New I V F Rules?? Why Do They Even Do It At All On The N H S ?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxr9w7d4llo

As much as I sympathise with the woman in the link, the NHS is there for sick people not to help create more people. There is not a shortage of people. If you want IVF pay privately. The NHS should not be doing IVF at all, end of.

[nicebloke1]

It can affect some women very badly if they cant have a child. So you can look on it as an health issue now or later. 

For those who can afford it then they should not really use the NHS if possible

[naomi24]

I agree TTT.   It shouldn't be available on the NHS.

[nicebloke1]

And before you come back with an insult of a kind, it can also have an affect on a couples marriage sometimes, then that creates even more depression. OK

[brainiac]

Shouldn't be available on the over-strtched NHS, which exists to prevent and cure disease.  Childlessness, however unfortunate, is not an illness.

[youngmafbog]

I agree too TTT.

We need to work out what we want from the NHS, something that helps the sick and is affordable and achievable or an all singing all dancing service that is not financially viable nor achievable.

Whilst I have every sympathy with couples who cant conceive perhaps it would be better down to charaties to help out?

[ToraToraTora]

Nicebloke, wind in the gregory me old china. This is a debate and I welcome your views as part of our discussion. I still don't think that the NHS should be burdened with IVF but that's my view and the purpose of this discussion. You don't have to come to every post looking for a fight. Even the most mortal enemies can find common ground.

[nicebloke1]

Looking for a fight? Only in your eyes. Me, responding to your OP nothing more.

[chelle7272]

I agree, whilst I sympathise,  IVF should not be available on the NHS. It is not what it is for.

There are so many children that need a loving home, I could wish that that would be enough of a solution for those who desperately want a child, though I understand for some women only having their own will do. 

 

[rowanwitch]

As someone who was child free not by choice I understand why many would want the full range of infertility treatment to be available.  However, right now and going forward I cannot see how the cost can be justified in the face of other pressing demands on the healthcare system.

There have been arguments put forward that not providing this service is discriminatory as only the well off could 'buy' a chance to be parents, and it was also argued under section 8 of the human rights act, but I believe it was discounted as it was meant to protect existing families, not the right to create new ones.

On the other side there is the long term cost implication of dealing with the high incidence of severe depressive illness in those who do desperately want a child, and longer term the loss of a potential working member of a society with a significantly ageing population.   

I wonder if a solution might be a low interest loan system to pay for IVF or related treatments might be a way forward,  just a thought.

 

[youngmafbog]

Just go away nicebloke, you are becoming a really obnoxious little bore.  There was no need for your little rider whatsoever, most would have appologised for it - but not you of ncourse.

 

[jackthehat]

The NHS is too cash-strapped to, presently, be funding a solution to something which makes people sad.

It should be focusing on stopping pain, restoring mobility and removing/alieviating life-threatening conditions.

Private IVF clinics ought to be regulated more closely and the cost brought down to more reasonable levels.

 

[JJ109]

I am sitting on the fence with this issue - it is my opinion that IVF should be available on the NHS to some, but not all!

I have gone through this with my wife! My wife had one miscarriage and then two ectopic pregnancies which then meant that she could not conceive.

She was suicidal after the second ectopic pregnancy and our marriage suffered tremendously. Her mental state was horrendous and she wanted to leave me so that I could have a family with someone else! I came home one day and found her trying to slash her wrists!

IVF was in its infancy in those days and success rates were not as high as they are now  (early 1990s) and it was suggested we apply for IVF. It was subsidised but we still  had to pay 800 pounds for each of two attempts. Although it was unsuccessful for us, just the trying assisted my wife in her recovery!

For some people I certainly think it is a health matter (mental health) and should be available on the NHS, but I also think that most should contribute towards it.

[Ryzen]

If you cant afford the IVF,  you cant afford the kids.

[albaqwerty]

I believe it doesn't have a high success rate.

Being a parent isn't a right, limit it to 2 cycles on the NHS if it has to be on the NHS at all.

[ToraToraTora]

Bang on jack, BA

JJ109, I sympathise but if it's that important, make sacrifices, go private.

[douglas9401]

Maybe means testing, so beloved of successive governments will find its way to this thorny issue.

They've managed it with more personal economic issues so why not?

[Ryzen]

Great idea doug.....so only those that cant afford kids get IVF.

[douglas9401]

I'm guessing you meant to pop a question mark on the end of your inclusive remark.

[davebro3]

Some friends paid privately for several IVF procedures without success and ended up adopting 2 year old twins. 10 years on - a very happy family.

The adoption process was quite rigorous though & might deter many.

[Untitled]

The UK population needs to have more children because our population is ageing. that is a good reason to make IVF available on the NHS.