Should IVF be available to lesbians?

[TooBigForMyBoots]

And single women? Or should assisted conception only be for infertile women in heterosexual relationships?

But the opposite IS true.

NHS IVF has both a lower and upper BMI
limit (usually between 19 and 25 and sustained for at least 6 months).

I take the point there.

@Eyerollcentral but certain types of infertility are genetic/unavoidable. Same if you are gay/lesbian. It's not a choice.

Admittedly by some interpretation my historic anorexia is a choice, hence I realise I will need to pay privately for IVF.

Type 2 (lifestyle initiated) diabetes and obesity is as much a choice as anorexia. Yet the two are seen very, very differently. That is my point. Why is one me "fucking up my body" and the other "addiction"

Devils advocate now, why aren't we both the same, in the eyes of the NHS??

Absolutely, so did I.

(Sorry, my internet connection is rubbish and I've realised I'm replying out of sync. If it matters - yes, I think UK clinics take a lot of care and do regulate things, but yes, I agree, it is a worry that some women will feel pressured to donate eggs because they can't afford treatment otherwise.)

IVF has a very low rate of success.

No, it doesn't. IVF has a 32% chance of success for women aged 35 and under. A woman in her mid-20s has only a 25/30% chance of conceiving each month.

IVF is more likely to result in a pregnancy that ordinary heterosexual sex - it's just that, if you are a healthy 20 or 30-something person in a straight relationship, it's really cheap to just, well, have sex!

You are concentrating on weight issues in a really unhealthy way. I don’t think the NHS should be funding any fertility treatment. If you don’t meet the criteria for your trust’s access to fertility treatment sorry that’s it. You are also 40, for many trusts including here the cut off for treatment is 41 and even that depends on your egg reserve. The reason for this isn’t to do with choices, it’s to do with the likelihood of the treatment succeeding.

That’s really low? What other treatment that isn’t a matter of life and death does the NHS fund with such a low chance of achieving the desired outcome???

@Eyerollcentral yet earlier me mentioning obesity was unreasonable! Do you not see the hypocrisy??

Look, at my age/with a historic eating disorder, I fully expect to have to fund my own IVF. My point was so should other groups with similar criteria. And same sex couples have no choice in having those other criteria. That was my point.

Same sex couples can become parents without the involvement of fertility services. They just need to make agreements with members of the opposite sex and do it DIY.

Being single is not the same as being infertile so shouldn't qualify someone for IVF. If a heterosexual person wants a child they need a partner.

And I don’t mean naively falling for creepy guys who want to screw lesbians bullshit.

A proper, responsible, sensible agreement. Not a rash and desperate one.

An awful lot do! Looking at one treatment that is considered very successful - statins to prevent heart attacks and strokes. The numbers vary so I am not going to the trouble of finding the most accurate but typically it suggests that you need to treat 60 patients for five years in order to prevent one heart attack.

Nope.
Not on the NHS for people while there are children and babies in care wanting homes.

I don't know, what other treatments do yhet fund? Would love to see the stats if you have them?

The NHS provides every other kind of medical treatment. Treatment options are routinely discussed in terms of their chances of success and indeed denied where the chances of success are low. I’d be interested to know if the 32% figure relates to pregnancy to term or pregnancy.

Also it is important to point out, success is not pregnancy, success is a healthy baby.

You are not painting a complete picture here.
Of the 32% only 20 go on to be a live birth.

Studies show single children born after IVF are found to be nearly twice as likely to be born early, stillborn or die within 28 days of birth compared to singletons conceived naturally.

Yes that’s what I was referring to in my previous post. I’ve known many friends who became pregnant through IVF which sadly did not result in a baby for them.

Thanks for clarifying. I know a friend of mine didn’t go through with IVF as, having a severely disabled close relative herself, she did not feel she could go through with IVF having being advised of the increased risk of having a child with a disability as a result. I know many babies are born perfectly healthy but I think there is a lack of awareness in general that IVF is not without issues for the parents and the child.

And even there your numbers don’t give the full picture; twins/triplets are much more common and even more likely miscarry/premature birth/stillbirth.

Don't look at what the current discussion going on about the nhs. IVF is a complete no no for everyone

Just leaving a message here for any lesbian women who come across this post:
You've probably found this because you are the amazing type of woman who is carefully and lovingly researching how to complete your family.
Please don't be discouraged by this thread, good accurate information and support is out there. You don't deserve to have your life dismantled and discussed in this way: good info can be found on The Fertility Network and lots of kindness can't be found on @lgbt mumies on instagram. Youre not alone, wishing you the best on your journey.

They can be. Single hetero women/lesbians can be both socially and medically infertile. I'm one of them!

Of course. There are also, sadly, many women who fall pregnant naturally and do not go on to birth a live baby.