Ivf On The Nhs

[mrs_overall]

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?

[woofgang]

"Should a woman rendered infertile by a debilitating condition such as endometriosis not be given IVF when pregnancy nearly always cures endometriosis?"

I thought you were advocating it as a treatment from this comment. Now, if it was a cure then I would advocate it too.....

[joko]

i disagree evian - if it was available freely for anyone on the NHS - you dont think people would take advantage?
People who cant be bothered to try for possibly a year or more?

there are a fair few couples who, having tried for only a few months, get all upset and angry because it hasn't work when they wanted it to and start wanting help etc then when they are found to have no medical reason why it hasn't happened - just bad luck, they start wanting treatment

i have met a few myself, who have had this attitude

[woofgang]

joko they might think its a good idea but the journey of IVF is horrendous...not something anyone would enter into lightly once they know what it entails.

[NoMercy]

Woofgang, read my entire reply to Baldric's post...

[woofgang]

I did read it. Your argument (or part of it) for allowing IVF on the NHS is that it cures endometriosis......

[anneasquith]

I agree woof, ivf is very hard work, and requires a lot of determination by both people, I have a friend who had one treatment, but declined a second, she said her marriage would not have survived because of her behaviour because of the drugs,

[NoMercy]

No that's not my argument at all, woof. My argument is thatpeople pay into the pot and support others all their working lives and funding and support should be there for them when they need it.

Being infertile is a medical condition, being a drunken pudding isn't...how come then the drunken pudding gets treatment on the NHS and the poor tax-paying infertile woman doesn't.

[naomi24]

//how come then the drunken pudding gets treatment on the NHS and the poor tax-paying infertile woman doesn't. //

The drunken pudding may also be a poor tax-paying woman whose immediate need happens to be more urgent than that of the poor tax-paying woman.

[Iluvspikey]

I totally agree with you Mrs O, people see having children as a right and not a privilege. I suppose it's easy for me to sit here with my three children, but if I wanted a new nose or a boob job, I wouldn't expect for others to pay for it

[Jeza]

I will admit to not reading all the answers, so if anyone has already made this point I apologise.

A young Mother of 3 children was diagnosed with cancer. The drugs she needed were too expensive the family were told. She died. Husband had to give up work and go on benefit. He lost his house and ended up in a crappy rented house, the rent paid for by benefit. He struggles to live day to day. Yet vast amounts of money goes in to IVF. but none to a cancer patient with 3 kids.

[anneasquith]

I think you have hit the nail on the head spikey '' sitting here with my 3 children''

[sherrardk]

I took ages to conceive with my first and looking back I think I would have become a complete basket case if I had been unable to have a child. Years ago IVF wasn't an option but now it is (and it is reasonably cheap). I rarely go to the doctors for myself so I am not costing the NHS much, my share of the pot can go towards IVF.

[NoMercy]

The drunken pudding is undoubtedly drunk through choice, no woman who desperately wants a baby chooses to be infertile and yet the latter is branded the selfish one for wanting treatment on the NHS.

To freely treat the former whilst denying the latter beggars belief.

[woofgang]

sherrard, its not a pot, it works like insurance. What you have paid in also "insures" your children who are not contributing and will "insure" you when you no longer work.

[craft1948]

No I don't think it should be available on the NHS. If you can't afford to fund your own IVF you can't afford to bring up a child.

[NoMercy]

Nose jobs and boob jobs are cosmetic procedures carried out by people with image hang-ups, spikey. How on earth can you rationally compare that to some woman whose childlessness is down to a medical condition?

Baffling, truly baffling.

[sherrardk]

I'm fully aware it's not a pot but some people have loads of NHS treatment for various reasons (some self inflicted - drink, drugs, alcohol, even sports injuries) but I think it is cruel to deny IVF for the relatively small number of people seeking it. Did you know it costs 2 - 2 1/2 K for braces to be fitted? I would rather the money be spent on IVF.

[naomi24]

//To freely treat the former whilst denying the latter beggars belief.//

But we have no choice. If someone is unwell, we must give them medical treatment. Or should we leave them in the street to die?

[Jeza]

Nom. It sounds to me like you want IVF yourself. Could be wrong though. You do appear to be fighting for it to be available to all.

[NoMercy]

In theory you are right, Craft. However I daresay many couples who have conceived naturally and reared their children with their monthly income have never had £3-8k in savings at any one time. Many people can afford to bring a child up but simply do not have a lump sum to shell out on IVF in the first instance.