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 Xenia, I should have made sure to get impregnated during the messed-up one-night stand I had aged 22, rather than wait for my wonderful supportive husband, whom I met later in life?
Are you for real? Do you really think this is how life works? We all skip happily through fields of daffodils with our incredibly mature and family-focussed teenage sweethearts and then rolling around in magic piles of cash for the rest of our happy lives?

FFS

For whatever reasons women are leaving it quite late to try for a baby - I left it to 32 myself and then was shocked and upset that it took me nearly a year to get pregnant (I know I was lucky though in the end)

I still think it's great to spend your twenties exploring the world and developing as an individual and in your career (though I was a bit random about that bit !)

But leaving it til your late thirties is something many regret and more should be done to tell young women of the potential problems they may experience to help us all in making those life choices.

I live in east Berkshire and after having to stop IVF in Nov due to the effects of the drugs, my clinic had to appeal to the NHS to extend my one chance of funding for 3 months to enable me to complete the process. This was because I'd just turned 35 which is their cut off. 35!

While I welcome these change in guidelines completely, I fear it will make no difference whatsoever.

And why should it be down to infertile couples to adopt the world's children? People need to stop having kids they don't want/can't look after and those of you who can have kids, maybe only have 4 and adopt you 5th?

And bollocks to us just accepting it and finding other ways to lead a happy and fulfilled life. Imagining being 70+ with no children or grandchildren kills me

anoymosity to me your post did come across (to me) as if you were saying that children born after IVF would be infertile, have more alergies illness and disabilities therefore we should adopt instead of having IVF.

Have you looked into this opinion in any other way other than reading a newspaper? Have you had IVF yourself and asked a Dr?

My point is that very few people have a family history clear of any ilnesses and most fertility reducing conditions are less bad (in my opinion) than many common illnesses.

I have adopted siblings and it was a long hard journy to get them, you don't just pop down to the local childrens home and collect a newborn in a basket you know.

For me I would have put money towards attempting to adopt rather than spend it on IVF (after the free cycles) but it is a very very personal choice and not something that other people should comment on. My stepdad who adopted his children because of fertility issues was supportive of our IVF even though it wasn't the same as what he opted for.

I love children and of course I sympathise with men and women fighting for very scarce NHS resources. If we gave all that was needed to IVF then children already alive would die. So the issue is whether funding for those who want to fulfil a hope is a better use of money than saving lives of those already alive. Not surprisingly all NHS resources have always been rationed. Cameron needs the female vote he has just about lost so increasing IVF age limits will certanily be useful in that respect.

As for choices people do need to decide when they are young where they will concentrtae their energies, marrying that wonderful boyfriend at university when they are 21 or 23 and working full time whilst working through their 20s (which is not easy) or taking a punt they still might be able to have babies in their mid 30s and thus running the risk they will never have a child but enjoying free 20s without babies. Whether the state should underwrite that risk I suppose is the issue.

xenia, you said overpopulation was a big issue. We will address that much more effectively by letting more people die than by enabling a few more couples to have a shot at parenthood.

Also, you seem to be assuming that all infertility is age-related. It isn't. And when it is age-related, the NHS doesn't treat it - hence its age cut off points. So your argument about waiting till later in life doesn't work. In fact, waiting till later is better for your overpopulation worries, as if all your children reproduce at 22 like you did, it is far worse than me having one child at 35, who then reproduces at 35 itself.

The 'limited resources' claim against IVF isn't actually true. It's far cheaper for the NHS to fund infertility treatment than not. Counter-intuitive, but true. That's because if you leave people to go private, they are far more likely to have multiple embryos implanted and multiple births, which are far more expensive for the NHS (higher rates of complications, premature birth, extra needs throughout childhood and even adulthood). Of course many twins and triplets are fine, but there are higher rates of stuff that requires extra resources.

I did some research on this for my day job, and it is a fact that it is cheaper for the NHS to fund IVF treatment - at the time I was looking at the figures, it was, IIRC, three cycles using all viable fresh and frozen eggs.

NICE weigh up the economic case for potential NHS treatments extremely carefully - if they say it makes sense, it does.

There may be other arguments against IVF, but there is no economic argument against - quite the reverse.

(higher likelihood of multiple embryos especially for people who go abroad for less expensive IVF where the practice is more lax on number of embryos.)

If we gave all that was needed to IVF then children already alive would die.

No they wouldn't. The things that would be cut first if more rationing was needed would none essential treatment that wasn't life threatening. Thats of course, is assuming you actually believe the NHS is broke and not just incompetent and being run by clueless pen pushers.

Perhaps we should consider compulsory sterilisation of women who have two children to control population and perserve NHS funds. Or make them pay for maternity care after 2 children as, after all, it was a lifestyle choice to have them rather than have an abortion. And if you can't afford that than you can't afford to have another child and support them. Hey Xenia? What do you think? Do you think other people can be as controversial as you?

