News4 mins ago
Ivf On The Nhs
170 Answers
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?
Your thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mrs_overall. 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.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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.