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?

The funding is set on a regional basis and has to take into account the demographic of the population. Where I live (south west) you can only get 1 round of IVF as NHS resources are skewed towards elderly care as there is a high proportion of elderly.

Whilst it's not fair on a personal level, the health of everybody needs to be considered and there is only so much money to go round.

Plus, I would have thought that a termination is cheaper than a round of IVF.

YABU - any moral issues aside, a termination costs the NHS (and the whole country) much less than pregnancy care, delivery, child benefit, adoption support, PND counselling etc. and everything else that goes with carrying and bringing a baby into the world.

Also, from personal experience the miscarriage care at my local hospital is excellent but slow.

am going to say im sorry that your suffering real pain and are heart broken im sure

but others do have a point Nhs are struggling and wont provide proper wheelchairs as no money in a budget .They ar enot intrested in teh fact you need to get around outside your house

If you're talking purely money and leaving emotions and ethics out of the argument an early termination is far cheaper than a women having a baby she doesn't want and it possibly being raised by the state in the form of costs to the Nhs , maybe adoption, foster care and child benefit etc etc

Hi, we've moved this into 'Politics'.

Because the implications of forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want are far, far worse for her and the baby than the implications of limiting IVF.

IVF costs tens of thousands of pounds a go. An early termination costs the PCT about £350.

reenee so you think it's expensive for the nhs to give a girl a couple of pills and send her home? Or to offer a quick scan and Hoover her insides out than it is to offer 9 months of maternity care, scans, tests, a birth, a couple of nights in hospital?

It must be really hard living in a different world to the rest of us!!!

the harsh reality is that an unwanted pregnancy costs thousands in pre natal care, and then in the costs of raising that child.

A termination is a much more economically sensible option.

having a child is a luxury not a right. IVF is very much something that should not be taken for granted. It is an incredibly expensive treatment with an inconsistent success rate.

I do agree that in an ideal world everybody would be entitled to unlimited IVF, however we don't live in an ideal world, we live in the uk where we are lucky (IMO) to have a national health service where some IVF is offered, we are lucky that we live in the day where modern medicine can offer some infertile couples the chance to have children.

I think if you are looking for ways to save money in the nhs then there are other areas that could be looked at. Like is it fair that foreigners get to benefit from our nhs? People on holiday? People who have emigrated and never paid a penny in tax?

Or if you're wanting to refuse treatments in other areas then maybe we shouldn't offer cancer care to those people who smoke? Or maybe we should limit maternity care to just 2 kids cos any more than that is just greedy?

I do really feel sorry for anybody who finds themselves in a situation where they can't have children and I do think it's unfair that there is a postcode lottery, but to compare it with the abortion system is just rediculous.
I'm really sorry to say that I don't think that infertility is an illness, I think it is a horrible unfortunate condition, but not an illness.
Yes an unwanted pregnancy isn't an illness either but it is cheap in comparison to IVF and maternity care and the social cost.

People experiencing infertility are in a dark, horrid situation. But their wish to have children doesn't invalidate another woman's desire not to be pregnant. Your desire is not more worthy of consideration than the desire of a woman who wants to terminate. But I do see how painful it must be for you, to see other women not appreciating what you desperately want.

An unwanted pregnancy (and any subsequent childbirth) can not only affect a woman's psychological health, but her physical health. Indeed, some abortions are sought primarily out of concern for the woman's health.

I suppose its an interesting point that an abortion (except for late term) costs less than giving birth to the nhs. It would be sillyness from a financial point of view not to fund abortions. Women would attempt DIY or back street abortions if abortion was not available on the nhs.

I can understand if the OP objects on ethnical grounds. That is something completely different.

Prehaps the nhs needs to look at imaginative ways of bring down the cost of fertiity treatments. Ie. paying for someone to go to Poland or Greece for IVF.

ivf-abroad.org/Affordable-IVF-Treatment-Poland.html

I did hear an advert on radio saying that you can get a discount on the cost of IVF if you donate eggs to another couple. I suppose that's an innovative way of saving money?
Not quite sure how I would feel about donating eggs but I suppose if I was desperate for a baby then my view would be very different.

Why as 'newborns'..... All adoptions of all children. Legislation is too strict ATM.

The crisis concerning adoption is huge. There is to much emphasis on adults rights rather than responsiblities.

I think the OP should save her anger for people who abuse their children and fight tooth and nail to stop social services rights to give the children a better life rather than those who have abortions.

If someone has previously let down another child by child abuse then they should not be allow the "right to a family" when get pregnant again unless they can clearly show they have turned their life round dramatically. I feel the process from taking a child into care to permament adoption should take months not years. I feel the right of a child to decent life should count for more than at present.

missduff, I was talking about the cost differential between NHS and non-NHS abortion care, not the difference between abortion and maternity care. The latter is, of course, much more expensive.

They where saying on the Wright Stuff the other day about a pair of Midwives refusing to deal with woman who had abortions who where put in the labour ward where they worked.

No care at all from any of the panellists about the main question I have on that matter (and what I hope everyone with a brain cell would question too) why are woman who have abortions being put in the same ward as new mothers?, their are babies present in cots next to every bed. it's like rubbing peoples noses in it, a silent judgement, bullying even.

It's yet more proof of the stupidity, narrow mindedness and complete lack of any understanding that prevails in this country.

Ryoko - I was placed next to women who had had abortions when I miscarried and with my newborn baby when I was admitted with post partum infections. Bonkers! One woman spent all night sobbing and I was desperately trying to keep my baby quiet because I knew from the nurses she'd aborted due to gross deformity and I was there with my perfect baby in the next bay (they moved me after a few hours).

Ivf does not costs 'tens of thousands of pounds a go' - even private IVF only costs about £3k, plus drug costs, but those start from about £1.2k. Net cost on NHS is therefore cheaper than that, as those costs have profit built in for the private clinic and the NHS is not a profit making organisation.

And if those of you that believe 'having a baby is a luxury not a right' then presumably you also think resources shouldn't be given to people with conditions requiring long term hospital care during pregnancy in order to increase the chances of a successful outcome? That's a waste of resources too under that argument.

IVF costs should be considered in the round and not just the 'getting you pregnant' bit - closer care is taken with such patients and this does have an increased pricetag over spontaneous pregnancies. And it's not just the costs per patient but the infrastructure costs to support IVF that mount up quickly - for example, you need a lab, you need specially trained staff who are kept up to date, consultants lead the care rather than junior doctors/nurses.

I'm not making a judgement about IVF at all - been there, considered doing it myself. But to say an IVF pregnancy only cost £1.2K is naive. :)