Disgusted with IVF Charging.

[POP2005]

My wife and I have been trying for a baby for around 3 years, at the moment she is taking Clomid to assist with Ovulation.

We are hopeful that the Clomid will be a sucsess, but we have been exploring all avenues. I stumbled across the HFEA website that lists all assisted conception units in the UK and I was shocked to see the NHS charging first time patients for IVF treatments.

Searching for some kind of campaign on the net was fruitless but through search engines I found many discussions on the matter and I was shocked to see the amount of hatred people have been spouting on various discussion boards about the cost of providing free IVF on the NHS for childless couples, they estimate the cost at £400m.

£1,500 seems to be the average cost (not including drugs) and for a childless couple, intially, this is a small price to pay as we are desperate to be parents but where does it stop?

I have even seen adverts from loan shaks offering IVF loans to desperate couples.

We could end up in extreme debt and still have no baby at the end of it.

Yet if I was to drink myself into oblivion and screw up my liver the treatment and operation would be free, hell, if I decided to have my gender "reassigned" I could even get a free sex-swap op on the NHS, smokers are offered free cessation assistance on the NHS and we all know that cancer treatments for smokers are also free.

Infertility in most cases is not self inflicted yet couples are forced into debt to pay for treatments - people who have made themselves ill through stupidity are treated free.

The estimated £400m cost is a small price for the goverment as IVF children grow up to be taxpayers.

Its time to End the postcode lottery now.

POP2005 you do have my sympathy, my husband and I were looking into IVF after trying for 3 years for a baby (incl Clomid) when I got pregnant. Our local health authority funded the drugs but not the treatment (I think the drugs were about £1000) so not quite as bad as some situations.

I though they were bringing in free IVF - has that not happened yet?

V wise to explore all avenues - as I said we had been trying for 3 years, finally gave up and booked an appt to talk about IVF, stopped trying to have sex at the right time etc and within 2 months was pregnant - so it can happen, please don't get too downhearted.

It isn't fair that IVF treatment is charged for and that people with 'self-inflicted' (as you put it) ailments receive 'free' treatment on the NHS. But then nor is the fact that my FIL had to wait 8 months for an appt with a prostate cancer consultant by which time the cancer had spread to far to be treatable.

Unfortunately the NHS isn't as 'fair' as we'd all like it to be but the fact is that the NHS 'pot' is limited and they have to prioritise. Someone with a life-threatening liver condition, or an acute lung disease HOWEVER it developed IS more in need of treatment than childless couples from a medical/surgical point of view.

Best of luck with your conception, however it is is financed.

I'm not saying that it is morally right, but unfortunately it is correct from the medical point of view.

WSM someone I know had the bags under her eyes done recently, she had to wait 6 weeks from initial appointment with GP to surgery. How does that figure? She looked fine before, looks no different now and I bet the cost of the surgery and her stay in hospital would have financed IVF for someone. That really isn't fair.

Fair enough, it would seem that the NHS has more than a few of it's priorities confused.

Totally agree POP2005. I wish you the very best of luck!

Message withdrawn

I think that IVF should be free on the NHS, especially for first time parents. We have been trying for a baby for 3 years now and I have been on Clomid for the last three months, with no sucess so far. We are now thinking about the IVF route because we desperately want to be parents. But we cannot afford the treatment! Its all to do with postcodes when it comes to IVF and its not fair. Its not a case of postcodes when a smoker needs a lung operation, its not a case of postcodes when an alcoholic needs a new liver.

Yet the government wants more people to have children, how can we if people like myself who have fertility problems have to pay to be treated. I have not inflicted this problem on myself, but yet even though I pay my taxes, I cant get the help I need, instead my tax money is going to the smoker, alcoholic, the vain woman/man and everyone else that inflicts their illnesses onto themselves to be treated free on the NHS.

Message withdrawn

I'm not sure whether or not IVF should be free (given the NHS has finite resources). purely cosmetic surgery shouldn't be, but then it usually isn't (usually there is some other thing, like Twinkie not being able to breathe).

However I am more than a little annoyed by all the self-rightous whinging on this thread about "self-inflicted" illnesses. For one thing, as twinkie says, smokers and drinkers pay a lot of money into the system. And how exactly do we define self-inflicted illness?? Smoker develops lung cancer = self inflicted. Non-smoker develops lung cancer? well probably self inflicted - they probably spent too much time in smoky bars or something. Or maybe they're lying about not smoking. And what about diabetes? It can be related to obesity, so do we treat only thin people with diabetes? What about suicide attempts?

Any life-threatening problem should always take priotity in the NHS. IVF should probably also be free (at least 1 cycle for people with no other kids should be free) after other fertility treatements have failed. But please don't be so self-rightous about it.

Good point Twinkie - missed that while I was typing.

I don't believe the funds are that limited. If this country can afford to send troops to Iraq, build the millenium dome, host the Olympics. Surely we can afford treating fertility problems as well as lung cancer?

Message withdrawn

There is nothing self-righteous about discussing self inflicted illness and you are not in the position to accuse anyone of whinging.

