Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Original poster

IVF unavailable on NHS for couples where one partner already has a child

51 replies

fullofcold · 05/11/2013 09:52

I was reading in the Daily Fail (which I only read for the comments....honest!) and saw an article about how a couple were refused IVF treatment on the NHS as her partner was already a Father.

I understand funds are limited, but I also can't help feeling that this is so unfair, as the woman is childless. My DP and a DD and I am in no way a mother to her. If we needed help, and were refused on the basis that we are not childless I would be so hurt. Sometimes I already feel that I made the wrong decision dating a man with a child, as sometimes it is just so hard! This would just make it so much more difficult!

What do you all think about this? I just think at least one attempt should be offered.

OP posts:
OzzieMozzie · 05/11/2013 09:54

I think that the balance between cutting back on IVF and funding other things, eg. expensive cancer treatments, means that hard decisions need to be made.

holidaysarenice · 05/11/2013 09:58

This has been the case for a long time.

I know they don't but I think it should be one cycle per person with issues. So say it was ur dp - no you wudnt get treatment as he has a child. But if it was you - then yes you would because you haven't had a child.

I know in reality that doesn't work as often it is unexplained or both partners.

Also I could imagine people wanting 3 or 4 kids if there was no limit, and how could it be justified that you can do it with a different partner but a happily married couple are only allowed one?!

bakingaddict · 05/11/2013 10:06

Don't different health authorities have different rules regarding IVF funding so like cancer treatments it's basically a post-code lottery. Agree with Ozzie, regardless of the morality of whether some treatments should be funded at the expense of others, this kind of rationing is going to become more prevalent in the NHS as the availability and costs of advanced treatments soar

Branleuse · 05/11/2013 10:14

i dont think IVF should be on the NHS at all.

YoureBeingASillyBilly · 05/11/2013 10:17

I have to say i agree with branleuse. I have never understood why it is available on the NHS.

Original poster
fullofcold · 05/11/2013 10:40

I agree that it shouldn't be available on the NHS and I also understand that there are life saving treatments that are more important. However I only see it as unfair as some couples are allowed.

OP posts:
YoureBeingASillyBilly · 05/11/2013 10:59

well a line has to be drawn somewhere doesn't it? one person could keep remarrying and having IVF funded by the NHS with each new partner if there wasn't a rule in place.

givemeaclue · 05/11/2013 11:06

I did see this in the mail, couldn't understand how it is news, always been the case.
She can have ivf, she just has to pay for it herself. If she really wants it, she will pay for it. She is not being denied a child, the nhs is decline to pay for treatment she can fund herself. I say this as someone who had to pay for own treatment, before any funding was available.

CountryGal13 · 06/11/2013 21:56

It's totally unfair. I'm not a mother to my dsc so why should I be penalised if I needed help. If funding is limited then it should be one go per couple or none on the NHS for anyone. Whoever thought of that exemption certainly wasn't a step parent!

givemeaclue · 07/11/2013 09:46

There are lots of exemptions, this is only one of them. Even if eligible for nhs treatment as waiting lists are long many people go private anyway.

NoComet · 07/11/2013 09:51

I think IVF should be available to fund one child per couple.

Being non resident SP to a teen, is not really experiencing all of parenthood.

ReallyTired · 07/11/2013 10:00

I feel a big priority should be to reduce costs of IVF on the NHS. This technique looks promising at reducing the cost of a cycle to £170

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2358284/The-frills-IVF-costs-just-170-Budget-treatment-uses-cheap-test-tubes-good-techniques-costing-thousands.html

If a cycle of IVF costs £170 then we wouldn't be having this thread.

I hope that fullofcold concieves naturally and not need any form of IVF.

givemeaclue · 07/11/2013 14:03

One child per couple would mean unlimited number of Ivf cycles. Currently even for those eligible they get one nhs cycle only, not unlimited cycles till they have a child. Where would funding for that come from?

ReallyTired · 07/11/2013 14:36

Even if the NHS has a money tree somewhere I don't think that unlimited IVF cycles is a good idea. IVF is emotionally harrowing and drugs can harm a woman's body.

I really hope the cost of IVF comes down. Then there will be no need for these arguements.

KittenCamile · 16/11/2013 19:38

My DP has a DD and he is currently infertile, has a 0 sperm count. I am fine, no fertility problems at all. We are not eligible on the nhs for ivf.

It is over 10 grand for what we would need privately. Because DP can't afford to save that money as he has a DD I am working all hours to try. I'm on anti anxiety pills, have serious ibs, depression and my hair is falling out. The nhs cover me for the cbt treatment I am having to cope with the stress of not getting any help plus I have weekly appointments with the doctor to help me with medication.

