IVF on the NHS

[AB Editor]

 

This poll is closed.

Should IVF be available on the NHS?

• No. - 141 votes
• 59%
• Yes. - 97 votes
• 41%

See final stats

Stats until: 10:45 Sat 27th Apr 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)

© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.

[jackthehat]

As the Ed says, perhaps the difference in the vote wouldn't be so stark if there were additional 'qualifiers' that people could devolve their "No" vote into...

[craft1948]

If the NHS had a limitless budget I wouldn't see a problem, but it hasn't, and I would rather the funds it has go elsewhere.

[cazzz1975]

the NHS has become such that even life threatening illnesses and serious diseases are being compromised due to cost cutting, I do agree with craft but I can see helens point as well, there is no right answer here unfortunately :/

[steg]

i agree Sara some people can't see beyond their own door step, they think they have a god given rite to have bairns and that every one else should pay for them.

[emmie]

Some people can see beyond their own doorsteps, but perhaps the money could be better spent elsewhere. Sorry whether you have children or not, there is only so much money to go round, its not a bottomless pit, and if this on based on todays story of the woman who said it was her divine right to have IVF treatment on the NHS, then no it isn't. It may not be black and white as some have said, there are variables, but an open door policy on IVF for any woman as her right, no.

[sara3]

steg, not a "god given rite" but some deserve an opportunity to try.

[jno]

agree with craft. I willingly support the NHS but I'd sooner my pound went to someone with cancer, or someone needing constant pain ameliorating, rather than someone who wants a child. And basically, it is an either/or situation; the system can't meet the wishes of every claimant in the country. Priorities have to be drawn up. I'd put IVF very low on the list, along with sex-change operations - I've nothing against either but I think there are much more serious proboems to treat.

[steg]

as i keep saying Sara, if you can't have children, then why not adopt or foster, or is it all about the parents and what they want and not the actual children them selves

[China Doll]

I'm one of the people that said no, I say it having worked for a department that dealt with fertility issues, usually the problem being with the fella. As I said, medical grounds, you get my support but just because you want them and can't afford to go private? Absolutely not.

I am also one of those women who may not be able to have children herself.

[4getmenot]

I voted yes but depends on situation. Ok heres my situation. My boyfriend had cancer. He had some sperm frozen before he had to undergo chemo etc, so if we cant have children we would have to go down IVF route, so why should we have to pay?

[JonnyBoy12]

The NHS is there to save people's lives from life threatening illnesses and diseases, not pander to people's whims. Infertility is a problem to those couples who have it, but it is not life threatening. The National Health Service does not pay for cosmetic surgery, and has to draw the line somewhere. It is grossly underfunded and understaffed, and some even call it the National Sickness Service. There are enough people in the world already, and those couples who can not have children should adopt them. I am sorry, but that is the way I feel. Just see the poll for those who agree with me.

[sara3]

steg, I'm not quite sure why your comebacks are just for my benefit.

perhaps people consider adoption once they have accepted they can not be "natural" parents. having your own child is generally the first choice when it comes to having children.

this is only my opinion. I'm not sure if I need a legal disclaimer here.

[4getmenot]

but isnt cancer a life threatening illness and so any outcome from that should be helped?

[woofgang]

but you can be cured of the cancer and still be infertile so being infertile is not, of itself, life threatening however it is caused.

[4getmenot]

yes I spose, if my bloke is infertile because of his cancer then if I had to pay I would do whatever I could to pay. But would make it so much easier if it were on NHS

[LoftyLottie]

My vote was no as well, for reasons that everybody else has mentioned.

[classylady60]

For my two pennorth, I feel that the NHS shouldn't fund IVF, that if one is meant to have a child/children it will happen, that if it doesn't happen it's not meant. I don't think people should just feel it's their right to have children, however if they are so set on it then I feel it should be done under private medical care. Don't mean to upset anyone but I feel the NHS is for helping the sick and ailing of us, not for things such as fertility.

[4getmenot]

well maybe we will just have to turkey baste it in then

[LoftyLottie]

The NHS is stretched enough. As far as I am concerned it should be purely for health issues.

[4getmenot]

fair enough. I think we would get one try anyway because of his past. Not sure really