New NHS guidelines on IVF treatment to extend age limit up to 42 - what do you think?

[JaneGMumsnet]

Good morning,

New IVF guidelines issued by the National Institute of Health & Clinical Excellence (NICE) say that women aged up to 42 should be allowed one cycle of IVF treatment so long as it is their first attempt. Previously Nice recommended treatment up to the age of 39.

The guidelines also suggest that all couples who are struggling to conceive should get fertility treatment more quickly ? after two years of trying to conceive naturally, rather than three.

We'd love to hear what you think.

Thanks,
MNHQ

evilgiraffe hehehe it's not the easiest language but the Dutch speak English as well, if not better, than me so I'm very fortunate! Been here just over a year and I can still only just about twist my tongue around the basics and count to 10 which isn't much English tends to be used in most international countries.

I know that a lot of women do travel from the UK to Belgium to be treated, although that is privately of course. The NHS is wonderful, don't get me wrong, but the outlook here is so much more helpful to women and families (in my experience anyway). Less ageist - and I do feel that putting an age limit of 42 on IVF is far too low, particularly with the advances in medicine and care in this day and age.

What do you think the NHS should be used for BlackSwan?

No the people who increase the strain on the NHS are, in no particular order:

boy racers
other stupid drivers of which there are too many
Friday/Saturday night drunks (male and female) out clubbing
said drunks becoming violent outside clubs
drug dealers (NB dealers, not addicts)
smokers (said with a heavy heart since DH is one, although this too is an addiction)

etc
etc

Women who long for motherhood are not the root cause of the problem.

Well i'm sure that you'll agree ginand slim (since you're so well educated) that insulting someone's level of education and reading matter isn't a terribly intelligent or polite way of making a convincing argument.

dammit companies not countries :(

I am sad to see that there is very little tolerance of alternative opinions on this thread, to the extent that unless you are an infertile woman your views aren't deemed valid.

Fucking. Hell.

I probably need to bow out now before I get my second ever MN deletion.

The total misunderstanding and lack of basic willingness to hear people's really heartbreaking experiences is quite astonishing. I (naively) never realised that fertility issues could bring out such strong opinions.

I second those who are discussing what other lifestyle / life altering
but not medically necessary treatments should be rationed. Breast reconstruction post mastectomy? Of course. No need for it after all. Treatment for skin conditions? Well it's only a bit itchy / disfiguring / uncomfortable. The person who has been in a fight on a Saturday night after too many pints and needs stitches? A plaster would do.

Bollocks to the psychological and emotional consequences.

You're quite right johnnybear - survival of the fittest means I should not have had treatment that enable my beautiful, clever, funny little DS to be born.

Oh FFS

ok ill leave this thread as its obviously a little to emotional for me...and to answer a few insults...I'm 41 and my youngest is 18...so I grew up and can see that having FIVE children (i lost one child to flu) was to much for this world to cope with...People urge to be a mum or dad is powerful and at times overwhelming but the fact remains that the world is over populated and its YOUR children who will deal with it...Naturally or IVF conceived is irrelevant to the fact that there are just many people...I won't have to fight for a loaf of bread but i fear my grand children may....I wish all those trying the very best and hope you get lucky...I'm not bashing a person just the system that makes it possible....xxx

There have been several different opinions, Sheila. Almost all of them have been tactful. Yours is not one of them, I'm afraid.

Johnny the logical conclusion of your point of view is that everyone should be strictly controlled regarding reproduction, not just the infertile.

Really evil? Seems to me that any posters who haven't agreed 100% with the idea that IVF availability on the NHS have been shouted down and told that unless they have experienced infertility they should keep their opinions to themselves.

No it's generally been posters who have mentioned the word "entitlement" in an accusing way, and you were one of them Sheila.

I'm usually a little calmer than this - and of course I think that reconstructive surgery / skin conditions etc etc should be treated. The same way I think infertility (both cause and consequence) should be. Because as was very well argued up thread, the psychological impact of infertility can be just as difficult as any range of other conditions and treatments. The psychological cost (financial, emotional and relational) can be massive. It's not as simple as 'treat / don't treat'.

Both options have financial implications - which NICE will have considered very carefully before making a recommendation towards sooner, and at a later age, treatment.

That's not true. One person was told her opinion wasn't valid (yes, those were the words) because she had been staggeringly rude.

I support the recommendations, particularly the shorter timescale.

I did post upthread but maybe it is worth my posting again.

I haven't had fertility problems. I am a taxpayer.

I think the new guidlelines are long overdue, to get some fairness and parity in place across the country.

well Phineyj I think you're nearer to the truth than you realise...how do you feed 20-30-40 billion people?....its not if they force controlled reproduction...its when they will....think ill start that thread as my opinion has evolved into something worth a discussion and has slightly hijacked this thread...I am sorry if i've upset anyone and anyone who knows me knows that its something i try not to do...good luck if you're trying and I understand why..xxx

On the whole, I think this is welcome news. On a personal note, I feel rather sad as I turned 43 two months ago and was turned down for IVF aged 40 due to my age.

I'm bowing out of this thread. I have no problem with people having different views, but the insensitivity of some posters is difficult to handle.

Going on this thread whilst miscarrying my miracle baby was clearly silly.

Hopefully I won't miscarry my ivf baby, imagine the extra cost that would put on the NHS How very selfish that would be

Take care Gin x

Gin, look after yourself.

Take care, Gin. Ignore the nasties.