Donate SIGN UP

Ivf On The Nhs

Avatar Image
mrs_overall | 06:27 Sun 19th May 2013 | Society & Culture
170 Answers
Another post on population growth got me thinking about this. The NHS is already stretched to capacity and infertility is not a life threatening illness. IMO no one has the "right" to have a child and I don't see why NHS resources should be spent on IVF,
Your thoughts?


61 to 80 of 170rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by mrs_overall. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
NoM, // If a drug or treatment is available on the NHS and the patient is eligible for that treatment, they would never be denied it on cost grounds.//

True, but if drugs are available that the NHS can’t afford to buy due to money being spent on non-essential procedures, the patient is most definitely denied them. ‘Need’ should take precedence over ‘want’ – and the public purse should not be used to provide people's 'wants'.
Question Author
Good point naomi - there is a world of difference between need and want
a new thread, why. its similar to the original OP. ie NHS resources.
Anne, it's not very respectful to the OP to start steering the debate in another direction. If you wish to ask a question, perhaps you should start your own thread.

Moreover, I suspects you have your wooden spoon firmly in your grip, for you know full well my ex had a vasectomy reversal on the NHS.

Naomi, I agree with you about NHS waste and in principal I agree with you about need vs want but 80% of treatment given or carried out by the NHS is non-essential.

Bottom line....I see infertility as a medical condition and treatment should be available in my opinion.
no disrespect nom.........but your experience was not uppermost in my mind. I don't have that good a memory :)
//80% of treatment given or carried out by the NHS is non-essential.//

If that's true, given that the NHS is stretched to breaking point, perhaps it's time for a serious re-think then. I recently waited for 11 hours for an ambulance to take a seriously ill lady to hospital.
Oh I'm sure you do, anne.

However I am not going to argue with wouldn't mentally challenging enough for me.

Off out for breakfast now. Take care all x
you missed a B,,,,,,,,,,,,,have a nice day ya all :O
Oh dear.
Very quickly...the Ambulance Service is very overstretched...largely due to responding to non-emergencies. That is a separate issue to be tackled.

Binge-drinking culture is also a huge burden on Ambulances and A&Es. Now I would be more than happy to refuse treatment to drunks. You live by the sword, you can die by the sword...
I think a while back I'd have said yes, it should be available. But my opinions changing on it.

I think at the least there should be some sort of contribution system, whereby the patient has to foot a certain amount of the bill. But if it came down to a simple yes or no then I'd be inclined to say no.

Having recently watched a local family have to raise over £250,000 to send their child to the states for proton beam therapy to treat a brain tumour, I'd rather see funds go towards seeing that treatment, and others become more readily available in this country. (I realise the nhs does fund some of this overseas treatment).

Those who are unable to conceive do have alternative options. I appreciate that many women would want to carry and give birth to their own child but there are some thing in life we have to accept are just not possible.
NoM, I don't think it should be a separate issue. We pay for the NHS to provide a service - we're not getting it. Funds should be spent where they're needed, not where they're wanted.
The Ambulance Service is run separately, Naomi. The issue of people calling for an Ambulance because they have a sore throat is very much a separate issue and one which requires some immediate attention. Personally I think drunks and time-wasters should be fined.
NoM, I know it is - but it's still under the umbrella of the NHS and it's funded from the same public purse.
Incidentally, we waited for that ambulance from 4pm on a Tuesday afternoon until 3am on Wednesday morning, so I doubt very much if the delay was due to drunks.
It is disappointing to continually read Sqads dismissal of calls for evidence and attempts by posters to present links to impartial evidence bases. There is a hierarchy of evidence, Sqad. Anecdote comes bottom of the list.

If we exclude the actual objective evidence, we become reliant solely upon personal recollection and experience - anecdote- which, simply, is unreliable as an evidence base purely because it so subjective.It is indicative, not conclusive.

It is legitimate to question whether elements of the services available within the NHS should be available,but what is the intent? Is it purely to save money? Again, no problem with that - we should continually question whether we are getting value for money.

Fertility treatment though- Does it really fall within the class of unneccesary or superfluous treatments? Fertility problems can certainly be medical. Restrictions are put in place to try and ration it - again, a sensible option, it seems to me.

I was interested in the costs Mrs_O was offering as being the cost of fertility treatment on the NHS - £400 million is a lot, no question - but I have no idea where it comes from.

Based upon my own quick search, the only recent article i can find which discusses the costs of IVF to the NHS comes from The Telegraph.

Their estimate of cost to the NHS is as follows;
1. 1 cycle of IVF costs between £3000 - £8000.
2. in 2011, there were 61,000 cycles of IVF offered in Britain, 4/10 of which were funded by the NHS - By their estimate comes to an annual spend of £60m, which is significantly different from that estimate of £400m.
3. Under new proposals, this apparently is set to almost double, at an additional annual cost of £65m.

Personally, I think IVF should continue to be allowed on the NHS, but eligibility should be tightened to restrict the candidates more, not extended. And again I wish more people might explore adoption or fostering - this would be something to be encouraged.

These are the current guidelines for eligibility for IVF

And this is the recent Telegraph article, discussing cost to the NHS of IVF treatment;
Question Author
This is where I got the figure of £400 million from....and I have read the same figure elsewhere
why shouldnt the nhs fund ivf!!!!! look at the millions of pounds that are wasted on drug addicts!!! and on other self inflicted illnesses....
@ Mrs_O Thanks for the link. Actually, I agree with much of what informs the article. There are legitimate reasons to compare treatment restrictions etc.I do wish though, that they were able to show how they arrived at a figure of £400m a year.
great links, thanks lazy g.

61 to 80 of 170rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last