The Friday Question

[Oneeyedvic]

On the back of the news story earlier this week regarding a Romanian 66 year old giving birht:

 

Should the NHS offer free fertility treatment to anyone.

 

Just to kick this off - personally I think not for two main reasons.

 

1) There are plenty of children who need to be adopted / fostered.

 

2) If you really want to give birth, you should save up yourself. If you can't afford to save up, then you really shouldn't have a child.

[Slainte]

The NHS offering free fertility treatment is very worthwhile, but at the moment the NHS is in a complete state and can barely organise a hip replacement on time. 

They should be able to deliver more basic requirements competently before offering something like fertility treatment.  We are lucky in this country to have an NHS, but in order to keep it going maybe we should consider what it is for?

[SGKelloe32]

Well, yeah, I agree it should be offered to some people who are unable to have children. It doesn’t cost the rest of the population money to get pregnant naturally, so why should those who are desperate to have a child, but unable to conceive naturally have to pay thousands of pounds just to try to get pregnant?

I do not agree, however to them offering it to people of that age (past retirement) like the Romanian woman. But for couples who are in their prime, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be offered free. After all, if you really wanted something so badly, and you had the choice between paying thousands of pounds for it or getting it free, would you pay? No? Didn’t think so!

[Miss Zippy]

In an ideal world, I think the NHS should offer fertility treatment freely to couples who fall within sensible criteria (e.g. those within a certain age range and who have exhausted other avenues).  By saying if a couple can�t afford to save up the fees for private fertility treatment, then they shouldn�t have children, isn�t that kind of analogous to saying if a person can�t afford to save up fees to pay for a triple heart bypass privately then they shouldn�t smoke? I appreciate there�s a difference in that infertility is not life-threatening but the NHS doesn�t exist just to provide life saving treatment. Taking it to the extreme, if you think that people should only have children once they�ve achieved a certain level of financial security, then what do we do about teenagers/those earning the minimum wage/ people on benefits who become pregnant (naturally)?

[Oneeyedvic]

Sorry, there seems to be no logic to the "people should get it for free".

 

You say "Why should those desperate to have a child.....pay thousands" - well why not. Is giving birth 'naturally' a right now then?

 

If you really want something then why shouldn't you have to pay for it - it would also show commitment.

 

And can I have a car free please - I really really want one but can't afford one - and everyone I know seems to have one..........

[buchanan]

If your reproductve system isn't working properly - then the nhs should help fix it - they try to fix other bits and pieces.  Eyes / ovaries or whatever - no difference - is seeing properly some kind of right now?

[keen2learn]

I think childlessness may be more of an issue nowadays because we can fix so many problems and conditions that infertility isn't accepted with any sense of fatalism any more, but seen as something amenable to correction. My personal belief is that we need to be able to look after the health and social needs of the people already here before spending huge sums on trying to bring more into being, and that infertility treatment is a luxury that shouldn't be covered by the already struggling NHS. However, I accept that it's easy to have an opinion like that on something I haven't experienced, and maybe people living with the pain of infertility will justifiably resent my views.

[Oneeyedvic]

Buchanan - last time I checked I can't get get eye tests / glasses / laser eye corretion for free. I have to save up and pay for it - unless I was on state benefits.

 

As I said - I really think people ought to pay for treatment that is nor life threatening. Plenty of children need adopting / fostering so if a couple wants to become parents, there are options ovpen to them. Why 'waste' thousands on a 'luxury'.

[SGKelloe32]

You can by no means compare a baby to a car oneeyedvic! I am presuming from your question and your opinions that you are obviously male and could therefore never understand in the slightest the needs of a woman to give birth to her own child and realising that she cant? Its the biggest form of devastation that she could face! So why shouldnt the NHS help to cover the costs? I know a couple who have gone almost bankrupt through trying to concieve a baby through IVF and it adds to the heartache knowing the money has been wasted! If the NHS offered all fertility treatment free i wouldnt see it as a bad thing!

Miss Zippy, i like your point about the heart bypass! And to add to your other point oneeyedvic, i didnt have to save up to have my child, so does that mean i shouldnt have her yet, or that i am not commited????  I rest my case.....

[Oneeyedvic]

SGKelloe - Yes, I am a man, but do not think this is relevant - just as I can have an opinion on most things I do not have experience of. To try and say you can't have an opinion on something you can't possibly experience is ridiculous.

 

I also truly understand the feeling a woman goes through - my wife can't conceive and so she adopted her children (previous marriage).

 

I know plenty of people who have gone bankrupt on spending money to - I don't see your point.

 

If you are trying to say that a woman cannot feel complete unless she gives birth then I question that woman. Do you think every women are simply put on this earth to have children? You do not say anything about a man's devestation as to a low sperm count.

 

I simply point to the fact that there are plenty of options open to people, so why should a cash strapped NHS pay for treatment on something that is not needed. Clearly it is not the same as heart surgery - this is something that is needed to cure a person. IVF in no way cures a person.

