IVF on the NHS?
Discussion
On the news this morning, apparently N.I.C.E. has OK'd one IVF for childless couples on the NHS, whereas the professional body that represents the peoiple that do it would like three.
Any thoughts? Personally I don't see why I should pay for somebody else to have a kid. I understand why I need to pay for other people getting ill, I might myself one day, but is infertility an illness? I don't think so
Any thoughts? Personally I don't see why I should pay for somebody else to have a kid. I understand why I need to pay for other people getting ill, I might myself one day, but is infertility an illness? I don't think so
Isn't it fair to say that couples that are trying to have children should also have the means to bring up those children. If couples can't afford IVF then they are likely to be the sort of people that also require the state, you and I, to help them financially in their childrens upbringing.
tvrbob said:
Isn't it fair to say that couples that are trying to have children should also have the means to bring up those children. If couples can't afford IVF then they are likely to be the sort of people that also require the state, you and I, to help them financially in their childrens upbringing.
Fair point, in which case I would agree.
Having said that, how much does IVF cost?
tvrbob said:
Isn't it fair to say that couples that are trying to have children should also have the means to bring up those children. If couples can't afford IVF then they are likely to be the sort of people that also require the state, you and I, to help them financially in their childrens upbringing.
yes if they have 50 kids already but its dangerous ground to say the poor cant have kids?!! everyone has the right to have 1 or 2 as surely thats the point of life as well as swinging your arse out around roundabouts!?!
Podie said:About £4k I believe
Isn't it fair to say that couples that are trying to have children should also have the means to bring up those children. If couples can't afford IVF then they are likely to be the sort of people that also require the state, you and I, to help them financially in their childrens upbringing.
Fair point, in which case I would agree.
Having said that, how much does IVF cost?
billb said:
tvrbob said:
Isn't it fair to say that couples that are trying to have children should also have the means to bring up those children. If couples can't afford IVF then they are likely to be the sort of people that also require the state, you and I, to help them financially in their childrens upbringing.
yes if they have 50 kids already but its dangerous ground to say the poor cant have kids?!! everyone has the right to have 1 or 2 as surely thats the point of life as well as swinging your arse out around roundabouts!?!
I agree in principle with the '...everyone has the right to...' but I struggle with affordability. I want a sports car but can't afford the insurance so I buy a sports car and I have a right to demand that you to help me pay the insurance. Children are expensive and I don't think it is sensible to have a child just because you want one. You must also make sure you have the ability to afford that child. Anything less would be akin to child abuse. Extreme I know but I'm making a point.
>> Edited by tvrbob on Wednesday 25th February 08:46
Well im all for making it faired than the previous system of 3 IVF attempts free dependant on your postcode, at least this way its fair to everybody. Although i must admit one IVF attempt is not enough. To be succesful a couple will normally need more than one and the attempts should be succesive if they are to be succesful.
You really cant start an argument about wether or not its fair for everyone else pay for someone else chance to have a child unless you agree that it is also not fair for everyone to pay when you are stupid enough to smoke, drink, do drugs, fall off your motorbike without wearing a helmet, drive dangerously etc etc.
We all pay (well admitidly some dont) and we are all entitle to medical care and treatment. At the end of the day if that includes a helping hand with fertility issues wether that is because of unforunate illness like cancer or just bad luck then so be it.
You really cant start an argument about wether or not its fair for everyone else pay for someone else chance to have a child unless you agree that it is also not fair for everyone to pay when you are stupid enough to smoke, drink, do drugs, fall off your motorbike without wearing a helmet, drive dangerously etc etc.
We all pay (well admitidly some dont) and we are all entitle to medical care and treatment. At the end of the day if that includes a helping hand with fertility issues wether that is because of unforunate illness like cancer or just bad luck then so be it.
If you have children, you clearly (hopefully) love them, would you die for them? are they the most important thing in your life? Would you give up medical treatment to enable them to live? Would you sacrifce your life for them?
I would hope and beleive the answer would be yes to the above.
If you need some assistance to have children then it is equally a major part of your life and vitally important as any other medical treatment.
How much should be spent is the million dollar question but its the same delemma as how much to spend on saving a life.
clearly funds are an issue and for people they should treat ie, should they be married, should they be childless, should they treat gay couples etc, lost of dilemma questions.
