Every infertile couple should get free IVF says Lister doctor.

[OracleInaCoracle]

here this is a really tough one. noone has the "right" to conception (nope, not even me ) but infertility is heartbreaking, the question is, should we put even more pressure on the NHS? especially for a procedure that has the odds stacked against it. for many couples its not just a case of "sperm cant meet egg" and there are underlying issues. but i think the postcode lottery is unfair and i know that we would jump at the chance given the choice.

discuss!

good point, i have no problem with NHS-funded IVF at all. I think its great that we live in a society that allows people who couldnt afford the £5000+ for private IVF the chance.

It doesn't seem so tough to me. Infertility is a medical condition that may be helped by IVF. Where there is a reasonable chance it could help, then I think that treatment should be available to people who need it.

I can accept that because it is expensive, it should be rationed (3 cycles has always seemed fair to me), but I don't accept that people have no right to treatment that could help them to have a child.

I don't think it should, and I speak as someone who had difficulties conceiving my first child and was totally unable to conceive a second one.

I think the nhs should be about saving existing lives not creating new ones.

Also, IVF has already put a greater strain on the health service because of the increase in multiple pregnancies resulting in the increase in premature birth and thus an increase in the requirement for scbu beds etc, should the nhs really be facilitating that?

Plus three cycles of IVF is prohibitively expensive at approx £5000 a time, how many lives could you save with that?

According to that article, the lister caters for 2500 ivf cycles a year, at 5 grand a time that's £22.5 million just from one clinic. How many other clinics are there? how many other people receive treatment every year?

No I don't think that is good use of nhs resources.

Currently it is a postcode lottery just to get certain cancer drugs, drugs for sufferers of alzheimers. Children with severe sn are limited to just four nappies a day on the nhs.

IMO there is greater need atm with people who are suffering with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. We need to deal with those first before attempting to bring yet more children into the world.

i have never been opposed to IVF on the NHS, it is the postcode lottery thing that seems unfair to me. it should be available to all or not at all. my fertility issues have been well documented on mn and i know that dh and i would never have said "free IVF? no thank you!" im just not sure how practical this scheme really is.

i think its also hard to know where to draw the line. what about women like me who cant carry a child, should IVF be free for use with surrogacy? what about couples who need an egg donor? they are just as entitled to treatment as those who "just" need straightforward IVF!

I think with the problems facing us regarding over population (nationally and worldwide)free IVF seems a waste of resources and honestly, not very practical at all.
There are lots of children up for adoption. Is this a viable alternative for those with fertility problems?

mrsruffalo, that is a route that dh and i will be going down now, but i dont think that every infertile couple should adopt. for many couples it isnt an option and i dont think that these couples should be forgotten about. i think the fairest thing would be to have a flat rate for IVF that every couple undergoing would have to pay, something like £500-£1000 per session, (not sure of actual costs of treatment in every clinic) and the ability to pay in installments. that way, no lottery, no unfair treatment and "priority" treatments.

I think they should get at least one turn at IVF but don't think the NHS can support anymore. It should be the same policy nationwide.

I have just moved house. My new GP has told me that my new PCT doesn't fund any fertility treatment at all - not even fertility investigations. This seems grossly unfair.Especially when if I lived just five miles up the road I would be offered two free attempts at IVF.

I think you have to have some kind of limit or some kind of parameter to work in. However I speak as someone who, because she was on a waiting list to see the consultant, missed the age criteria by just a couple of months and I feel incredibly hard done by. If my consultant were to go from the date my GP referred me rather than the date I actually got to see her then I would have made it.

exactly lubyloo. its really crap. have you already had investigations?

I can see both sides of the argument.

I do think the world is overpopulated and there are so many unwanted children in the world it does seem crazy to be adding to this (the population not the unwanted babies - as IVF babies are very very wanted)

but I can empathise with the heatbreak of an infertile couple and the urge to have a biological child.

Overall, I guess I am more inclined to be sceptical of the views of a vested interest in this subject - a Lister doctor - as I suspect there is self interest in his /her motivation of wanting the NHS to pay for couples treatment = more profit for them and their business.

Yes have already had investigations when trying to conceive DD but need clomid. Need to go back to GP and find out how to get a private prescription. If I go privately I'm not sure if they will be happy with just seeing my old notes and then prescribing it or if they will insist on repeating all the tests (which I won't be able to afford )

see, this is exactly the type of thing that makes me cross. our infertility is almost certainly caused by my botched cs and we have been rejected for egg share which was our only financial option for IVF. we are out now. no money to pay for a full cycle and a cons who tells us to go on holiday and stop worrying.

molly, good point on the vested intrest, hadnt even considered that!

Expecting infertile couples to remain childless because you think the world is overpopulated is extremely callous.

No individual couple who can't have a child is responsible for (supposed) overpopulation and it is almost inhumanly cruel to ask them to pay such a massive price for it. Particularly if you have children yourself.

