criteria in terms of helping the addicted, i.e. not sure that an alcoholic should be considered for a liver transplant or a smoker for a heart and lung transplant, unless there is evidence of signifficant commitment towards beating the addiction that has caused the health issue in the first place.

And no having a child is not a right. We all have the right to attempt to have children, but in the event you are unable to have children naturally it is not the responsibility of the nhs to ensure that right is upheld.

If everyone has the right to have a child where do you draw the line? Unlimited attempts of nhs-funded IVF? NHS-funded surrogacy? NHS-funded adoption with no possibility of rejection for those who have been proven incapable of having children naturally? (oh yes, adoption costs too).

Given that one in six couples experience some level of fertility problems it's not unreasonable to suggest that the nhs could quite easily be crippled by it.

I agree with expat that there is far too much of a sense of entitlement in this country.

And kitstwins, I have been down the infertility route. So no, not everyone is bitter and consumed by the need for children, and many people do have to come to terms with not being able to have children, given the success rate of IVF is less than 40%.

It's heartbreaking for anyone who has to go through it, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But that doesn't mean I have to agree that everyone should be entitled.

F*ck 'Mother Nature'! Honestly, what is 'Mother Nature'? Do you really think there's some wise old lady in the sky with apple cheeks who looks down and decides who gets to be fertile? If you really want to use the mother nature argument then surely we wouldn't treat anything, life-threatening or otherwise, as it would be interfering with Nature's way of sifting out the genetically substandard? We'd leave women to die in childbirth as that way we'd be sifting out the pelvically inadequate. And yet everyone knows that biology and medicine isn't black and white like that. Biology is subtle. Fertility is a moveable feast and it doesn't take much to push it off kilter. The once-fertile can become sub-fertile and vice-versa, so often it's not even related to genetic issues which makes the Natural Selection argument somewhat obsolte.

Duritzfan I understand that it can be hard to reconcile the spread of NHS treatments when they struggle to fund cancer drug protocols but why does IVF have to be the perpetual whipping boy? Why does no one throw a stick at what smokers and drinkers cause the NHS annually? What about the 1 in 8 patients who simply don't turn up for hospital appointments. £600 million a year wasted on that. And yet the answer would seemingly be to deny infertile couples the chance at parenthood, almost as if it's their fault and their punishment.

As for children being a privilege and a blessing I agree with you. But I also stand by the fact that they are a biological right. The two are not mutually exclusive. I feel that everyone deserves the chance at parenthood. Not everyone gets lucky with that chance, but they at least deserve it. And until we limit all NHS treatment to just that relating to critical, life-saving care then fertilty treatment has just as much right to stay on the list as everything else.

yeah i guess you are right ...

I know my sil had a spell in hospital recently and they claimed so many benefits it got ridiculous .. bil earns 70k - and they even claimed for childcare fulltime and managed to get a cleaner once a week - even though my inlaws were looking after the children for them and hubby was given as much time off as he needed ..
How they can live with that I dont know when there are people who are so desperate in our society

ah well..

seriously I hope your dd is ok - anorexia is my nightmare with dd too...she is convinced she is fat ( def not !) but my aunt had it and so I am terrified for her...
another thing that girls in our society are dealing with at such a young age ...

Must be hard on you .. hope things improve ..and may everyone on this thread who wants to end up with a happy healthy baby .. after all no one here is questioning the joy a child can bring ..

unmumsnetty hugs coming at you all..

No, kitstwins - but this is the same reason I'm pro-abortion.

Once a child is here, then, yes... we do whatever is right for the best longevity and quality of life.

But before that? Sorry, but I think that's in the hands of the mother and, in part, the lap of the gods.

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..

...... my "friend" with two houses right to get NHS funded IVF ?

Are you not in the UK then? Because there are very few areas in the UK that fund IVF for over 40, similarly there are very few places in the country that let you try IVF if you haven't been ttc for a long time. All seems a bit exaggerated to me!

'To all you naysayers I'd just say you wait until your daughter or son can't have babies or is married to someone who can't have babies. I'd like to see you trot out the "it's nature's way" line then. I promise you it will stick in your throat.'

No one is saying ban all IVF.

Just that a user should pay for it.

And I just don't buy all that 'then only the rich can have it' because I come from a place where you need health insurance for medical treatment at all or you have to pay for it, and most insurers don't cover IVF.

But still plenty of folks have it! They have to save for it or get extra jobs or borrow for it.

I know one women who went to work for a chain of chemists because the company's policy paid for IVF treatment.

I honestly don't see what's so incredibly offensive about expecting people to pay for some treatments.

'To all you naysayers I'd just say you wait until your daughter or son can't have babies or is married to someone who can't have babies. I'd like to see you trot out the "it's nature's way" line then. I promise you it will stick in your throat.'

No one is saying ban all IVF.

Just that a user should pay for it.

And I just don't buy all that 'then only the rich can have it' because I come from a place where you need health insurance for medical treatment at all or you have to pay for it, and most insurers don't cover IVF.

But still plenty of folks have it! They have to save for it or get extra jobs or borrow for it.

I know one women who went to work for a chain of chemists because the company's policy paid for IVF treatment.

I honestly don't see what's so incredibly offensive about expecting people to pay for some treatments.

So many of the posts on here are making my blood boil, I love it! .
It is hugely patronising to state that anyone who hasn't been in the position suffering fertility issues "doesn't understand".
Empathy does not require experience. I find this argument is trotted out by people in RL whenever a discussion (on whatever topic) isn't to their liking or not going their way.
The NHS has to be rationed, that is a fact of life. I'd jump at the opportunity to vote for a party that was going to increase tax, in any way, to allow funding to meet all requirements but I can't see it happening. Mainly, I believe, as there is a lack of empathy in this society as a whole.
Of course we should be providing care for all but again it's a fact of life that cancer drugs are being rationed, stroke victims are not receiving rehab, cardiac patients are waiting weeks for angiograms, gp's are turning pts's away because lists are full add in your own particular concern. Until these and other issues are resolved IVF is going to be seen as a 'bonus' by many and I believe that is correct.
Yabu by the way your friend is entitled to her opinion.