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

erm, in Germany for instance, fertility treatment is a 'lifestyle choice' not covered by health insurance. (pregnancy is also a 'lifestyle choice' and women of childbearing age have higher insurance premiums too....) i don't think it works hat well. And yes, paying for the treatment yourself is horrendously expensive (after al, its not just IVF, its the road to IVF, the investigations, scans etc...) and prohibitively so for poorer people.

The IVF system in the UK is not ideal, but at least it gives people a chance at a child - and 30% for one cycle isn't that bad a success rate bearing in mind the problems some of those treated have...

i thnk there is an argument for a fairer set of rules for deciding who gets treatment, but no, i don't begrudge the money. The government would only waste it on something less worthy (like restructuring departments!)

your friend is entitled to her opinion of course, but you are equally entitled to find it annoying and mean-minded.

i really don't think the desire to have children is something you can just switch off - it is not a lifestyle choice.

'Sorry Runny but if you're scraping by on benefits I fail to see how £5000 can just be just produced out of thin air-do tell us all how it's done'

We're on some benefits.

My SIL is on full benefits - income support, LHA/CTB and CTC.

She managed to fund driving lessons for herself and passing her exam, she saves for holidays, etc.

It's a squeeze but it can be done.

She's allowed to make up to £20/week, too, and not affect her benefit, so she cleans a house.

who is annoyed?
Clue in thread title

Sorry, jasper! The thread's moved on a bit.

£20 a week so thats £80 a month about £1000-so it would take 5 years to save up for one cycle by which time your chances are nil.

We could have done that instead of selling our house but I'd have been 40 instead of 35 so the whole thing would have been pointless. Lucky me I had a house to sell.

Oh and all these other options you mention-don't you think most desperate couples will have looked into all options. When you factor in repeated flights and hotel bills doing it abroad is not a cheap option. You're warned against buying cheap drugs when doing IVF no way would anybody with an ounce of sense be injecting potentially dodgy,cheap useless drugs into their bodies.

Rather patronising to all the poor people there MilaMae, aren't you?

Are there a huge number of people "scraping by on benefits" awaiting free IVF then? Childless couples without jobs or savings are the main demographic for treatment in the UK are they?

People can and do save up for many things that they want and/or need. I couldn't come up with 5k "out of thin air", but I could, like most people save up for things, especially if I believe it is my right to have a baby and that I can't possibly live my life without it.

Infertility doesn't choose who it blights,there will be many people on benefits suffering from it in the same way that there will be many wealthy people. The difference is the poor can't just produce 5K out of thin air.

As I just explained saving up for a car is not the same as saving up for IVF. If you don't do it early enough it will not work-fact.

Time is the difference between having a baby and not.

yep - every year spent saving to fund IVF would be a decrease in the likelihood of success...

i think there are plenty of people out there who could no sooner raise 5k than pull monkeys out of their bum. currently..i'd be one of them! thank fuck i'm fertile.

Can we stop with the "women over 40 who chose to have a career" crap? I don;t know a single PCT who fund IVF for anyone over 40 yrs, over 35 BMI or smoker.

Provided that the NHS funds other treatments related to quality of life then IVF should also be provided (perhaps as Expat suggests on a means tested sliding fee basis).

As long as unrestricted abortions for non-medical reasons IMVHO restricted IVF should also be available. No solid argument, it just feels right.

(PS lots of women on this thread describing their "infertility" with children )

(PPS Paid for all of my unsuccessful IVF cycles, didn't occur to me not to)

Milamae, how many people under 35 without children can't find a job of some kind if they try hard enough, or move, or whatever?
I couldn't pull 5k out of my arse (not that it costs that much here) either, but thats because I have children and can't fit a job around them.

Time may make the difference but you don't fine out one day you are infertile and go for ivf the next day. What are the wait times on the NHS?

Yep they can (usually, hardly teh best time atm) find a job but depending on where you live £5k is a lot- here in Wales or back home in Bridgwater a decent job pays £15k; doesn't leave much over does it after tax and everything else on top? Besides a good many people under 35 working already as carers- just unpaid becuase its their relation. I'd ahte to see a system where those who were already losing out financially becuase of taking on something benefitting the state lost out again.

Still not sure eithert way tbh, but it does seem incongruent that people decide that is the one part of us thatc an't be fixed, but if I want the rather ugly benign lump on my arm removed I can have it booked tomorrow.

'but if I want the rather ugly benign lump on my arm removed I can have it booked tomorrow. '

See, I don't necessarily agree with that, either.

I also personally know two women who got a tummy tuck after having kids by really laying it on thick that they were 'depressed' by their flabby stomachs.

No, neither had csections, and quite readily tell anyone who will listen how to swing a free tummy tuck on the NHS.

Kewcumber - but lots of women on this thread with infertility may have paid for treatment themselves ? Are you suggesting that those who have had successful fertility treatment don't have the right to comment ?

Or was the use of the smilie referring to something else ?

Have only read OP just now, but my response would be that if she runs into difficulties she will change her opinion. I guarantee it.

A long thread that I haven't read so this may well have been voiced already. My own view is that firstly the OP's friend has a right to her opinion, no matter whether the OP agrees or not and secondly that all women should have a right to IVF on the NHS... but only in a perfect world.

That perfect world where the treatment isn't down to a postcode lottery and where the cancer sufferer can also obtain the drugs he/she needs to prolong their life. I recall reading of a man with a young family who had been denied life-prolonging cancer drugs as his NHS Trust deemed them too expensive. They put a price on his life and on the time his children would have with him as they considered that the cost to the NHS outweighed the benefits to him and his.

When this country decides that it can afford to help those already living, imo, then and only then can we offer NHS treatment for IVF.

You can't guarantee that gaelicsheep, not everyone chooses IVF, not by a long shot.

Have now skimmed the thread. I would add that when the NHS starts charging young "adults" who roll up at A&E blind drunk, idiot drivers that cause accidents, smokers who refuse to give up, etc. etc., then and only then it is fair to talk about denying treatment to women with a medical condition that prevents them from conceiving.

The adoption argument is a nonsense. One of the very first things you learn when you start looking into adoption is that it is all about the children - and rightly so. Wanting a child is simply not enough and being a potentially good parent is not enough. In fact they have to be sure that you have completely got over wanting your own child before they will even consider you.

Someone who is capable of adopting a child has very special qualities that many, or most, people simply don't possess. And these poor children deserve better than being second best for couples who are denied the treatment they need to have their own.

You're right runnybottom. We decided against IVF because of what was involved and the strong likelihood of disappointment. In fact we were just starting the adoption application process when I unexpectly conceived naturally. What I guarantee is that the issue will no longer be cut and dried for her, and no way will she just "accept" that it is fate. Not without a huge amount of heartache along the way.

i think if people want IVF on the NHS they should part pay for it....maybe pay 1/4 of the cost

Agree with gaelicsheep that not also must we be able to provide treatment for those I mentioned abpve but that also we should at least be looking to recover resources used up by those who obtain treatment as a result of harm caused by drink/drugs/dangerous driving etc. That way the NHS might be able to offer both those cancer drugs and IVF.

Just reading those two posts together I should clarify that in no way did we think we were those special kinds of people I mentioned. But we were going to give it a go - I think I might have been rumbled for still hankering after one of my own.

I think people take too much for granted here. And clearly people have never had experience of countries that don't have an nhs.

Imagine, for instance, delivering a premature baby and being told that your insurance company won't fund the treatment, or pull the plug after a certain amount of it. So you either have to find the money by god knows what means or watch your baby die.

Imagine having cancer and being told that your insurance company won't fund your drugs so you either have to find the money by whatever means or die.

Imagine having a severely disabled child who relies on a trachiotomy (sp?) to breathe, except your insurance company will only fund two replacements per month, but your child needs four replacements a month or his health will be compromised and there's a chance he will get an infection and die. Ditto with other life-saving treatments/drugs for the severely disabled/very ill.

Do you think that doesn't happen? Or that it only happens in the third world?

Well it does. In the US it happens. In other countries it happens. In pretty much every other country but the UK you have to have health insurance to pay for your healthcare. And if you don't your stuffed.

The nhs is a luxury every one of us would have to find the money to afford if the plug was pulled tomorrow.

People need to get over their sense of entitlement and count their blessings imho.

The thing about demonising women who delay children 'in order to build a career' and then need fertility assistance, is that those women will have paid huge amounts of money into the system before accessing IVF. I'd guess that Duritzfan's friend, with her huge disposable income and her second car and her twenty years of fulltime work, will have paid a lot of tax.

Whereas the ones who need assistance young, who are seen as more justified in accessing it, will most likely not have paid much in at all.

It's not a user pays system, obviously, but if you're running the argument that it's a finite resource that should only be accessible to X group and not Y, I think it's worth pointing out that the choices of the much maligned Y group (career women who delay childbearing) are benefiting the system.

"Are you suggesting that those who have had successful fertility treatment don't have the right to comment ?" Sassy - no it was just a throw away comment that I was confused at the number of women describing their "infertility" when they have children - of course its always possible they have all required IVF in order to conceive but I have come across many people who need some assistance or who took a while to conceive describing their "infertility" which of course it isn't. I'm not sure why paying for their own treatment makes them more or less infertile?

Not a reflection on whether they are entitled to an opinion on IVF. IMO anyone who pays taxes is entitled to an opinion. Not everyone has very well-informed decision but they're still entitled to it (doesn't mean I have to listen mind you).

Random opinions about IVF and adoption in the same thread when some posters have experience of neither does tend to wind me up though so perhaps I should wander off...