Assuming the easiest line, ie married, healthy couple, no children then yes some assistance should be given, how many goes ?again another dilemma.
We are paying for ICSI and is our 1st go. hopefully about this weekend my wifes eggs should be fertilised and next week put back in. It is costing about £5-6k per go. Can we afford it ? Can we afford not to? Wife is in London for about 10-14 days - boy ironing builds up quickly!
But its not fair to say that we would be a burden on society just becasue we would like some financial assistance to have a child. Its a case of allocating funds already paid by us all in taxes.
6 billion people on the planet. 60 odd million on this little island. Human race going through resources like locusts.....
...do we *need* help to breed as a species?
Of course that's not the question. And I suspect to many couples the inability to breed would be a hammer blow. But still.....
...do we *need* help to breed as a species?
Of course that's not the question. And I suspect to many couples the inability to breed would be a hammer blow. But still.....
So Mr E when you have a heart attack or stroke or an illness we can be assured that you will carry a note on you to tell the medical staff not to resusitate nor provide any care, ...after all there are too many people on the planet already and let's face it, you've had your fun. Time to move on please
my wife and i agreed when we got married that we would never do IVF and if we found ourselves unable to produce our own, we would look into adoption as an alternative.
certainly 1 free regardless is better than the currant system.
i don't agree it is any ones 'right' to have children and the state should help regardless. its a privilege which demands responsibility.
certainly 1 free regardless is better than the currant system.
i don't agree it is any ones 'right' to have children and the state should help regardless. its a privilege which demands responsibility.
lemmonie said:
So Mr E when you have a heart attack or stroke or an illness we can be assured that you will carry a note on you to tell the medical staff not to resusitate nor provide any care, ...after all there are too many people on the planet already and let's face it, you've had your fun. Time to move on please
Point taken. But on the other hand they're not actually ill. Just not fully functional, so to speak. The mental anguish that may cause is a different kettle of fish.
lemmonie said:
you are right, in fertility is not an illness as such but what if the women had cancer and as a result her eggs were damaged when she had the chemo. Surely then its only fair that IVR helps her to regain her natural fertility?
Yes thats perfectly fair to my mind. I think the point that Mr. E is trying to make is that maybe rising infertility rates are some kind of natural defence against the human population going out of control. The world is overpopulated, that's a fact. Helping people who can't have children naturally can only add to that problem. Obviously there is a lot of mental pain if a couple finds out they can't have children naturally, but there's always adoption and fostering if you're that desperate to have kids. Or you could have none and buy a TVR
My personal opinion is that IVF on the NHS is frivolous expenditure. There are already way too many people waiting for anything from basic "better quality of life" operations to major surgery for life-threatening conditions for IVF to be considered a neccesity at the present time.
The current resources of the NHS should not be stretched even further in order to provide this service.
What services will be cut back even further to allow "free" IVF to be provided I wonder?
And yes, I'm childless and plan to remain that way for the rest of my life, so can probably be accused of being biased towards the view that IVF on the NHS is money wrongly spent.
Why should IVF be provided freely when dental care cannot?
The current resources of the NHS should not be stretched even further in order to provide this service.
What services will be cut back even further to allow "free" IVF to be provided I wonder?
And yes, I'm childless and plan to remain that way for the rest of my life, so can probably be accused of being biased towards the view that IVF on the NHS is money wrongly spent.
Why should IVF be provided freely when dental care cannot?
fallon said:
My personal opinion is that IVF on the NHS is frivolous expenditure. There are already way too many people waiting for anything from basic "better quality of life" operations to major surgery for life-threatening conditions for IVF to be considered a neccesity at the present time.
The current resources of the NHS should not be stretched even further in order to provide this service.
What services will be cut back even further to allow "free" IVF to be provided I wonder?
...
Why should IVF be provided freely when dental care cannot?
Agree totally.
Would also say though that once the money the NHS has ploughed into it each year is being spent properly (on doctors, nurses, beds and equipment, not red-tape, pen-pushers and specialist minority "touchy-feely" centres), then i'm sure there would be enough cash to allow a certain amount of IVF on the NHS.
Until that day comes, and while patients are suffering due to a lack of doctors etc, it should not be free.
I believe that day will come just after my squadron of pigs flies to the Seychelles
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff