IVF and the NHS
Discussion
Should the NHS get involved in IVF.In my view they should not.I aired this opinion at work once and was immediately accused of playing god but to my mind it is an expense that they cannot afford and since i am an atheist god does not come into it.I know it sounds harsh and i do feel sorry for anyone who would love to have kids but for biological reasons cannot.If the potential parents can afford it then by all means go for IVF but i do not believe the tax payer should foot the bill.
If your username is accurate this might not be a path you want to go down. There are certain illnesses we probably shouldn’t be bothering to try and cure once someone is no longer economically active (most of them that aren’t injury if taken to extreme) if reducing it solely to the cost vs economic benefit.
We do it because it’s the right thing to do.
We do it because it’s the right thing to do.
Speaking as a father of an amazing 8 year old boy who, without IVF would simply not be here, of course the NHS should fund it. At the minute its just government guidance so its basically a postcode lottery if you receive NHS funding or not.
Where I live, IVF was not funded by the NHS, so we had to pay £4k each time. After the second time, seeing the emotional affect it had on my wife, we decided to concede that we would have a life without a child. Several years later, I got a job in Japan, my wife started Japanese lessons with other expat wives who either had a young baby or were pregnant. Guess what happened? Yup, she wanted to try IVF in Japan. We agreed this would be the last time….it wasn’t successful. I said lets try again and fortunately the fourth IVF treatment was a success.
If I had not been in the fortunate position to be able to finance the IVF, we would be childless. I dread to think how many couples up and down the country are in this position. The NHS treats all sorts of lifestyle choices from diabetes to smoking to alcohol abuse. Why not pay for IVF treatment?
OP, you really don’t explain your reasoning other than to say you don’t think the NHS should pay, can you please explain your reasoning?
Where I live, IVF was not funded by the NHS, so we had to pay £4k each time. After the second time, seeing the emotional affect it had on my wife, we decided to concede that we would have a life without a child. Several years later, I got a job in Japan, my wife started Japanese lessons with other expat wives who either had a young baby or were pregnant. Guess what happened? Yup, she wanted to try IVF in Japan. We agreed this would be the last time….it wasn’t successful. I said lets try again and fortunately the fourth IVF treatment was a success.
If I had not been in the fortunate position to be able to finance the IVF, we would be childless. I dread to think how many couples up and down the country are in this position. The NHS treats all sorts of lifestyle choices from diabetes to smoking to alcohol abuse. Why not pay for IVF treatment?
OP, you really don’t explain your reasoning other than to say you don’t think the NHS should pay, can you please explain your reasoning?
oldagepensioner said:
Should the NHS get involved in IVF.In my view they should not.I aired this opinion at work once and was immediately accused of playing god but to my mind it is an expense that they cannot afford and since i am an atheist god does not come into it.I know it sounds harsh and i do feel sorry for anyone who would love to have kids but for biological reasons cannot.If the potential parents can afford it then by all means go for IVF but i do not believe the tax payer should foot the bill.
It would be useful to give us a list of what the NHS should treat and what it shouldntDont forget insensitivity, stupidity and internet trolling
And the clap
Cheers
Should the NHS get involved in looking after old age pensioners.In my view they should not.I aired this opinion at work once and was immediately accused of playing god but to my mind it is an expense that they cannot afford and since i am an atheist god does not come into it.I know it sounds harsh and i do feel sorry for anyone who is an old age pensioner and would love to live a bit longer but for biological reasons cannot.If the potential old age pensioner can afford it then by all means go for medical intervention but i do not believe the tax payer should foot the bill.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm in favour of a breathaliser at the hospital entrance. Set a limit, higher than drink/drive, maybe 5 pints or the equivalent. Arrive at hospital over the limit and you can f
k off and bleed to death. Would get rid of 90% of Saturday night A&E arrivals and save us billions.
Well what a wonderful human being you are. k off and bleed to death. Would get rid of 90% of Saturday night A&E arrivals and save us billions. My daughter would not be here now if it wasn’t for NHS funded IVF so I am eternally grateful that the service exists. Myself and my now wife were referred due to fertility issues and after numerous tests, form filling and the IVF process - which was brutal for her, our daughter arrived at the 2nd attempt.
Were we asked to pay for any of the process - No
Do we feel like we’ve taken valuable NHS resources away from anyone else - No
Could we have afforded to pay privately - Possibly, but as above, we fulfilled the strict NHS selection criteria and was awarded full funding.
Would we as a couple go through it again - No, purely as we are delighted to have been lucky enough for the treatment to work.
That’s just my opinion and perspective though.
Were we asked to pay for any of the process - No
Do we feel like we’ve taken valuable NHS resources away from anyone else - No
Could we have afforded to pay privately - Possibly, but as above, we fulfilled the strict NHS selection criteria and was awarded full funding.
Would we as a couple go through it again - No, purely as we are delighted to have been lucky enough for the treatment to work.
That’s just my opinion and perspective though.
Until we have a much higher birth rate, I'm happy that my taxes are used to pay for IVF, we need more kids.
Whoosh parrot to aisle five please.
pavarotti1980 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm in favour of a breathaliser at the hospital entrance. Set a limit, higher than drink/drive, maybe 5 pints or the equivalent. Arrive at hospital over the limit and you can fk off and bleed to death. Would get rid of 90% of Saturday night A&E arrivals and save us billions.
