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

Wonderful news. I was lucky enough to have been able to pay for IVF myself and had DD after the first cycle. Cannot begin to describe the joy after trying so desperately. Good luck to everyone trying now

I'm going to be selfish and say no, it shouldn't be extended. Instead I think younger people with fertility issues like myself should get more rounds of IVF.

I have endo and polycystic ovaries so was unable to conceive. I had IVF on the NHS at 31 and it was successful.

I'd love a sibling for my little one but I'm not entitled to anymore free treatment.

After studying the stats during my treatment I learnt how it is much less successful for older parents and the overweight and obese. Trying to get pregnant when you're older or overweight means that you have made some choices or lifestyle decisions that have inhibited your chances if having a baby. (Like smokers etc that others have mentioned who need help from the NHS)

If there was enough money sure. But IVF for someone old or fat is still much less likely to work for someone younger and slim like me so it seems kind of wasteful.

Like it having taken taken four years before you've got anywhere. Like only meeting fuckwit men. Like the NHS having fucked you around.

Those sorts of lifestyle choices.

But hey, you deserve two children.

I didnt realise if one person had a DC and the other didnt you werent eligible, i think thats awful! I also didnt realise waiting times were so long. I do however still think that younger people with fertility problems should be a priority, as everyone knows your fertility declines with age, there are far more concerns with older parents both during pregnancy and as your child grows up. Surely its much harder on you as you get older dealing with lack of sleep, tornado toddlers etc.. Just my opinion though

And the prize for most tactful post goes to onesera! And I am going to be even more selfish and say I don't give a toss what age you are or how slim and lovely you are, but you shouldn't get to have TWO babies funded by the NHS. There are better uses of the money, and if you want a second save up for your own IVF.

You can't look at it in isolation though, can you - you can't just say "everyone has the right to fertility treatment" if you don't look at all the other issues.

There has been recent press suggesting a) we're creating a generation of infertile people (the babies born to those who have had IVF) b) that we're creating a generation of people with increased illnesses / allergies and disabilities.

I don't know if its true, its just what has been reported in the press as a suggestion.

But also what is happening on the adoption front - thousands of small children are not being adopted, in favor of searching for your own offspring. And they continue to be left in foster care or homes and that can also create a bigger underclass.

I am not passing judgement I am just saying it cannot be seen / viewed and decided without these factors having some impact.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that children born via IVF are infertile. Didn't the first ever IVF baby recently have her own child, conceived naturally.

It's been said a million several times already, adoption is not a substitute for having your own child. You need to be in a whole other place mentally to be able to handle the complex adoption process. Plus, again as has been said, children being adopted deserve to go to homes that truly want them, not see them as second-best.

Perhaps people who are able to have children naturally should be limited to one child and then adopt if they want more [sarcasm]

As the very eloquent MrsDeVere said earlier in the thread, why are women with infertility problems being blamed for the adoption problems in this country? Surely it is everyone's responsibility to look at this avenue?

onsera what is your definition of old and fat please? This is a difficult subject, we each are entitled to our own opinion and to express it, but please word it carefully because you can hurt peoples feelings. This is my life experience.........my life.
I married in 1978 and just a year later gave birth to Matthew.
For the following 14 years we tried to have another baby, it just didnt happen. On June 2nd 1994 my beautiful child died in my garden, totally unexplained. After 2 years of utter raw grief we decided to try ivf. After three attempts all funded by ourselves and using donor eggs it worked. At the age of 46 I gave birth to Thomas, Rebecca and James, all healthy beautiful babies. When they were nine their father was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, he is currently in remission. Life is hard living with three teens at our age. <strong>But</strong> I know parents with twins/triplets and young children of different ages who cant cope and they are years younger.
We all are here only once, some for a very short time.
IVF I believe should be offered to older women also if they desperately want a child, they should be offered the chance, even if its only offered once. Why don`t they offer partial funding?
It is difficult but we each have our own reasons.
As for being "old and fat" ...........hmm .....I suppose onsera I now fall into that categorie being a size 16/18........but I did have triplets at 46 and I have lots of much younger friends who are very much overweight and look the same age as me! Please be kinder :)

I was 33 when I needed IVF but had to self fund cos I was told I was too young!

I don't have any problem with this age extension but its a nonsense when the PCTs just ignore it.

Oh and passing on IF to our IVF babies is clearly bollocks - I had blocked Fallopian tubes, I don't think either of my sons could inherit that .