The logic is also flawed, as if the world is overpopulated, why are we bothering to keep sick people alive? Surely we should do away with healthcare entirely if the aim is to bring the number of people down using medical criteria to decide who gets to survive and procreate?

The NHS exists to provide people with medical treatment. IVF is a procedure that can help people with particular medical problems to overcome them.

lissielou interesting about surrogacy for women unable to carry a child. It is far more complicated than just using a medical procedure to overcome difficulties with the process of conception. I suppose it could be argued that it is similar to an organ donation as far as the involvement of another human body in the process is concerned.

Random rules relating to age and address are obviously unfair, but I don't think their existence makes the case for not offering couples any treatment at all if IVF could help them.

The world is overpopulated. It's not something I have casually decided to think, it is a very real global problem.
Somethings got to give if we want the NHS to survive and I think this is one area especially in the case of people who already have a child (sorry lissielou if this sounds personal, it is honestly not intended to be)that the NHS has to limit it's funding in.

Don't understand why limiting the help that people with fertility problems face equates to letting sick people die tbh.

People are actually entitled to IVF on the NHS. IIRC it's three cycles. 'Cycle' should include fresh & frozen eggs - so you use up every decent quality egg harvested before moving on to a fresh attempt. That's what the NHS guidelines say, although not every region is actually doing it yet they are supposed to be moving in that direction.

And it is actually cheaper for the NHS because it transplants one embryo at a time. If people have IVF privately, or abroad, it is far more likely they will have multiple embryos implanted to give them a better chance of success, leading to multiple births which are very expensive indeed in terms of delivery, SCBU, ongoing health conditions. In cash terms, it is better to fund several cycles on the NHS than leave people to go privately.

Btw, using up all decent quality fresh & frozen eggs each time is meant to give women as much chance of a successful pregnancy as implanting multiple embryos.

(Not everyone qualifies though, there are age restrictions because the chances of success go down dramatically at around 40 IIRC.)

"There are lots of children up for adoption. Is this a viable alternative for those with fertility problems?" - no it isn't.

infertility is heartbreaking. i think the nhs can help in ways other than ivf. ime, you wait for ages being patronised by your gp eventually you are seen and steam rolled through several unpleasent tests that obviously are going to lead nowhere but tick boxes. then you are signed off without any way forward except the ivf option.

I'd imagine the number of couples who would be considered suitable adoptive parents would be smaller than the number of infertile couples. Not because there's anything wrong with infertile couples, just because SS have strict criteria and many children in care sadly are very damaged by their life so far/there is a high proportion of children with special needs.

also lots of infertile couples just don't want to adopt.

I think it's great that the NHS funds IVF etc for infertile people, and I might will be a recipient of it myself, as I have been with other forms of treatment.

For a start, it's a medical problem, and if any other part of your body stopped working, the NHS would try to fix it.

Secondly, and most importantly, it shows that the NHS understands what life is all about, and what is really important. I am sure that a lot of people with children would lose a limb for them, and the same would probably go for a lot of people given the choice between having minor medical procedures and spending a life unfullfilled, with no children/grandchildren etc.

Also take into consideration the savings on contraception!

"There are lots of children up for adoption. Is this a viable alternative for those with fertility problems?"

I'm fed up hearing this same old line trotted out time after time when it comes to discussions about IVF, quite often by people who have children of their own. Not everyone wants to adopt or is suitable to adopt. Adopting a child is very different from having your own biological child and I believe that quite often people go down the road of adoption when they're not really equipped to deal with the challenges it brings. This does the child and adoptive parents no favours.

mrsruffallo- I don't know if you have children, but the overpopulation of the planet comment is another ridiculous one. If you really believe that the planet is overpopulated then I would expect you to decide not to have any children of your own and not pile all the responsibility onto couples who require infertility treatment.

i really don't agree that the NHS is there to save/help existing lives, not start them. the NHS does SO much more than that.

we would be outraged if people with serious depression were refused treatment,in case they committed suicide, yet the misery of infertility is every bit as real as depression, and often results in it. we take our kids to the doctors for things like chickenpox, flu etc, when they would prob recover just as quickly if they stayed at home in bed.

the wannabe parents ARE existing people, why can't they receive help for their medical problem? who gets to say which med prob is more worthy than others? if you keep someone alive who has a heart prob, and they then go on to have children after that, you've just as effectively helped increase the population, as if a ouple are given IVF and have a baby.

NOT to treat this medical situation is discrimination. where would we stop? i don't think you can decide that one type of medicine is more deserving than another.

perhaps we'll stop cancer treatment in people beyond a certain stage, after all, it's not as effective. or maybe heart transplants, they are a huge drain on the NHS, far more expensive than IVF is. If we let heart & cancer patients die 'naturally' rather than wasting money on curing/prolonging their lives, then they wouldn't have kids. The resources saved could then be put towards IVF for otherwise healthy people. It would be more economical, and create a healthier population.

I don't mean that seriously, but people who think you can pick & choose which med conditions should be allowed treatment, are rather missing the point of the NHS. Perhaps they'd rather see us have a totally private healthcare system?