Ivf On The Nhs - I Dont Understand How This Is Discriminatory

bednobs | 22:49 Mon 08th Nov 2021 | Body & Soul

79 Answers

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59206378
i read this story and found it very difficult to understand why these women say the policy is discriminatory, or why thier solicitors have taken th case on.
you either have to have been trying to get pregnant having unprotected sex for 2 years or have tried 12 rounds of insemination before being eligible on the NHS
This is no different between women in couples with men, single women, or lesbian couples. So in my mind it is not discriminatory.
I get very annoyed and the amount of money the NHS will have to pay for this judicial review. The NHS is on it's knees, and will offer the procedure if they fulfil the criteria whatever their orientation.
it wouldnt surprise me if the policy was altered to the detriment of ALL following this case), giving this couple the equality they want, meaning everyone can't get the procedue any more

Can You Get Hiv From A Rectal Exam By A Doctor?

Memory Jogged - Flashbacks Returned

Answers

61 to 79 of 79

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by bednobs. 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.

jennyjoan

I know of another couple male and female were turned down for adoption as well and they are loaded with money. I also know a reason was never given to them. They were pretty young at the time too. A lovely couple too.

naomi24

Deskdiary, //***Unpopular opinion alert*** //

Your opinion isn't unpopular with me. It's spot on.

I too know several people over 40 who have successfully adopted - two of them welcoming very young children into their homes who, having been born to drug addicted mothers, will have their own problems in life. One couple are male and, like the other, are making a spiffing job of parenting. I think the adoption process is rather more open now than it used to be.

pixie374

I hope so.... nobody is prechecked before being allowed to keep their own. And while we very much don't want a free-for-all, there seem to be infinite hoops to jump through, to adopt.
No child "needs" perfect parents anyway. And living in Care doesn't work well.

davebro

It took my friends about 2 years to get through the adoption process - going to interviews, group sessions, home visits etc.

pixie374

Another unpopular opinion alert-
While there are cases where adoption is clearly the only solution, it is "always" damaging to both mum and child. It does amaze me (although we live in the dark ages still)... how many adults would be prepared to change their life, finances, time, for somebody else's child, but wouldn't use it to support them staying with the mother. It's exceptionally rare, that that isn't healthiest all round.
One day, that will be our aim- to keep families together when at all possible, with whatever levels of support needed.

Deskdiary

It goes without saying adoption agencies should undertake due diligence to ensure they are not placing children with nutcases and who, hopefully, will give them a safe and loving home, but two years seems an awfully long time.

In that time Wayne and Waynetta could have popped-out a Chantelle and a Tyler.

Redhelen72

Davebro - I am in NI and I have been through that process twice.

pixie374

They also shouldn't be removing children from young or inexperienced parents, who want them, but need support. Which, unfortunately, is also happening.

youngmafbog

I'm with TTT and DD (apart from the ramming down the throat which as Douglas says wont help).

It's a shame you were considered too old at 40 RH, I have known others who have fallen down the trap of trying and trying and by the time you are told you cant have them naturally you are considered too old.

The adoption process is a bit to bureaucratic IMHO. I had to jump through no end of hoops to adopt my wifes child - and she was living with us! Bizarrely she had to go through the process too.

youngmafbog

//They also shouldn't be removing children from young or inexperienced parents, who want them, but need support. Which, unfortunately, is also happening.//

Really, in my experience they try everything to keep them together. Too often though there are other issues and they have a duty of care to the child. I can imagine AB if one wasnt removed, the SS would be hauled over the coals.

pixie374

My point is ymb, that children thrive better with their own average parents, than they do with excellent Foster carers or adopters. They will claim they do everything to keep families together- but time, practicality, expense, means it doesn't always happen.
It isn't always a "last resort" from dangerous parents- but often, the easiest.

AuntPG

RH If you were turned down for adopting because of your age I find that very unfair. I was 42 when I had my youngest son, 40 is no age these days.

pixie374

40 is ridiculous as a limit. You could have your own up to about 55, without having them removed due to age.

Redhelen72

I was turned down at 40 and then again at 47
Its absolutely heartbreaking and of course at 40 I was too old to go through IVF on the NHS

pixie374

Helen, that may purely be because it's less effective? Isn't there only about a 20% chance for people in their 20s?
But- a young teen, could easily naturally have parents in their 50s. I genuinely don't see what the limits are about. Many grandparents bring up their grandchildren, for different reasons, much older than that.

Canary42

One of those very rare occasions where I agree with TTT (it has happened once before IIRC).

pixie374

While I respect your views, canary, you obviously don't understand much about women. Maybe listen.... first, before deciding broodiness is logical....