Triplets your story demonstrates how we can never know what is ahead (good or bad) and that it is all to easy to write someone off as being less than ideal candidates for ivf. Surely the same could be said for any medical treatment, if your are older or obese or very underweight, you are less likely to benefit from it, so let's just have a cut-off and say no-one over ten stone or over 55 gets any medical treatment at all.
Anyone seen Logan's Run?

Anoymosity would you suggest that anyone with health issues that could possibly genetic should refrain from having children? Anyone with a family history of asthma, depression, diabetes, dyslexia, should choose not to have children so as not to risk them developing that problem?

My ds might have inherited my dp's rubbish sperm, if we had a dd she might inherit my pcos but I am personally a lot more worried about them inheriting my dyslexia or my mil's depression or my brother's asthma.

From tge research I read there are studies tgat show a higher rate of birth defects with icsi but no correlation has been found between "traditional" IVF and birth defects.

The thing is Scarlettsmummy I'm pretty sure that the IVF doesn't cost the NHS anymore than the treatment I'd receive if they didn't help me get pregnant. I don't need surgeries or medications or specialists visits to treat my condition once I'm pregnant or breastfeeding.

I didn't say I was lovely... I was just pointing out that by being youngish and slim and was doing everything in my power to get pregnant on my own. I did everything to improve my chances naturally and cut out things like alcohol, coffee, processed foods and worked really hard to be healthy.

It doesn't make me lovely but it means that the treatment has more chance of working for someone like me while other people are asking for help from the NHS when they've not first done everything in their power to increase their chances. Seems a bit wasteful not to do everything you can.

Fair points triplets. Don't want to be a meany.

Arielthepracticalmermaid you may have a point. I was thinking more about people who have prioritised career etc then those with bad luck with men.

Onsera most women who want children know they do and don't tend to 'prioritise their career' over having children; it's just a misogynistic generalisation touted by the likes of the Daily Mail.

But if there are limited resources to go round, why should you get priority over someone who is childless when you are lucky enough to have a child already?

I apologise for my bad language. I'd had a lot to drink. The sentiments remain the same, however.

I too am slim. I don't drink excessively ok, apart from last night, I eat healthily, I have never smoked. Hell, I don't even have a great career!

I still can't get pregnant, and I couldn't when I was younger either.

Infertility is not just a thing which happens to fat, old, unhealthy people, strangely.

But that's what I'm trying to say. For people like me could be more of a burden on the NHS without IVF. My meds for IVF cost less than others I've been prescribed by my gynae. I was in and out of the hosp for egg retrieval and transfer as opposed to overnight stays for treatment of the endo. The pregnancy and lactation hormones keep my condition in check so I don't require treatment from the NHS. I intend to keep breastfeeding for my child's health and for my own.

But anyway this is supposed to be about the age limit. I don't want to hijack the thread. I didn't realise that mumsnetters are so argumentative! I do disagree with some comments but I think this may be a forum for us to voice our opinions rather than debate them? (First time on here)

Now I better go look after the little one I'm lucky to have thanks to the NHS!

Well it is argumentative if you write posts which people disagree with :)

Such as you deserving two children and an older, fatter person deserving none.

Onsera, your comments are highly insulting and inflammatory. Considering you yourself have had infertility treatment I'm pretty speechless. You imply that you should have the opportunity to have another child because you are 'young and slim' and that an old, fat woman who have prioritised a career (ridiculous) shouldn't have any chance. Your arrogance is jaw dropping.

I have already said I favour the extension of the age limit, the amout it will cost cannot be great and the anguish and unhappiness it will relieve is great. I just wondered if a pot of money could be found to subsidise IVF for those like Onsera3 who don't qualify at the moment, so they might have some chance of saving something towards it and get a grant for the rest? Is it not also the case that if IVF units were bigger and did more work they would not only develop practices that led to more babies but also each cycle would be less expensive?

There is little you can do worse for this planet than having a baby so probably the priority for mother earth is to ensure that the more people who are infertile the better.

Nice and insensitive there Xenia. Do you have children?

Wow. Just wow. There is so much wrong with that callous ignorant perspective.

I'm assuming you've stayed childless in the bid to save Mother Earth?

I am a serial offender but it's true, isn't it? Must be. Mankind is ruining this planet. We need about 5 in 6 of us to die to make our living here sustainable not to have more and more babies born.