why can't the NHS pay for more than 1 IVF cycle and provide decent care for miscarrying women but has no limits on abortion funding?

[firstoneforus]

Here's something I fail to understand, many women who have NHS funded (free) abortions cite "contraception failure" and have no limits to the number of abortions the NHS pays for. However couple's or part of a couple who need to have fertility treatment have so many restrictions and often are refused if one half of the couple already has a child/children from a previous relationship! The morning after pill is free, condoms and other contraception is free what's the logic with limitless abortions?!! Why are there no "rights" to fetility treatments as there are "rights" to abortion. Also mc care radically needs to improve, NHS staff are clueless!.....................your thoughts?

Because it's a stupid idea. Would you honestly force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want? What would happen to the child?

Because your, personal over-riding priority in life is to have a baby, you have a very hard time empathising (understandably) with people who very much do not want babies, that you can't see the bigger picture.

Limitless abortions for 'contraceptive failure' is a contentious issue, for sure, but once you start making judgments on whether someone is 'deserving' enough for an abortion; whether their contraception truly did fail, etc, you're on a slippery slope towards forcing women to incubate unwanted babies against their will.

And there are no rights to fertility treatment as it is incredibly expensive and the NHS does not have a bottomless pit of money.

What Natasha says. Plus when you are ttc and having problems hearing of people having abortions is very hard to deal with (I've been there) so I can understand where you are coming from but economically it is really the only option.

I have had numerous miscarriages and have to say on the whole the care was very good

YABU.
Apart from anything else, fertility treatment doesn't have a high success rate - so repeated failures is just throwing money away as far as the NHS is concerned, with no positive outcome (speaking clinically)
Abortions - well, when people are counselled they are told that it shouldn't be used as a form of contraception - but accidents still happen and people shouldn't be punished for that. Plus if we're talking about costs here, the NHS would be looking at picking up the bill for the probable depression of an unwilling mother, and the baby's healthcare afterwards, and the cost of that whole person's healthcare through their life. Abortions are relatively cheap if you look at them like that. (Still speaking clinically)
And contraception itself is even cheaper and has the knock-on effect of not having all those babies that fail to conceive to cater for later on.

So while I can understand your frustration and your sadness, you have to understand the economics of the situation better.

YABU

There are already so many unwanted (and often neglected) children in the UK; why add to that number?

Also, as others have said, IVF is expensive and often fails. Abortions are cheaper, more certain and remove the need to provide ongoing care and treatment for an unwanted child.

May be worth considering contraception often fails, even when used responsibly, and by the time a woman realizes it's failed i's too late or the morning after pill. Should they be forced to have an unwanted child just because people unable to have a baby are feeling a bit judgmental and churlish?

Freakonomics a book that uses statistical information to argue various theories, convincingly makes the case that a large reason for crime falling in parts of America during the 90's/oo's, was that access to abortion became easier and free in 80's.

Of course economically, contraception and abortion is cheaper than pre natal and childbirth care. But the cost to society of forcing women to have babies they don't want is also high.

I work with "challenging families". Some of those mothers will tell you they didn't want a child and it shows (I am not saying this will be the case for all mothers). This understandably leads to lots of issues for the child including behavioural issues at school and often criminal behaviour - basically these kids are often very angry. And these types of families are very expensive for the state.

If we didn't provide free contraception and abortion we would also likely see an increase in adoption where women had personal circumstances where they really couldn't take care of a child or they didn't feel they could because the child had severe disabilities detected pre natally, but they couldn't afford an adoption. Care of these children until they were adopted and possibly life long care for severely disabled children that were not adopted, would be very expensive.

So ignoring humanitarian grounds and basic human decency, it is much much more expensive for us to force women to have unwanted children than to provide free abortion and contraception.

And fertility treatment does have a low success rate.

Unwanted babies cause huge knock on problems to the mother, her family and society at large, and it's a relatively low cost fix.

An IVF session otoh is very expensive and benefits very few people.

Ditto all of the above.

Just want to add why isn't adoption given the same attention and consideration as IVF?

IVF doesn't save lives.

If it is successful it will cost the NHS lots more for treatment as the child grows.

Why pick abortion? Why not hip replacements? Breast reconstruction after cancer. Authodontics for children or free eye tests and prescriptions for children.

What lesley said but I couldn't just leave it there

OP -I'm terribly sorry if you are struggling with infertility. I would argue that it causes as much grief for some women as persisting with a pregnancy they didn't want (caveat - this only refers to some who were less sure of their decision)

(I used to work in gynae and there were a proportion of women who never got over their termination (although chosen for social reasons) and went on to instigate a pregnancy shortly afterwards to help them get over it.)

From a financial point of view : a straightforward birth costs about ten times as much as a straightforward abortion. (I'm basing this on the French medical system which pays a hospital a little over 2000 euros for an uncomplicated birth and pays a doctor about 200 euros for a drug-induced abortion). Saving money for the NHS by refusing to perform abortions is therefore a daft idea.

The abortion figures always used to include the terminations performed when the pg was much wanted but not viable for whatever reasons including ectopic pregnancies

I don't think abortion and fertility treatment are comparable at all.

If you think about it clinically, not emotionally - abortion is just removal of a foreign body. Something the woman doesn't want in her body needs to be removed.

Abortion needs to be freely available because the alternative is unwanted babies but I think more urgently back-street abortionists and self-abortions which result in huge health problems and often lead to more infertility!

Fertility is a separate issue and one where because it isn't life threatening is never high on the agenda in health. I think over the next few years the Government will stop all public IVF and make it a private only procedure.

You want women to be denied abortions to pay for fertility treatment for other women?

Wow.

Just wow.

I agree with most of what has already been said OP. Dealing with infertility and miscarriage is horrendous (I have been there), but it does make you see everything from a very emotional point of view.

Also, unless people have been through it they can never really appreciate what it's like dealing with infertility. You will get the same stuff said over and over (some right, some not), none of it is going to make you feel better. Seek comfort from those close to you.

By your argument OP, there's no point in paying for treatment for recurrent cancers. Well you are probably going to die anyway, so what's the point- save the money and spend it on cancer prevention

Or what about a free sterilisation with every second abortion?

Yabu. I can't stand this kind of argument. Why compare cost of abortion? Why not look at the cost of street cleaning, computers in libraries, or universal cb?

The economic argument is baseless anyway, as childbirth costs many many times more than abortion, as they all said ^

How many cycles of IVF do you think should be given then? It's cripplingly expensive

cos IVF costs a fyucking fortune and is not that effective?
cos I dont want some 17 year old smack head lumbered with a baby she does not want

My gran said that she really sees how now as a society we have have little acceptance for the fact that some people "cant have kids" its a hugely emotive topic, and my gosh I have buckets of empathy.

YANBU to want improved fertility and miscarriage care. I have experienced subfertility and miscarriage, and they are very, very painful experiences.

But YABVU to set these needs in competition with abortion care. Apart from the many good arguments already made, you must remember that abortion is, while not exactly an emergency service, something that must be done quickly; women can't go away and save up for it. Remember also that women needing abortions are, as a group, younger and poorer than women needing fertility services.

Good abortion, fertility and miscarriage services are part of a package that improves women's reproductive health and wellbeing. Don't set them up as rivals.

Is fertility even the responsibility of a Health service?