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?

It seems like they have grudgingly taken it on...

Even if unlimited IVF was provided, there are no guarantees it will work. Frankly, for most women, if you just tried naturally for ten years you'd have the same if not better success rates. It just doesn't work in most cases.

Yes there are cases where structural abnormalities are preventing conception but the majority of infertility and subfertility is just unexplained, unpreventable and mainly untreatable. It's very sad (I was one of those people) but it just is what it is.

To put it brutally - abortion is cheaper, far cheaper than providing pregnancy care, delivery and follow up - especially if the unwanted pregnancy trashes the woman's physical or mental health.

YABU to draw a parallel between this and fertility treatment. You have no legal right to become a parent. You have a legal right to end a pregnancy. TWO issues NOT one.

I don't think there is any connection between abortions and fertility problems.

YAB very U

(since you asked)

YABU for the reasons everyone else has said.

I think "basic human decency" is a useful phrase here, thanks lesley.

OP, a child being born and growing up costs the state more money than an abortion. If a woman continues with a pregnancy, she will very likely have antenatal care and birth on the NHS, the child's healthcare and education will probably be provided at public expense, and the parents will probably claim child benefit at the very least. The child may of course repay all this money and more when it grows up. But that won't help today's infertile women. Even if the child pays enough money in tax to fund unlimited IVF for everyone, it will probably be too late to help them by that time.

So it might help to think of abortions as something that save public money, potentially leaving more to be spent on fertility treatment.

The OP is in a bad place and is feeling jelous of women who concieve at the drop of a hat then has an abortion. Her feeings are understandable and its unreasonable to expect OP to think reasonable when suffering the pain of miscarriage and infertility.

Whether abortions should be funded on the nhs is irrevelent. Forcing a young teen to have an unwanted baby will not make OP fertile. Its bit like mothers who had a traumatic birth wanting to ban nice (and financially cheap) homebirths.

It's unreasonable to expect her to be reasonable?

OK, I can understand that, but she did come here and say "am I being unreasonable?"

What do you want us to do, lie?

I think you have a point.

But haing an abortion is an immediate need, and for women that need one, the consequences of not having one can be bad not only for the woman, but for the resulting child.

There is no immediate need for IVF, couples often have the option of saving up or making arrangements to get a loan to pay for treatment they want. They have time, which women needing an abortion don't have. People who need most of the other treatments on the NHS don't have time either, but are forced to wait in pain or while their health deteriorates because of the limited resources the NHS has. Those things have to be prioritised over fertility treatment.

OP - YADNBU. To an extent I agree with some of the posters that it's not the simple calculation based on the cost of the abortion as obviously having the baby would put more of a strain on the health service, but I don't understand the attack on people seeking fertility treatment either.

Yes, some fertility is unexplained, and not all people could be helped by IVF. But there are numerous people out there who COULD be helped by IVF or ICSI.

Someone compared it to not treating cancer patients earlier - well if you want to take that view then I'd say actually it's a good example of expensive treatment which, in some cases, will not help at all and in other cases will only prolong someone's life for a short period. And of course there's no question that we'd treat cancer patients, so why not treat people with infertility who are trying to bring another life into the world who will, hopefully, be around for a long time and will make a positive economic contribution.

Clearly there are lots of people who feel strongly about not providing fertility treatment. But there are also lots of us who feel that the fact that abortions etc. are so easy that they are increasingly being used as another form of contraception and people increasingly don't need to take responsibility for their own actions because they can always fix the situation later is an irresponsible use fo funds.

And just because not everyone will need access to fertility treatment because it won't affect them doesn't mean it shouldn't be available for those that do. You may never get cancer. You'd still want treatment to be available if you did...

Yes, it's an emotive subject and people suffering from infertility don't necessarily have an objective viewpoint. But then nor do some of you who posted vitriolically against the OP - hardly calm, rational, objective viewpoints.

And miscarriage care may be great in some places, but in my experience it's patchy at best and where I live it's abysmal. I know several people who have had miscarriages, and in general care is not good. It's one of the worst things that can happen to you, and you get less support than someone who wants an abortion. That is clearly unacceptable.

YABVVVVU
What a ridiculous point you are making.
So, because you can't have a child, a woman should be made to have one she does not want so the money can be spent on you instead?!

Your question is silly and borderline offensive, and you should have put more thought into the subject before you posted.

That's the most rediculous think I've ever read on MN!
So you want the nhs to say ''sorry we only offer 1000 free abortions a year and you're 1001 so bad luck you'll have to have this baby'' or do you want them to only offer so many per person? I think you'll find that once a woman has been through an abortion once she'll avoid ever having to do it again because it's such a horrendous thing to go through. Yes there are some women out there who have more than one and there I'm sure there are some women out there who just don't give a shit but the majority of women are desperate and are doing it because they have little choice.

Also if you think about the costs involved they are relatively cheap compared with a) IVF and b) the cost of the state supporting a child.

It costs £600 for an abortion in a private clinic who will be making a considerable profit on that so it probably only costs the NHS about £200, that's less than a year's worth of child benefit.
So where is the financial sense in the state limiting the number of abortions they offer?
And how much would it cost the nhs to support a person for life because they have FAS because there smack head alcoholic whore of a mother was refused an abortion because she'd already had 3?
And how much would it cost the state in social services costs to take care of all these unwanted children?

You really need to look at the bigger picture!

YABU and this comes from someone who has suffered mcs and fertility problems and are currently starting the assisted route to help us get pg. However the 2 things on your post are not comparable (for all the reasons other posters have eloquently put).
I do feel your pain though and understand why it feels unfair to you.
I tell you what I do think is unfair is the postcode lottery of differences on fertility care available across the country. I feel very blessed to have received excellent mc care and now some (but very limited) help on the nhs.
OP I wish you all the luck in the world for sOme good news soon.

missduff, actually most of the non-NHS abortion providers are non-profit-making charities, and they don't have expensive NHS overheads to support, so I think it's unlikely that NHS care is cheaper overall for the taxpayer.

I agree with ReneeVivien she puts it more reasonably (and kindly) than I was going to!

diffed ... but there are many existing children who can make a solid contribution to society. Adoption is all that's needed.

I think IVF funding will be dwindling even further over the next few years if NHS remains in this financial predicament. Let's face it, it isn't a necessity is it?

I fully support IVF being available on the NHS (I thought 3 cycles was a fair number) for couples who need it.

Infertility is an illness and should be treated.

But I have no time at all for women turning on other women in the way the OP does.

Forcing women who need abortion services to have babies they don't want is an appalling thing to suggest, and had nothing to do with fertility treatment.

The OP implies that there are good, deserving women (who can't have the babies they desperately want) and bad, wanton women (who get rid of babies they couldn't be bothered to prevent themselves conceiving).

It's divisive, nasty and deeply sexist.

As for "adoption is all that's needed"

Yeah, adoption - the easy answer to everyone's problems

I fully support IVF being available on the NHS (I thought 3 cycles was a fair number) for couples who need it.

But its got nothing to do with a nation's health per se.

I'd put universal dentistry and eye care back on the NHS a long time before this.

Nasty, ignorant OP. the two are not comparable and you make an arse of yourself by suggestng that they are.

What do you mean "the nation's" health?

Are you pretending that the patient of the National Health Service is the nation?

The NHS is there to treat people who live in the nation who have illnesses that need to be treated.

IVF can help some couples who are suffering from a traumatising illness that has an enormous impact on quality of life.

I'd rather pay for my glasses than have friends and family suffer childlessness because of a lack of IVF on the NHS.