Well what a wonderful human being you are. k off and bleed to death. Would get rid of 90% of Saturday night A&E arrivals and save us billions. Infertility is a medical condition so yes, with caveats. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the NHS to keep paying for it over and over again but a couple of rounds certainly subject to suitability checks.
There are plenty of other areas we should trim back if we’re looking to save money.
There are plenty of other areas we should trim back if we’re looking to save money.
There are times...
Lying in a cot next to me as i lye in bed next to my wife is our 14 day old daughter. She is the product of PGD, a form of IVF.
My wife's siblings have SEN (fragile X) and my wife is a carrier. PGD was used so that we could screen this out at an embryo stage - alternative being multiple pregnancies, children being born with SEN and potentially abortions which would be catastrophic for my wife's mental health. The costs of supporting a person with SEN over their life time dwarfs the cost of even multiple rounds of IVF.
Despite this we only had funding for 1 child or 3 cycles (thankfully worked on the first), if we want more children in the future we have to pay...of the embryos we had 2/3 were carriers/impacted by the condition...our daughter is the one that wasn't.
Lying in a cot next to me as i lye in bed next to my wife is our 14 day old daughter. She is the product of PGD, a form of IVF.
My wife's siblings have SEN (fragile X) and my wife is a carrier. PGD was used so that we could screen this out at an embryo stage - alternative being multiple pregnancies, children being born with SEN and potentially abortions which would be catastrophic for my wife's mental health. The costs of supporting a person with SEN over their life time dwarfs the cost of even multiple rounds of IVF.
Despite this we only had funding for 1 child or 3 cycles (thankfully worked on the first), if we want more children in the future we have to pay...of the embryos we had 2/3 were carriers/impacted by the condition...our daughter is the one that wasn't.
Edited by kiethton on Wednesday 29th March 09:11
Having to go through IVF with my partner soon....and yes it absolutely should be on the NHS. Not like anyone would choose to go through IVF if they didn't need it. Annoys the hell out of me we only get 1 paid go at it whilst the Scots get 3 paid goes. How is that fair??
Also the global population is DECREASING by an alarming rate in Western Europe and in particularly parts of Asia like China and Korea. This isn't a good thing....over the coming years the population decline will be the next big agenda after climate change imo so IVF will be more widely pushed by Governments.
Also the global population is DECREASING by an alarming rate in Western Europe and in particularly parts of Asia like China and Korea. This isn't a good thing....over the coming years the population decline will be the next big agenda after climate change imo so IVF will be more widely pushed by Governments.
This should be part of a wider discussion as to what the NHS funds, and doesn't fund,and how much we as a nation are prepared to spend on it through our tax system.
We are currently heading down a partial privatisation path with the NHS in which treatments like IVF will no longer be funded.
We are currently heading down a partial privatisation path with the NHS in which treatments like IVF will no longer be funded.
I totally understand the want/need for couples to have children, I get its heartbreaking if you find out you can't naturally produce a child, the same as the women who have multiple miscarriages, but personally I don't think the NHS and the taxpayer should fund it. Its been mentioned above the direction of the NHS becoming a lot more privatised, and as having children is a personal choice, I see no issue in it being funded by the prospective parents, yes it costs thousands, but so does actually paying to raise that child. How many parents actually work out if they can financially afford to live and raise a child? I know people have children because they really want that experience, that's fine, i've never been driven to have kids, my wife loves the freedom of no kids, she has zero want for them. The world population drop isn't a bad thing in my eyes, our time is coming to an end on this rock, population drop could actually be a good thing for those humans in the future, whatever they actually look and identify as.
Dingu said:
If your username is accurate this might not be a path you want to go down. There are certain illnesses we probably shouldn’t be bothering to try and cure once someone is no longer economically active (most of them that aren’t injury if taken to extreme) if reducing it solely to the cost vs economic benefit.
We do it because it’s the right thing to do.
I get the feeling from the last line of your post that you may be part of the NHS(quite happy to be proved wrong) and i don't mean to be callous but i feel that all the time the NHS is underfunded it should concentrate on saving lives rather than creating them.If it ever is properly funded then by all means yes.I have good reason to be extremely grateful to the NHS as without them both my wife and my sons would not now be here and yes the username is accurate.We do it because it’s the right thing to do.
oldagepensioner said:
I get the feeling from the last line of your post that you may be part of the NHS(quite happy to be proved wrong) and i don't mean to be callous but i feel that all the time the NHS is underfunded it should concentrate on saving lives rather than creating them.If it ever is properly funded then by all means yes.I have good reason to be extremely grateful to the NHS as without them both my wife and my sons would not now be here and yes the username is accurate.
Your logic is fatally flawed. The current working population is paying for you to exist, pay your pension, pay for your NHS services etc. That pool of people is now smaller than the population it's trying to support.We need more kids, not less. The trick is to make sure they are net contributors to society.
My first child was an IVF baby. 1st go free, didn't work, 2nd go not free, had to sell my car to pay for it.
The economy is f
ked anyway, we are in a debt death spiral, at some point the state will require us to hand them everything just to break even.Your opinion gets a big middle finger from me.
Edited by dave_s13 on Thursday 27th April 20:42
Edited by dave_s13 on Thursday 27th April 21:19
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff