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

Haven't read the whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating myself. My take on ivf is that if you can't afford to scrape tother a few thousand to fund it you probably can't really afford a child either.

Most people have no idea how much money you have to spend on a child from birth till the end of Uni.

Agreed, Mumblechum - I think that's a majority view.

Very difficult argument that on the whole I stay out of. But the "it's not life saving" argument seems to suggest that anything that is not life saving shouldn't be available on the nhs. Just think about some of the things gps deal with and see how many of them are not life saving but life enhancing. However, as is the way with all of these things there will inevitably be some sort of rationing.
I try to think of infertility a bit in terms of being a sadness that is the opposite of the joy that children give us. Horrendous. I also dipute the "I'd just let nature take its course" argument. No one really know what they'd do, just what they think they'd do.
Not content with doctors and politicians taking the lead in saying when and how someone can have children, I am frustrated with other mothers who seem to want to do it too.

Wannabe of course all that happens, but whilst I cpompletely sympathise with that why would it stop me wanting better in this country? I won't happily settle for second rate maternity servies here on the basis that some have nothing either. It's not free- we pay just before it is needed, ie NI- and I am proud of the fact we have that in this country, rather and sad others don't have it.

I did like the idea about paying a proportion a few pots down- seems like a good mid road.

As for ExPat and the lumps- well I don't have them removed any more as the last onoe scarred but I get two to three abyear (a fibromatosis), and the minute one appears on my face I will want it removed and I won't be able to pay myself if it happens in the next two years, that ir I don't go out- I already get people pointing at my arm / legs if I go swimming etc, that's humiliating enough to have stopped me going.

and also, if most people can save and pay for IVF then there are a number of treatments for non life threatening conditions that people could also save and pay for treatment. That isn't the way it works.

"if you can't afford to scrape together a few 1000 to fund it you probably can't really afford a child either"- ,so basically if you can't afford IVF or simply don't have 5 or 10K in the bank you can't afford children. Since when does being well off have anything to do with an ability to parent.

Also paying for children is a gradual process and you can budget and do it cheaply,you don't have to spend a fortune they don't actually need a lot. Once you have children you get child benefit and family often become very generous in a way they certainly don't when you're struggling to pay IVF bills.

Many people these days have stonking great mortgages or rent bills to pay,huge power bills,food bills etc. Where are all these people able to squirrel away all this money-I certainly don't know many round here. Dp has a decent wage and I work part time and we live very frugally,no way could we save up 5 or 10K,we couldn't when we were on 2 full time wages either hence selling our flat.

The friend I had who couldn't afford IVF was a full time worker as was her husband,they both had demanding jobs that paid a pittance. No way could they save that kind of money,which was yet another kick in the teeth.

Re adoption we went down that route and were told we had to have had a go at IVF before we'd even be considered. I don't know if that happens now but it certainly did in the area we were living in 7 years ago.

Kew I know you don't like women with children describing themselves as infertile but infertility does actually mean diminished fertility. After 7 years of ttc I may have 3 dc but I could never describe myself as exactly fertile,my fertility was/is well and truly diminished.

'As for ExPat and the lumps- well I don't have them removed any more as the last onoe scarred but I get two to three abyear (a fibromatosis), and the minute one appears on my face I will want it removed and I won't be able to pay myself if it happens in the next two years, that ir I don't go out- I already get people pointing at my arm / legs if I go swimming etc, that's humiliating enough to have stopped me going. '

Yes, I figured someone was going to come up with an exception to that post. I wondered how long it would take.

They always do on here.

There can never be a real discussion on here because of this type of thing.

It's growing tiresome.

Erm, its called explaining in mroe detail expat

And exceptions exist, are important and make the stories real

But as you know MN tradition says I have now to finish with a comment about if you dont like it leave or f off to netmums (That was entirely in the spirit of joshing btw, hoping god knows how many years of jousitng with each other on MN has shown you I dont usually say that to people LOL)

I think this is a common attitude. I know my own mother said that if she couldn't have had children naturally she would have adopted because she doesn't believe in IVF.

I am not sure what to think TBH. I wouldn't be able to afford private treatment, and if I had no children I'd probably want to try anything to make it happen just in desperation. But again, it's hard to say until you are in that situation yourself isn't it.

You never know how you feel until it happens to you. A friend of mine always swore she would never have IVF, that she would rather be childless than go through all that and now she has her first DC, yep you got it, by IVF. I hope your friend doesn't have to experience the pain of childlessness to understand other peoples' opinions.

That said at some point in this country we need to have a national debate about exactly we want from the NHS. We either need to acceot we have to pay more tax or dramatically reduce what is available. TRhere are some VEWRY hard decisions to be made. Cancer drugs vs IVf etc. We all want everything when it affects us and our loved ones but don't want to pay anymore.

ExP that came across as far more passive aggressive than it was intended, sorry

Hope you can see it in the light of genuine taking the piss out of MN's foibles josh it was intended to be

but I do think that you can get stats saying X people ahve ops on beign lumps /prescriptions for meds you can get from chemiost / etc anywhere; what you can't see is the sories behind them and they are what matter, what makes up teh differences between people.

These pesky lumps are caused by an adverse reaction to tiny skin traumas, they take eyars and look like small spots to start with then end up looking like horrid warts. ATM I choose not to ahve them taken off (tiny op doenj at GPs) becuase the scarring from the one I did ahve (essential, was sent for bopsy) is just as annoying tbh. But if I did get one on my face it really woulod be psychologically distressing, that is the point I would present at GP but the stats don't show that do they? They also don't show that I very rarely attend even when I do need to, I have to be pretty ill as do my family really to see a GP.