Do you think that smokers and drinkers are supporting the NHS on their own? NHS funds come from Income Tax as well In case you had forgotten my wife and I also pay taxes.

The fact of the matter is there are LOTS of people treated by the NHS for things that they have caused themselves.

A taboo thing to say, but it is true, if you chose to smoke your lungs out then that is your CHOICE if you cant drink in moderation and pickle your liver then that is your choice, look at George Best, he got a new liver and then went back on the sauce.

My wife is not having fertility problems through choice, yet is told that we will have to fork out for each attempt at IVF, yet as I said before If decided that I wanted to be a woman instead of a bloke I could get an op on the NHS. Does that make sense to you? If I was to go out and screw everything that moves and give myself an STD the treatment is free.

This government wastes huge amount of money on pointless crap, we all know the NHS wastes huge amount of money.

I stand by my original posting.

POP have you asked your health authority? They may provide it free, I know some do. Where are you?

POP this may not be for you, but here is a clinic that will give you free IVF in exchange for egg donation. Just a thought

So Pop2005 - I take it that absolutely nothing in your lifestyle could cause a life-threatening illness: you use no chemicals in your home, you eat only organic veg, you never enter a smoky environment and you exercise and drink alcohol as per government guidelines?

Don't get me wrong - I hope you manage to have a baby and I agree that at least 1 cycle of IVF should be available on the NHS. But smokers and drinkers aren't the ones you should be blaming for it.

Just remember that having a child is not a right but a blessing.

Message withdrawn

First I would like to point out that I suffer from PCOS. Last time I checked it was NOT a self inflicted condition. I am not being self rightous.

When someone puts a fag in their mouths they know the dangers. For christ sake its written all over the boxes these days. When a drinker drinks themselves stupid they know the risks they are taking. The NHS treat these people for free!!! Why cant people who wants to have kids have treatment for free on the NHS.

You dont seem to understand the point that myself and Pop2005 are trying to make.

I am DESPERATE to have a child and have to pay for my treatment. A drinker who is DESPERATE for a drink get free NHS treatment when they screw up their liver. Why should someone get free treatment when they knew what they were doing when they put the bottle to their lips? Free treatment to keep someone alive when they signed their own death wish yet I must pay to bring new life into the world.

As for if a child of IVF was to become ill with self inflicted illnesses thats a different kettle of fish to their conception so that arguement is moot!!

Easy for us with children to say Northerner! I think everyone deserves a good chance to become parents. Not only rich people!

As noted there is a lmited amount of money available in the NHS for treatment - choices have to be made on the use of that money. Currently the cause of the illness/injury is not used as an (official) factor in the decision to treat or not. To introduce this type of high-handed, moralistic debate is I believe both offensive and absurd. Or is it only smokers/drinkers who are to be penalised. What about individuals with HIV/Hep B caused through lifestyle choices? Or the passenger in the car driven by a drunk driver, never mind the driver? The skier who hurts their knee? The successful business man who has a stress-induced heart attack? There are so many examples of 'self-inflicted' illness/injury - where do we draw the line?

On another very simple level - there is £10,000 in the pot -who gets the money - the child with cancer, the 5 OAPs who need new hips, the silly teenager who has sniffed glue or the couple who need help to acheive their greatest wish of a child? Which case has the greatest priority? The currently living child or the potential child?

And my final point (which may lead to be being escorted from the premises) but there is no right to have a child (conceived through whatever means) it is a gift. If science can help well and good but society doesn't have a responsibility to fund the application of that science for those who can't naturally conceive. And I am afraid on that premise the funding of IVF treatment is far down my list of priorities for the use of the limited NHS funds available.

And yes it is harsh but life is harsh. And yes it is unfair that it means some can get medical help and some can't based on their income but again that is how life works - the more money you have the more options you have. But not being able to afford treatment is not the factor that decides if you can or can't have children - mother nature has already made that hard choice for those involved I am afraid.

Message withdrawn

I agree that having a child is not a right.

Smokers and drinkers do pay a lot in tax, but I don't think that automatically gives them a right to heart and liver transplants. They don't just cost the NHS money, but the whole welfare state...they are given incapacity benefit when they can't work due to their illness, DLA when they lose a leg through gangrene or a lung from cancer, housing needs, social workers, the list is endless (and I haven't begun to mention what they cost employers in time off,paid cigarette breaks, provision of smoking areas).

What I'm trying to say is that a smoker doesn't have a right to an operation because he's paid all the tax, but because he is ill and needs treatment. For better or for worse, all the NHS money is put into one pot and shared out. To be blunt, infertility per se isn't illness, although I can accept that it causes a lot of distress. There will always be arguments about whose case is more deserving of the limited amount of money we have. Maybe some MNers who live in countries where there is private insurance-funded health care can tell us how IVF is funded? Presumably your policy would have to include IVF as a possible treatment, and wouldn't it cost more than a policy that just covered emergency treatment of a life-threatening condition?

Gomez, I think you are being really harsh actually and quite selfish. A child is a gift? Yes, it is! And I think we can afford to pay the money needed for other people to have this gift too.

Also,Childlessness can cause serious depression which again can lead to other illnesses which needs to be treated.