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

So sorry gin -

Oops, sorry.

Tut tut ariel - I was deleted (for the first time ever in 2 years of being here!) for possibly calling someone 'narrow minded'. I'm actually quite embarrassed ... I had a shiny unblemished record.

I should have gone all out... :)

So sorry gin xx

And Sorrel, sorry that the timing of this is crap for you xx

Well if I'm deleted for that, I won't argue with it :)

johnnybear71 - I just don't think you'll make much headway with an argument about world overpopulation when you are talking to women who are personally suffering a great deal. It's just quite irrelevant and cruel. (I am very sorry about the loss of your DC).

42 does not strike me a remotely unreasonable. I know a woman of 49 who gave birth to a gorgeous healthy baby boy last year after conceiving naturally and several woman who have had their first babies over 40 so it makes sense to raise the age limit.

That said, from a personal POV I'm in favour of anything that might give my lovely best friend and her DH more of a chance to conceive after nearly 3 years of trying.

I was a tad surprised...

Erm... It's not your gender that's got people's backs up johnnybear71 - it's you preaching about the worlds finite resources when you have several children yourself. makes your argument kind of ... Hollow.

Oh, that and the sheer offensiveness of some of your other assertions. And the misinformation.

This is a thread about NICE guidelines.

Overpopulation is valid and massive concern - in fact I was debating on a thread about it the other day. It was in context though. This is not.

Never felt gladder, having read through this, that we have a national body making recommendations on the basis of evidence.

Think there are some pretty arbritray lines being drawn here about what is and isn't 'medically necessary' and about 'personal culpability' for leaving decisions too late, which in real life are a good deal less clear cut.

To illustrate, I've had (self-funded) IVF in my early 40s to treat infertility due to recurrent miscarriage (having suffered 8 miscarriages due to a blood clotting disorder in my 30's). Not where I expected to end up having started trying to conceive at the relatively tender age of 29. This has been the most psychologically debilitating experience of my life. I've had the good fortune to have the resources to pay for treatment - and this has ultimately been successful. Whilst I will never 'get over' the precious pregnancies I've lost, as a result of my treatment, I am no longer defined by loss and have been able to move out of a very dark trough of despair and anguish. It makes me very sad to think that other women trapped in this situation have until now been denied the same chance of treatment, becuse they don't have the ability to pay privately.

Oh, and two of these babies were lost later in pregnancy. The NHS had the decency to provide funeral arrangements (shared with other bereaved parents). Was this strictly medically necessary? No. But do we really want to let go so lightly of what is humane and civilised?

johnnybear Would you mind awfully considering taking your views onto a thread where they are actually relevant? This thread is about the new NICE guidelines on IVF.

I think there's a thread on badly phrased passive-aggressiveness and theories of millions of years of evolution out there for you somewhere.

Don't forget to tilt your head MrsDV.

When I was younger I would probably have taken the line some posters here have, about how no-one is entitled to have a child, it's a lifestyle choice and so on. Now, being older and having experienced the desire for a child myself (and being lucky enough to have had one after I'd been told it would be difficult) I see it very differently because I have had a partial glimpse of the pain it causes to want a child and then have that denied.

Northey's point some way back about how this is actually about bringing the guidelines into line with current improvements in success rates - they now being for 42 yos what they originally were for 35 yos - is a very good one. Basically the age change is like the Retail Price Index - it's about making sure the goalposts stay in the same place with regard to technical /numerical developments, so your basket of goods costs a comparable amount.

I think the most welcome and sensible part of it all is the lowering of the time spent ttc, though. Now I think about it, it has never made sense to insist on 3 years' ttc, thus meaning that 35-6 year olds have to wait till 38-9 for a referral and maybe 39 before treatment which itsel brings the stats down. I would support an 18-month period of ttc (maybe requiring people to 'register' as ttc to verify this?) and then moving to fertility treatment.

but to have my words twisted to fit some angry womans agenda is beyond the pail hence my "get a grip love" comment...

So, you think its a sexist remark so think its ok to reply with one in response.

It wasn't how I read it. It was about you having 5 children.

And tbh, it is something that IS different for men and women; as I've said upthread a woman's role in society is still very much defined by her status as mother and ability to carry a child. I don't think this should be the case, but it is.

It is far more socially acceptable for a man to be childless - men do not get socially conditioned in the same way, nor do they get questioned/pressured/same level of expectation placed upon them. All the married couples I know, its the woman who always gets asked about when they are having children rather than the man - EVEN if the line of questioning comes from in-laws.

Its not to say men don't have those pressures, but it is to a different extent. Its not to say men can't have an opinion about it, but they should have the good grace and be wise enough to approach with more sensitivity than you have displayed.

I suggest you reflect upon this and your deliberately provokative attitude and how that endears others to your point of view. You can have a discussion, without deliberately attacking and being insensitive and fucking rude beyond belief.

Maybe next time have a think about the particular thread your posting your opinion on. Yes it's a discussion forum - but most people have enough heart to think before they post insensitive and hurtful opinions on a particularly sensitive thread.

Erm...and can you sense the tiny bit of irony in you arguing that you were shouted down for being A MAN when you then dismiss those of us who disagree as having some sort of 'angry women's agenda'?

As TERRI and Snazzy point out, the new guidelines are based on empirical evidence so that treatment is appropriately offered within the 'financial envelope' and there is at last an attemept to spread access fairly across the board.

The whole differential access due to postcode lottery has caused a lot of justifiable resentment.

Indeed MrsDV [grin} Great minds...