the post-code IVF Injustice

[magpienchips]

Ladies'
I just want to say that I Have alot of Empathy for those of you that have been ignored by the people behind the IVF set up.
I only got to know about it when I watched five news yesterday evening and a lady in bristol was saying how hurt she felt after been turned down for IVF treatment.
then I watched London Tonight at 6pm and there was a report about the same thing and a woman from kensal Green who had also been left feeling disillusioned
at the way some boroughs allow women to get IVF treatment 3 times but others don't.
I can't even Begin to imagine how those women must feel?
However Being a man I have a Health Problem too (Erectile Dysfunction) which Is Very frustrating and Humiliating.
so I can imagine what It would be like If i were Married to a woman who could not get Pregnant and she married to a man who struggles to get an erection.
Life can be cruel but I think it is made worse by the unfair way in which doctors treat women who have difficulties getting pregnant in the normal way.
so for what it is worth to you that perhaps are one of the many women that are unable to get pregnant
you do have my sYmpathy and I hope the government will sort out the unjust post code IVF Fiasco.
Please feel free to share your Thoughts
warm regards
Magpienchips.

Postcode lottery is the other side of the coin to allowing Trusts to allocate funds depending on local need to allow for population variations.

It must feel very unfair when you are the one missing out but there is no perfect way.

I Just feel sorry for the women that miss out due to the way the system works.
some get the maximum Allowance of 3
some get one
some get none.
that's not fair.

It is very unfair. But the only way I can see the NHS evening it out is to take it away from everyone. I can't see them offering everyone 3 cycles, simply for cost reasons. I think some of the eligibility criteria are very unfair, particularly for women who are trying to conceive with a man who has a child, even though that child may be grown up/ not live with them/ not have much contact with them etc. Then there are all the different age criteria which are not the same in all areas and often mean that women miss out. If the top age in 34, and you have to have been trying two years, you would probably have to have realistically started by the age of 30, given that there are long waiting lists and it will probably not be successful on the first go.

Admittedly, the government and the NHS does have to prioritise essential and lifesaving medical treatment above infertility treatment. But they also need to realise the suffering of infertile couples.

well said Kat
I'm a man but I still feel sorry for what women go through .
the frustration must be immense for those that are denied access to IVF.
I can only hope that the government will do something asap to change things so that everyone gets a equal chance.
I'm fed up of these things always boiling down to money.
This country is money mad I Think.

nonsense. Money can't be created out of nowhere. The government simply can't afford to pay for 3 cycles of ivf for everyone. Some of the criteria, whilst seeming desperately unfair for people who miss out, exist to ensure that the money is spent on the patients who statistically have the best chance of conception. I do agree that it does have to be rationed. I don't agree that the rules should be different according to where you live.

Where do you suggest that the NHS gets this cash from at a time of severe budget cuts?

Personally, I'm more pissed off about the 3 miscarriages before you get any tests rule.

My Trust doesn't fund any fertility treatment at all

ok Kat you don't have to get so annoyed i do know these are hard times.

well I'm sorry to hear that marrow...I just think this situation is sad.

I am not "getting so annoyed" I am simply stating what I believe to be realistic facts. I know as well as many on here how heartbreaking it is when it is hard to have a baby. It is indeed a very sad situation and in an ideal world all PCTs would fund as many cycles of treatment as a couple needed. I wish that this was the case. Sadly, it isn't and it never will be. It's particularly unfair for people like Marrow who would perhaps be treated differently if they lived in a different area. They pay the same taxes etc as the people that do get treatment, but lose out just because of their postcode, not for any medical reason. That is very unfair. If the government cant afford to increase resources for infertility treatment, they should at least be distributed fairly. I've never really agreed with giving PCTs all this decision making power and allowing them to come up with whatever rules they like. Should be one rule for all, with the same medical eligibility criteria. I'm including age in that criteria, but think the cut off should be at least 38.

ok kat

I think that the really frustrating thing is that the whole point of NICE is that it's an independent group of experts, who look at all the evidence, including issues such as the financial pressures on PCTs and that this isn't lifesaving treatment etc. etc. and they have said that three cycles is reasonable.

They haven't said that they will fund cycles indefinitely until you are successful and they have said that if you if are over 39 you shouldn't expect treatment. That is the 'rationing' that they think is reasonable. It's obviously then very frustrating that this advice isn't followed and that further rationing is applied. This then results in the postcode lottery.

I don't think it's realistic for ivf to be funded indefinitely and I support the principle that there are other things that the NHS could better spend money on. However, I think the NICE guidelines are right and having weighed up all the evidence three cycles is a fair amount for PCTs to fund.

I'll just be getting one from my PCT.

I just feel sorry for women that want IVF treatment but may not get it due to the way the system works...

Im 37 and soon to be living in bucks which will mean we won't get ivf as I'm 2 years too old!

Fertility treatment IS NOT rationed on the basis that other treatments are life saving and this isn't. That's a real Daily Mail point of view. The reason some PCTs fail to fully implement NICE is because this is a very contentious area, so they're unlikely to come under toouch pressure to comply, as many if the general population (who don't need it) don't see it as important.
The NHS is NOT about "saving money", it sets out to provide equitable healthcare for all, free at source. That's it. If your ovaries don't work, your sperm swims sideways etc you have as much right to have this addressed as someone whose pancreas is on the blink and has diabetes. And diabetes, some of which can be prevented, costs a LOT more than IVF.

Sometimes it is women who have IVF, magpienchipss but usually it is couples.

Oddboots, to be fair, it's women who have the treatment, their male partners just donate some of the raw materials!