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

For the third time ... Whatredtoothbrush said

Bollocks [grin failure]

I still want to know what was up with OliviaMumsnet and her cough.

Good point ... I was trying to be diplomatic - what I would like to say is eminently delete-able...

Watching Newsnight atm.

They just had two good points so far.

1. that this will benefit only a very small number of women - hence NICE didn't think there would be a huge additional cost to the NHS
2. there is a danger that some women will perhaps think 'ooo I can wait and leave it even longer now to have children'

Mariella's good.

And yes, why shouldn't women benefit from medical science?

The additional cost may not be 'huge', but it will be additional. Not everyone sees the value in spending money on a roll of the fertility dice. While I agree that infertility is a health issue, it doesn't mean an infertile person should be entitled to state funded fertility assistance in their 40's. The NHS budget won't increase... so the money will come from somewhere else, like caring for the children who are already here.

Thank you TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub

I think it's a good use of NHS money.

Hmmm, what do we think about the second point? I am not sure my knowledge of IVF cut off dates had any impact on my choice to start TTC. I, like lots here, started TTC many years below the current cut off age. I eventually reacjed the stage of starting an ivf cycle three months before I would have reached it.

blackswan, I am just as worthy of help as the children already here. Whatever wouldn't I be?

Whyever. Not whatever.

Northey, I thought the woman making the 2nd point was quite weak on that - more of an assertion based on 'women I have met in the big city and then I wrote a book about it' than peer-reviewed research.

''NHS budget won't increase... so the money will come from somewhere else, like caring for the children who are already here''. [Hmm]

Or we could stop giving additional tax breaks to millionaires, or clamp down on tax dodging multinationals...?

You're right Northey. Hardly anyone, I shouldn't think, starts TTC believing it won't happen. I mean we try so hard NOT to get pregnant you kind of imagine it will just, well, happen.

Perhaps if there wasn't so much holier than thou talk about scrounging parents, people wouldn't feel they have to wait until they can fund every possible financial eventuality before they start TTC.

But where do you draw the line Northey. You can't 'help' everyone. I would prioritise costs of healthcare for children over fertility treatment for those 40+.

A fair amount of this thread has been about just that, blackswan. The NHS chooses to fund all sorts of things which are not purely life-saving treatment only. Your child, for example, could survive perfectly well without an adenectomy or eczema treatment. Why should that be funded over anything else?

And in fact often it chooses not to fund things that it could do that ^are* life saving, because, although the technology exists, the cost is so high that it can't justify it, against all the other things it judges important (such as your child's adenectomy, or eczema treatment).

Point of information -contrary to what was posted earlier down the thread, no adoption agencies in the UK " require" applicants for adoption to have had IVF. What they do all require is that you have FINISHED any assisted conception treatment you might be having, you cannot do both concurrently

Many families who adopt are not interfertile. Some who are chose not to have any treatment . Adoption may change your childlessness but its not a cure for infertility.

There are very few if any healthy new Born babies available for adoption in this country. It is stupid and heartless to say to couples who are TTC " well you can always adopt" . It's not the same and it's not that easy.

OK, well all children regardless of family income get free NHS prescriptions. Is that right? Is it right that, if I was so inclined, I could probably wangle a regular supply of Calpol or eczema cream on the NHS. This argument could go round and round, but it is pointless.

There is no reason why IVF shouldn't be prioritised with children's health care, both of which could be prioritised over some of the other things th NHS spends money on. I would suggest having a look at how LAs have recently had to make cuts to management costs, for example, to see where this has worked.

It's about political will, really.

Northey, so your post 40's IVF treatment should come before my child's appendectomy? Not entirely a rational argument now is it?
Infertility is not an illness, it's unfortunate, but it doesn't make you sick and in need of treatment - unlike, for eg, a ruptured appendix.

Adenectomy, dear, not appendectomy.

How's about children's healthcare, cancer treatments, IVF, etc. ALL get put before scraping drunk twenty somethings up off the street and waging war with the world and his dog?

I've no appetite for this now, sorry. I hope MNTowers have got some useful things out of the thread.