Well, I for one am grateful that OP's friend is not in charge of NHS funding, as IVF will probably be the last chance saloon for me.

I have said it before, but I think its quite ironic that a website devoted to parents (and those of us hoping to be parents) has so many posters who reduce the value parenthood to a matter of a few thousand pounds.

I'm sure that most of those who have children would be prepared to lose a limb rather than have anything happen to their children, but it seems as though some of you wouldn't be prepared to forgo a few ingrowing toenail operations (let's ditch the emotive 'life-saving cancer treatment' BS) to give someone else the opportunity for children, grandchildren and all that brings to one's life. Try imagining the bleakness of your future without growing old with a family around you, if that is what you had always dreamed of.

And yes, if money is what it is all about, then think how families benefit financially from taxes paid by childless people. I pay lots of taxes and have made little use of the nhs until now.

All I can say is thank goodness that the current government recognises that, for a great deal of humanity globally and from time imemmorial, it is the love of family and children that is the most valuable thing in life, and for some, the very purpose of life.

Kitswins, I think the point you make is a really good one: the NHS should be focused on life-saving treatments/serious conditions/prevention of catastrophic health bills (so managing chronic conditions like diabetes would come under that)/young people/old people, maternity services and palliative care. For other conditions, people should be asked to top up with insurance-based funding. This happens in many other developed countries, many of which score better on health service delivery and health outcomes than the UK. We already accept this principle in the area of dentistry and optical care: the NHS will sort out your filling - but if you want a nice white one, you need to fund it yourself. It might help people take more responsibility for their own health. Just a thought. Bit off subject,sorry.

Maraisfrance - I totally agree .. its all very well people getting all emotional and angry about being denied their "right to a child " but if the moneys not there, then the moneys not there is it ?

And those of you saying that we are talking BS about it being life saving cancer treatment versus IVF - of course it s not that clear cut - no one has said it was.. but it is a fact that there are many many drugs and treatments which preserve life that are not available on the NHS because they are too expensive - and all some of us are guilty of saying is that we feel that people with illnesses who need treatment should be offered the drugs they need - which currently they are being denied because the NHS spends money in other areas which are not essential to life.

Every one of us will have had services on the NHS not essential to life at some point.

They should all be treated the same,what is important to one person is not important to the other depending on experience.

You can't say my non essential service is ok but yours isn't.

If cuts are to be made, then it does make sense to me to introduce a cost for ivf at the very least.

Duritzfan if you read the thread, the old 'lifesaving treatment' argument does rear its head, and I agree that life saving drugs that are v effective should be available - but I don't think the fact they are not has anything to do with ivf - it's to do with policy, politics and pharmaceutical companies.

Ok - time to bow out again ... I thought things were seeming sensible again - but oh no..that's it for me ...

...er...okay... am I some kind of clown, and no-one's mentioned it before?

Congratulations London-what beautiful photos,loved the hat one. They brought back quite a few memories of my twin first days

Sometimes I think it's threads like this that reveal Mumsnet's true colours tbh. It's the old "I'm all right Jack" superior attitude rearing it's ugly head, yet again. Sad but true.

As for the comment about a couple who can't save up thousands and thousands for IVF not being able to afford children (or, reading between the lines, being irresponsible for wanting children). Bollocks, basically. That childless couple is paying your Child Tax Credit.

I experienced the heartache of being unable to conceive for years and years, before being very fortunate to fall pregnant in the end. I know how it feels. And knowing how it feels, I would never dream of suggesting that another woman should be denied the chance to have a child. It's nothing to do with rights. No normally fertile woman has the right to a child either, but as they don't need permission and a bottomless bank balance to do it they go right ahead regardless.

Oh, and I take it that none of you naysayers have visited the GP in your adult life? Unless you genuinely thought you needed lifesaving treatment of course.

MilaM - sorry in my haste I'm not explaining myself well. I don't dislike anyone, it just makes me wince a bit to hear people talking about the pain of infertility then discussing their children. In fact I do count people who require IVF to become pregnant as infertile, I don't count people who took a year of two (which isn't uncommon) to conceive or people who took Clomid (also not uncommon).

Its not really that relevant to anyone else, its just a sore spot for me as I have spent years listening to people (in RL as well as MN) go on about their "infertility" when they are actually "sub-fertile" and they don't seem to know or care that they are trampling through the nightmares of someone who has been there, done that and hasn't come out of the other end with anything more to show for it than a depleted bank account and a total loss of dignity!

Its just my own foible and should be soundly ignored!

As a person who is in the middle of IVF treatment, and who will hopefully find out if she's pregnant in less than 2 weeks time, I find the attitudes on this threat amazing. The majority of people seem to have had no troule conceiving and so therefore don't really seem to think its their problem that there are people in the world who can't conceive naturally .... its a bit of a cliche, but it really is hard to judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't if you haven't had to put yourself in that situation.

I would love to have been able to make love with my husband and then announce a healthy pregnancy, unfortunately that hasn't happened. And I would like to think no-one considers IVF to be the "easy option". I've been inhaling and injecting myself with serious amounts of medication for nearly 6 weeks, coupled with copious amounts of internal scans (embarrassing, painful, upsetting), sedations and finally an embryo transfer (today in fact). I'm incredibly grateful to the NHS for the fact they have tried to help me, but I have also worked and paid my "share" of taxes and contributions for almost 20 years (I'm 36 now) and frankly I believe this is exactly what I've been paying towards.

I don't think its my place to judge people who need treatment for other things, so frankly I find it insulting to be judged for needing IVF.