And so it came to pass: Mail on Sunday - gay male couple offered fertility treatment including surrogacy

[Needmoresleep]

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6636419/Gay-male-couple-offered-IVF-treatment-NHS-time-Britain.html

Oh ffs, think of the women.

Has anyone on the thread said men are evil?

Weird.

I don't understand that case at all. Yes NHS failed to diagnose cervical cancer and is liable for compensation. But surely you get an agreed amount of compensation to spend as you will? To specify FOUR babies seems bizarre and greedy. How can that be the nub of the case? She might get two and find that's enough. One might die. The surrogate might not fall pregnant. How are all these things to be costed and why should the bill fall to the NHS? Plus she could try to find a surrogate in the UK but prefers to go to California for reasons which seem to include some of the issues I previously outlined to do with watertight contracts. But commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK yet she wants the NHS to fund it abroad. Why shouldn't the NHS say well OK but go somewhere cheaper and exploit an impoverished woman in a developing country.
There are so many variables and ifs and buts it's ridiculous. I can't understand why she wouldn't just get her compensation and then she has to make her own choices and take whatever risks she finds acceptable.

I can't understand why she wouldn't just get her compensation and then she has to make her own choices and take whatever risks she finds acceptable.
Presumably because without the cost of surrogacy as a guide, her actual compensation would be much less?

£1.1 million for not being able to have kids is an exceptional finding.
What about every other young woman left infertile by cancer? Does this set a precedent? Bye bye NHS!

Wow, 4 babies. My cancer was missed, I'm infertile and hard of hearing as a result. I have no eggs because there wasn't time.

Little sympathy for her. It's shit but 4 babies?!

Fleetwoodsnack

I'm thinking she's put in costings for four babies.
Maybe she just wants more cash. They can't make her go and have the treatment once they've paid her can they?

Fleetwood I'm so sorry for everything you have been through and ongoing difficulties.

But they don’t need fertility treatment. Presumably both are fertile. They just don’t have a female reproductive system.

And this on the NHS when the NHS is on its knees? No way. The NHS is for funding medical treatment, not lifestyle choices.

They should adopt.

Flying
Presumably because without the cost of surrogacy as a guide, her actual compensation would be much less? * *

But then costings should be based on UK prices. For instance the California version will include a considerable bill for medical expenses that far outstrips the cost of delivering a baby on the NHS.
It's ridiculous that she can just decide she wants to do it the most expensive way and the NHS should pay.

Flying Quite. Wait til all the sterilised trans teens start demanding heir surrogate babies from the NHS.

Their. Not heir.

After having sued the NHS for having prescribed the hormones/allowing the surgeries in the first place.

Sorry wunder
Sorry flying
💐💐

Thanks flying and optimist. Cancer leaves quite a legacy but I'm incredibly lucky to be here at all and that's all down to an amazing team of oncologists, surgeons and health care professionals. I didn't even entertain suing because it would be a kick in the teeth to those who saved my life.

I see my fertility as being a decent trade off for being alive - dead women can't conceive.

However, these stories are like a red rag to a bull. Don't get me started on trans rights to fertility treatment in the future.

I didn't even entertain suing because it would be a kick in the teeth to those who saved my life.
I wish everyone thought like that.

It's a tricky one flying- when the money is to pay for long term healthcare as a result of malpractice I can completely understand it. And I also think there has to be an element of accountability which if no one sued just wouldn't be there. Sadly though, people take the kids like the woman in the article

*Piss

when the money is to pay for long term healthcare as a result of malpractice I can completely understand it. And I also think there has to be an element of accountability which if no one sued just wouldn't be there
Different kettle of fish entirely. I agree with you.

Its the entitlement that gets me.

Over the next few years, I am having to pay a lot of tax. I don't mind as long as it is used sensibly. However "no taxation without representation" should apply. Who is making these decisions of dubiously ethical decisions, which have the potential to be hugely expensive? At which point am I, or those I had a chance to vote for, consulted. Please dont tell me it is based on Stonewall advice.

I mean the kind of try-your-luck litigation, the loophole stuff. "You saved my life but not in exactly the way I wanted".
I've seen it before.
It's a lack of societal awareness, people who claim thousands for whiplash they don't have and then moan that their car insurance has gone up. People who sue for a loose paving slabs (and no, not because they need care, just because they can) and then moan council tax is too high. The new one is suing your holiday company for food poisoning two years after you come home. It's just free money to some people. Probably most people.

At which point am I, or those I had a chance to vote for, consulted.
I pay a fair bit of tax too. We don't get consulted, unfortunately we have to trust in our representatives to make those decisions.
If voters made the decisions child healthcare would be excellent, vet care for cute animals would be free, and old, fat or foreign people would be left to die because they're unpopular. Nothing that was rare would be treated unless it was a child who had it.
We can't make those decisions. We don't elect judges. I guess the only thing we can do is express our disgust, but it won't affect the decision.

No, I want my politicians to be grown ups capable of balancing competeting interests and coming to sensible decisons on behalf of society. I think that is true of most of us. The problem being that current choices are grim.

I am quite happy to have decisions like this looked at in detail by a commission or something. However at the moment anything that falls within Stonewall's perview seems to be decided on using their advice. The woman at least is having to go to court for a decision. The men not. They just have to guilt a couple of women into helping them. Then we pay for the IVF, for any medical care that happens as a result of IVF hormones or birth injuries. And for any lasting effects on a child who never gets to know their biological or birth mother.

Fleetwood
I was given a gynae appointment in October there for December 2019 as it was the first available.

Have you really got to wait until December for an appointment?

I don't know what to suggest. I do sympathise. I assume you are at the mercy of post code lottery. It's definitely not that slow around where I live. Oth in Liverpool the women's hospital is short of seven consultants and can't recruit so I imagine waiting times there are very long.

Sweden is about to outlaw surrogacy.

We should follow suit.