Not sure I'm saving the nhs any money really. Don't under estimate the effect infertility can have on a person. If I was single and had fertility problems I would be eligible.

eslteacher · 16/11/2013 20:58

I agree it is not fair at all to make IVF unavailable to someone unable to conceive, with no children, whose partner already has a child.

It seems to me there is a big difference between 'but then you'd have unnlimited tries if you keep swapping partners' and 'tough you can't even have one try if you have a stepchild'. Should be done on a case by case basis, I think.

Or it should just be removed from the NHS together. But this particular legislation seems really discriminatory to me. As SM's are reminded again and again all over mumsnet, 'your DSC are not your children, you're not their mother, you're just their dads partner'...

eslteacher · 16/11/2013 21:00

Kitten, that sounds so hard. I am so sorry and hope you and your DP find a way eventually. A great example of how this NHS rule is just unfair in practice.

DifferenceEngine · 16/11/2013 21:08

This has happened to two of my friends.

Both dp' s have near adult kids, both women have fertility issues and are desperate for kids.

How can the existence of an adult, who the woman played absolutely no part in raising prevent her from something someone else would get free?

Doesn't seem fair

Kez28 · 24/02/2020 11:07

I see comments about IVF and how it shouldn't be available on NHS, but as someone like me who could afford to support a child, but not afford the cost of IVF treatment (which is not a guaranteed success) and has had previous losses, now having fertility issues, isn't it unfair to deny someone their basic human right? The mental torture is horrendous, and my partner has a son from a previous relationship. I find it so difficult, as he will never legally be mine and I have to play the "doting" stepmum. Multiple eggs are implanted, and like I said previously, there is no gaurentee that the treatment will work. Would you want to pay anything up to £5000 a time for something that's not 100%?

Dontdisturbmenow · 24/02/2020 17:22

If it was a choice of funding younger families when the person with the clinical issue is the childless one as opposed to funding women in their 40yo (funding is up to 40 if treatment is stated just before), I would pick the former because the chance of success (so making it more cost effective to the nhs) is very much reduced after 35yo.

Sotiredofthislife · 24/02/2020 20:09

Being non resident SP to a teen, is not really experiencing all of parenthood

You really think experiencing all of parenthood is a good use of NHS funding? Or is something the NHS should be looking to fund?

Tyersal · 24/02/2020 22:28

**Would you want to pay anything up to £5000 a time for something that's not 100%?

No, and that's why the NHS don't want to pay for it either

ButtonandPickle19 · 25/02/2020 08:45

Having a child is a privilege not a right so I don’t think it’s unfair. No woman has the right to be a mother or to ivf. There are other options available that don’t cost thousands and don’t have limited odd of working

IronShame · 25/02/2020 10:03

I think it's incredibly unfair. It should go off whether both people have existing children or not. I agree if both male and female partners has children from previous relationships they shouldn't get funded help for one together BUT I agree, it is in no way the same, being a step mother, as a biological mother.

It is different for various conditions though. I had NHS funded IVF and my husband has children already. Because I am a carrier of a genetic condition which could be passed onto any naturally conceived child, I was pre-approved whether or not my husband had kids. The criteria was not having a healthy child together. And it was by NHS England as well so it didn't come under the 'local trust' criteria either.

I don't feel guilty for having it on the NHS either. Why should I? Smokers who refuse to quit will happily accept free cancer treatments paid for at our expense and no one bats an eye, yet I'm supposed to feel guilty for accepting help for something I can't control and didn't cause? (Which in the grand scheme of things, considering you only get a limited number of tries, doesn't cost the NHS nearly as much as people would have you believe) Nah. And I don't care if my taxes go to helping others in my situation either, infertility is life changing, I'd go so far as to say life ruining in some cases. It certainly nearly was in mine, there were lots of occasions I thought I really could have killed myself. So yeah I've no time for people sitting there waving their 'no IVF on the NHS' 'children aren't a right' banners whilst sitting happily with their 2.5 naturally conceived kids at home as if IVF is what is crippling the NHS. It's not even a small scratch on the surface in reality.

You're right though OP. It isn't fair. It's essentially saying 'we'll help you but just not with this person'.

IronShame · 25/02/2020 10:09

I don't get the 'where do you draw the line' arguement either.

The line would obviously be if BOTH partners had children already. If both husband and wife had children from previous relationships then no, IVF shouldn't be offered just so you can have one together as you're both already parents. But if one party of a couple has no children, husband or wife, then yes I think it should.

Swipe left for the next trending thread