Cameron needs the female vote, hence the NICE guidelines? Because of course infertility doesn't affect men, ever.

Xenia, you do talk some utter rubbish.

I thought it was a brilliant insightful comment Ariel.

Mr Cameron is sat there in no 10 plotting, going how can I win back all these women. I know its about 'allowing' them to have children. If they are able to have children they will all be happy and I'll get hundreds of thousands more votes.

I will get my people to put pressure on NICE. I'll send the boys round to those people who have been working on this report for the last year or so and threaten them with losing their careers if they can't come up with the evidence to support my masterplan.

I won't however, then see it through at hospital level and put pressure on the hospitals to actually follow this guidance. Oh no, there will be no political benefit to actually making it work and making women really see that this guideline is supportive of couples facing fertility, and it won't be damaging to have even wider postcode differences with the NHS.

Those women are stupid you see, really stupid, and will only see this headline and not the reality and that will make them all change their vote.

Now as much as people think that Cameron is sexist. And as much as people think that the government sees the public as stupid.

There are limits.

Edam - thanks, it's good to get some proper researched POVs. That was a v helpful post. : )
I think being able to cut out the economic argument also really highlights that the backlash against the higher ivf limit is based on a more insidious and deep-rooted distaste at older mothers, alongside an utterly contradictory attitude towards older fathers.

Thanks Captain. Facts are always useful - although often ignored. I was surprised when I looked at the research back when the first NICE guideline came out - but people often argue from assumptions rather than from facts.

YY very helpful post Edam

I love the way Xenia thinks we all had a choice to settle down and have babies in our twenties.

It takes two people! And lots of men aren't ready to take that step then. I had my mid twenties and early thirties wasted (in child bearing terms) by two non-committal men who said they wanted the same as me then changed their minds three years in. On both occasions it took a couple of years to meet someone new - there is a decade gone 24-34.

I was about to go it alone after my last relationship broke down but I have just met someone new at 35 - so here I take a risk with my time again. I hope that if, because of my age, I need help to have a family I get it because it's all I have wanted since I can remember.

I hate the stupid statements about women who shouldn't have left it so late - totally hurtful.

You only have to look at LRD's thread in Chat on academic careers to see how, for so many women, having children was the kiss of death for their careers in that arena.

patienceisvirtuous I am a few years older than you but had exactly the same experiences. The man I met at 35 is the man I went onto have two children with and we're all together still, a very happy family. I hope you do find the same. There are more of us now than the women who had babies at 25, statistically. Ignore the hurtful comments, they're not personal, just ignorant.

Hi anon, thanks for sharing your positive story :) I'm glad things worked out for you.

Yes, hopefully I will be as lucky. I am still optimistic :)

There are choices. You can date men at 21 who might marry you. You can make that a focus. I did. I am not saying it's easy. You can have babies without am an if babies are so important to you. Plenty of women work full time and are sole supporters of their children.

Also private clinics have to follow rules. We have some of the best and most regulated private clinics on the planet and they do not nowadays implant huge numbers at once although I agree that some people may go abroad where there is worse regulation. There needs to be some limit as someone with a 5% chance of conceiving is going to have unlimited IVF on the NHS whilst other people die. Most people who cannot have it on the NHS won't have it at all so the argument that they will pay someone who does it badly and the NHS will pick up the tab is not that convincing to me.

'I hate the stupid statements about women who shouldn't have left it so late - totally hurtful.'

And misogynist.

As another poster put it, women can't win - don't have kids until you're married, own a home, have a stable career so you don't take a penny in state support, and if you then find out you're infertile, it's your fault for 'leaving it too late'; do anything otherwise and you're a feckless scrounger.

You truly are talking nonsense Xenia - no one is suggesting unlimited IVF and what on earth do you base tout assertion on that most people turned down for NHS treatment will never have IVF at all. How the fuck do you know that????

We remortgaged our house to fund our treatment we were so desperate. We were also responsible enough to stop at 2 children, unlike you.

Your ignorance of the facts and lack of empathy is breathtaking. What a shame you decided to pass on your delightful genes.

For someone with an allegedly high IQ, your EQ is so low as to be negligible.

You also haven't really grasped the concept of non-age-related infertility. If I had started trying to have children when you suggest, I would still not have succeeded, so what difference does it make to you whether the NHS treats me for my condition at age 22, 32 or 42?

most people who can't have it on the NHS won't have it at all.... Where on earth did you pull that fact from?

Here's a fact. I met my husband when I was 15. The reason we had IVF is biological not age related.

Xenia, lacks the capacity to understand she has led a charmed life and pretty much had everything handed to her on a plate.

You can work hard within that to achieve your ultimate goals but still have things handed to you on a plate.

She is privileged and out of touch with the realities most of us face. Nothing more to really more to add to that.