 

I did not say at any stage that you should save up money to have a child - I merely point out that if someone cannot afford to save up a few thousand pounds to have a child and demands that the state should pay, maybe they shouldn't have one and have their priorities wrong.

[Greedyfly]

Thast

[Greedyfly]

Thats a bit harsh!   I would like to have children and I do believe I have every right to - but I don't like the idea of adoption for my first child, I have nothing against don't get me wrong and I am glad so many people do adopt - but I am not sure I could do that.  I want to carry my baby etc... maybe after my first child I would adopt - I want to experience the pregnancy stuff though.  I just hope that if I can't get pregnant for whatever reason that I would be able to have fertility treatment. I do believe there should be an age as to when babys should not be concieved because it is selfish to have a child knowing you only have maybe 10-15 years left to live.  The money I would save on paying for fertility tretment (which isn't 100% foolproof) I would use to bring up my baby.  Babies are expensive to look after and I would want my child to have the best like any parent would.I feel me spending thousands once or twice in the hope of getting pregnant is not productive if I got pregnant - that money could go towards my child.  If the fertility treatment was 100% bang on the nose you will get pregnant then I would robably pay for it myself.

[buchanan]

Oneeyedvic - there are many conditions which are not life threatening but which you can have treated on the nhs.  My point is that it is illogical and unfair to treat reproductive problems differently and indeed many health authorities take that view.  What is wrong is the post code lottery that exists.

I applaud your wife for pursuing adoption and think it wonderful that that approach worked for her.  However, I think you may be in danger of being narrow minded and unwittingly cruel if you can't take on board that adoption and / or saving up for assisted means of conception (which can run into many tens of thousands of pounds) are the only valid responses to the misery of infertillity.  

[gedk]

I speak as a woman who has gone through the pain of infertility and luckily conceived through IVF which we had to pay for privately by the way as my husband already has children from a previous marriage (even though I don't although thats a whole other issue)

I have no problem with people receiving fertility treatment on the NHS and do not agree with the comment that it is a luxury. The NHS treats thousands of people each year with self inflicted conditions brought on by alcoholism, drug addiction etc, oneeyedvic what are your thoughts on treatment for these people - do you think they should have to pay and what should  happen to them if they can't?

Oneeyedvic you say "people ought to pay for treatment that is not life threatening" If you were horribly disfigured in a fire and required hours of cosmetic surgery to make you look better or you lost a limb in an accident should the NHS not treat you unless you could pay, after all you won't die being horribly scarred or without a limb. I presume using your logic that you would be more than happy to pay privately to have your arm or leg re attached !

Can I ask if you have ever had to have medical treatment for any non life threatening conditions from the NHS and if so how would you have felt if you had had to pay for that treatment.

[Oneeyedvic]

Gedk - I applaud the fact that you have padi for IVF. THis is my point. You have children already - why should the state have to pay for another.

 

I have reread my previous comment, and admit that I have phrased what I mean incorrectly.

 

I should have said something along the lines of, the NHS cannot cope with having to treat all the major / minor ailments for the population of this country. People have to wait months before they can have 'simple' operations. They have to live in discomfort unless they can afford to go private and pay for it. With some people when they get to a certain age they are denied operations (my mother in law was denied a hip replacement as at 72 she was too old).

 

Yes, some people abuse themselves by alcoholism etc, however, where do you draw the line? My point is that the hippocratic oath is along the lines of not denying people treatment. Yes, if someone self inflicts I do believe they should be elligble for treatment.

 

I still do not see a reason why (as previously stated) tens of thousands of pounds should be 'wasted' as someone cannot conceive.

 

Why not adopt, or why not admit you can't have children.

 

I wear glasses - I can't fly a plane - I don't sit around and whinge about it. If I wanted to spend my own money I could have laser surgery and be able to fly.Why should anyone else have to pay for it? Or do you think this should be available free?

 

I am not trying to be 'unwittingly cruel', i am simply stating what I see as a very obvious fact. It seems to me that we can't just accept if there is a problem - firstly we have to overcome it, and then it seems it must be our 'goddamn right' to have this treatment free!

[stevie21]

I'm tempted just to say that I agree with Oneeyedvic and leave it at that but this whole thing is such a can of worms - it's a complete grey area. I suppose it's akin to saying that we shouldn't donate money to charities which are helping the Tsunami victims because we have our own homeless etc. to sort out first.
I'm also biased as I'm a man & I'd be over the moon to spend all of my life never having children so this sutiation wouldn't put me at a loss in the slightest.

[FP]

I too tend to agree with Vic.  I had a child at 36 naturally but after years.  However, I would have adopted or fostered if I could not have children.  But we are all different and infertility can be a dreadful thing for some couples - so if they can be helped so much the better.  However, I do not think infertility should be a high priority issue for the NHS.  Treatment of any illness should come way up higher.