Ivf rules regarding stillbirth

[Rollon2012]

I didn't put this in pregnancy for obvious reasons.
I heard on the wright stuff that if a woman sadly experiences stillbirth it can count against her in getting access to IVF as its a birth :( surely this isnt acceptable?

how is it allowed?

Not sure why this is in women's rights? A still birth is a birth, and there's a lot of women who had to go through it, who'd be offended at the suggestion that it wasn't.

Going through a stillbirth undoubtedly is traumatic, however it still means the women who has gone through it had conceived and was pregnant as opposed to someone who hasn't managed to conceive in the first place. So, unless the stillborn baby had been conceived via IVF, too, I can see how it could "count against" access to IVF.

becuase it affects women? I didnt want to put this is AIBU, or pregnancy

I still think its cruel after 6months is classed as viable does that mean after that time could be could be counted as stillbirth.

Still don't get why it's wrong? If you can conceive, there is no fertility problem to be resolved by IVF.

Didn't hear the programme so I don't know how long it had been since the stillbirth i.e. had she been trying to conceive naturally for a while after. Secondary infertility is quite common and is treated by IVF clinics. The woman may have had one baby (in this case stillborn) but be unable to conceive again, so in effect was childless. Why on earth would she not be treated?

Which rules are you/they referring to exactly?

When I had IVF a few years ago, there were criteria for funding that varied depending on which health authority was paying - often referred to as a post code lottery. This was in addition to any medical judgements made by the doctors about whether your health problems made you a suitable candidate for IVF.

He was very shocked by it , I doubt his motivations were mysoginistic iyswim, a caller said it and said it can count against you, they were talking about being age limits on IVF.

there is the medical reason that a woman who has conceived and carried a baby to term ...may be able to conceive again without IVF.

there are several fertility problems where IVF is inappropriate due to similar reasons (ie where a woman does not have difficulty conceiving)..IVF isn't a magical answer.

there may be other treatments more appropriate, and more likely to be helpful.

OK a caller said it, so it may or may no be true. Was she talking about her own experience or relaying something somebody else had told her?

I think It was someone she knew ,

I know someone who has been refused funding for IVF because, although she has no children, her partner has 2 from a previous relationship. It seems quite harsh TBH. I think quite a few PCTs are not funding ANY IVF at the moment due to funding cuts.
Infertility is horrible anyway loosing a baby and then suffering from infertility must be awful :(

If it was someone she knew, I think it's likely that the stillbirth thing is a red herring. There could be any number of financial or medical reasons whey someone is not given IVF on the NHS. As Edless says, IVF isn't a magical answer. I doubt the caller knew all the relevant medical history, even if she did talk to the woman about her situation. It's also possible that the woman herself or the caller misunderstood the reason IVF was denied.

As you can tell, I am about this. It just seems unlikely to me that the NHS somewhere has a policy of denying IVF to women whose children have died.

It is really harsh JujyFruits. I remember the counsellor showing me the clinic's chart summarising the funding criteria for the different trusts. My PCT was considered generous because they would fund you if you had no child with your current partner, but had one from a previous relationship. Most of them wouldn't (as you say) fund if either partner had any children at all.

rules here at that you are eligible for IVF if no living children at home so stillbirth would not go against you.

Is there a link to this anywhere? I'm struggling to find anything which suggests that having had a stillbirth counts as having a child for funding decision purposes on the web.

But having had a stillbirth in the time window for which you have to have been trying to concieve to be eligable for IVF on the NHS would suggest that any medical problem is not with concieving which is what IVF is a treatment for. Taking into account that there is a higher risk of stillbirths and miscarriages after IVF it would seem very inappropriate to offer it shortly after a miscarriage.

But surely you could be both having difficulty conceiving and having suffering with miscarriages? If that's the case, IVF is still appropriate.

Why is it a feminist issue? What about the role of the man in all this, it most certainly does not just affect women. You guys are forever going on about how a man should have equal role in childcare and raising kids etc. but when it comes to the heartache of experiencing a still birth or going through IVF it becomes a 'wimmin's issue', and men have no feelings on it?

IMO anything can be looked at through a feminist lens. I am happy to read any posts in this section.

Birth/maternity care/miscarriage/still-birth/contraception/reproductive assistance/abortion etc all very much feminist issues IMO.

Men become parents too of course but the above effect women's bodies.

It can be hard to raise awareness of the above issues due to IMO there not being 50% women in politics/media etc.

It's great that MN is running their miscarriage awareness campaign and there is an awareness campaign re stillbirth "counting the kicks".

My personal opinion is that someone with no DC should have the same access to IVF regardless of whether they have ever conceived/ever had a miscarriage/stillbirth.

Anyone who is asking "why this is a feminist issue" or why is it being discuss here are or course welcome to stay here and debate the issue or start a thread in which ever section they find most appropriate.

would a man be refused IVF on the grounds an ex partner of his has a stillbirth?

Rollon2012 - I wouldn't have thought so but in probably more importantly the information would not arise in treatment in the new relationship as the question to the man (and woman) would be - do you have any DCs - and the man would answer "no". A woman answering "no" would of course have as part of her notes information about all previous PGs.