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?

[Sqad]

LazyGun.

I am sorry i seem to disappoint you more and more......I don't do it on purpose.
I was educated with a "smattering " of statistics and only in the past decade have i queried their veracity and accuracy and that doesn't apply just to medical statistics.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
—Mark Twain
Apparently freed of all the squishiness and ambiguity of words, numbers and statistics are powerful pieces of evidence that can effectively strengthen any argument. But statistics are not a panacea.
As simple and straightforward as these little numbers promise to be, statistics, if not used carefully, can create more problems than they solve.
The average reader does not know how to properly evaluate and interpret the statistics he or she reads. The main reason behind the poor use of statistics is a lack of understanding about what statistics can and cannot do. Many people think that statistics can speak for themselves. But numbers are as ambiguous as words and need just as much explanation

Numbers have to be accurate, input has to be non biased and the reader has to be educated and not "bamboozled" into believing them.

I am indeed disappointed in your relegation of anecdotal evidence to "bottom of the list".......it may be.....but it may well have a much more solid basis than some statistics.

BUT......I always look forward to your posts........some of the links that you give however,do need that special brain that i mentioned above, to decipher them.

[China Doll]

As a woman without children and with PCOS so a decent possibility that I may not be able to conceive, I do still think that IVF should not be available widely on the NHS. I think there are situations in which an illness or indeed the cure for a life threatening illness can make someone infertile and in those cases then yes, I do think IVF should be available. I would say the same about sperm storage for men. I tend to agree that it is not a right to have children and I don't see infertility as a medical condition that needs treatment.

That said, while it is available on the NHS then I don't see why people shouldn't take full advantage of the fact and I'd always point them in the right direction.

I do have similar feelings about transgender surgery but I think this is possibly an even more complex area (having worked a bit in the field), as it is linked directly with mental health. However from my extremely limited experience, i don't think transgender patients are very well managed in terms of their mental health and I also think that a lot of the ones I saw were trying to escape other issues by changing their gender, (leaving aside the fact that one simply can't escape from yourself or your past), I can only think of a handful where I really thought, 'yeah, this is going to be properly life changing and good for you'.

All very tricky and I don't know the answers. Difficult to understand if you haven't walked in the shoes of those who suffer I guess.

[jim360]

I forced myself to read this entire thread before posting. Prior to that I was going to say "yes to IVF, definitely" but I'm having second thoughts. Thanks to all then for their opinions.

I don't think you should link IVF with population growth, as that growth in population in the Western world is -- well, not negligible, but not as significant as in developing countries, which is driving the current explosion. But the money arguments and "need v. want" are significant.

[woofgang]

I am a childless not by choice woman and have been saying for years that treatment that is only intended to result in children and not to improve health should not be funded on the NHS. The issue about treatment for cancer on the NHS in my experience is that the decision process takes too long (as does getting appointments) and the criteria are too tight. Where I live, dialysis treatment is insufficiently funded, as is palliative care. I accept that my experience regarding cancer treatment may not be supported either by statistics, policy or the experiences of other people but that doesn't make it any less true.

[NoMercy]

I am somewhat perplexed by the notions that one does not have a right to have a child. Everyone has a right to have a child...what they don't have a right to is state funding to realise that ambition.

I agree entirely with LazyGun in that IVF should be available, but tightly controlled.

Contraception is free in this country. People don't NEED contraception - if they can't afford to pay for it, they could always abstain from sex ;)

The NHS funds Methadone for addicts...should their NEEDS come above the needs of someone who is medically infertile?

[joko]

only if there is a medical reason why they cannot conceive naturally.

if they are examined and found that the chances of them conceiving naturally, is very low then assistance is ok - and even then only after they have exhausted other methods such as checking ovulation etc

not just because they are impatient etc.

or maybe there should also perhaps be a system based on their income which calculates how much they are given, and how much they should have to contribute.

[tamborine]

Bit harsh to deny career women who have spent their best baby-productive years working & supporting other families.

[Baldric]

/// why shouldnt the nhs fund ivf!!!!! ///

Having a child is not a right, as stated in the OP, and being childless is not a life threatening condition, which is what the NHS was set up to deal with, not to pander to vain, self-serving lifestyle choices.

[tamborine]

Tho, it could be reserved to those over 30y.

[marval]

I couldn't have children, but I do not think IVF should be on the NHS. I feel sorry for people who desperately want children and can't, but the NHS money has better uses for it.

[EvianBaby]

Joko, I can't say I'm an expert in the field but I don't believe anyone has IVF because they're 'impatient'.

[gness]

Not the first time I have thought about this...and long and hard when friends were trying to conceive using IVF.
I have two children conceived naturally, but my maternal instincts are not so great that I would have considered IVF to conceive. I would have been as happy childless as I am as a mother. That doesn't make it right for me to feel I should deny others that option if there is a huge desire to have a baby.
The NHS is stretched, partly because they waste so much money and in my experience are bloody inefficient.
So I say yes....IVF should be available on the NHS.

[jim360]

Long time no talk by the way gness!

[tamborine]

All treatment should be limited those with NI or NHS numbers. Our local hospitals (nr Heathrow) is full of peeps who've never paid into the system.

Hospitals try to recover costs but issueing affadavits to foreigners is fruitless.

[gness]

Afternoon Jim...feet up and email catch up tonight....when I have dug up the rest of the garden. x

[woofgang]

gness, your statement though is having a "huge desire" I believe that the NHS should be there to supply health needs, not desires, no matter how huge.

[bednobs]

i don't understrand why people who want IVF can't pay - after all, do they think that bringing up a child is cost free? It costs significantly more than 4k that you would spend on IVF treatment. While the live birth rates from IVF are so low, i think it shouldn't be funded on the NHS - i think it's probably more harmful to mental health to go through treatment and then not et a living child at the end of it. I noted with interest the breakthrough this week whereby selecting the "right" embryo can increase the chances of success threefold

[mrs_overall]

I would just like to say that while I hold a firm belief that the NHS should NOT pay for IVF, I am not heartless and I do sympathise with those who want children but are unable to do so for medical reasons

[tamborine]

They spent all their savings, £40,000. A professional couple who have paid NI

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2314940/The-70m-1-quads-IVF-mothers-double-set-identical-twins-defy-odds.html

11 kids all on Income support….only NI they know is ‘no idea’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281172/Mother-11-having-400k-taxpayer-funded-house-built-says-in.html

[NoMercy]

Having a child is everyone's right, the question is whether NHS funding idea right...

The NHS spend millions treating people for excess of alcohol intake, smoking-related illnesses and obesity, not to mention patching up the injuries of those who turn up to A&E cut and bloodied following a pub brawl.

Some people simply cannot conceive naturally and cannot afford several thousand £££s in one go to fund IVF, despite working their arses off and paying into the system.

In paying your taxes and being a decent citizen, you are doing your bit for society. Why society willingly gives to those who never contribute, keeping them in cigarettes, leggings, iPads and 42" flat screen television a lá familia Philpott whilst denying childless couples the once in a lifetime chance to have a family is beyond me...

In my opinion IVF is a much more deserving treatment and more worthy of funding than a lot of the treatment paid for by the NHS.