If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
oppss!
ok, what i meant was, that we are helping people with serious genetic diseases live and pass their disease on to other generations. I'm all for finding cures to horrible illnesses, i'm just very anti humans right now and feel we are becoming a parasite upon the world...there are to many people on earth, and the number is only going to rise, and this nicely brings me back to my point of too many people in the world already so people who can't concive naturaly shouldn't get help on the nhs, and should adopt.
I really do sound like a conservitive don't I?
I deeply apologise, but we are having many more allergies that before, we are much sicker before, and humans are a horrible parasite, killing the earth. I really wish i wasn't one because we are a horrible horrible things.
Objectively, creating new life is better than saving an old tired life. But I'd hate to be the one to tell an old man that he's old and tired and should be left to die.
I don't think the PCT are right, but then I think they rarely are. If the chairman didn't earns his hundreds of thousands there'd be enough money for everything.
I agree, when it's time to go.. it's time to go.
What does everybody think of Eugenics then, seeing as Luby / Blagsta have discussed it a little? Should we let the sick die etc.? Or should I start another thread?
I don't know about eugenics. There is something morally uncomfortable about "do not resucitate" notices, but at the same time resources should be concentrated on those who will get better, not those who won't. It's impossible to make that call, though: GWST's sister was expected to die as a little baby, and she's just celebrated her 14th birthday.
What about those who are fertile with hereditary conditions e.g. a thalasemia major carrier, or a carrier of cystic fibrosis - should they be encouraged not to breed as there is a risk of future generations being affected?
Also, not all infertility is caused by genetics. A woman who had PID due to chlamydia which blocked her tubes may be in tip top condition genetically speaking, it doesn't mean she shouldn't have the option available to her.
I'm all for adoption, but too often people treat it as a panacea. You know, pregnant and don't want it? Adopt! Can't have children? Adopt!
I'd rather tell him than his family TBH.
It's the CEO who you need to look at, the Chairman only earns about £20k.
I don't think people should be given IVF on the NHS because there are so many children who need adopting and they should given more of a chance because they are already here, living and breathing. If you have the money then go ahead, but i don't really agree with it. saying that i've been told it's a family trait of not being able to consieve so i might change my mind in 10 15 years time.
and i do feel that the human race is becoming weaker, but maybe it's being weaker minded rather than weaker bodied. and i still stand by my statement of humans being parasitic
more to the left of ghengis khan?
I can understand that viewpoint.
Sadly the financial imperatives get in the way. The budgets for Social Services and the NHS are separate, therefore the NHS looks at the cost of mental health intervention for those who cannot have children and compare that to the cost of providing IVF. IVF wins. In most cases.
It's also worth noting that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) have directed that patients are entitled to [up to] three cycles. I'm surprised that the DoH hasn't jumped on the PCTs involved in this case.
I'm sure you will, if you are unfortunate enough to face the issue. It's also worth noting that adoption isn't a panacea either. Anyone considering adoption has to consider that they won't be getting a baby (in most cases) and therefore don't have a "blank canvass" to work with. With older children you get the "baggage" (as you know) of their previous life and you don't have the opportunity to mould the child from birth. This creates a huge amount of stress, over and above that which most parents face. Many people are not willing to take on such a challenge...
But as has already been explained, it is cheaper and easier to provide the IVF than it is to care for the couple when they have a nervous breakdown because of the trauma of being childless.
And has also been explained by at least two posters, adoption is not a panacea for anything. Parenting IS about "your own flesh and blood", it is a lot harder to be a parent to an adoptee and even harder still if that adoptee was not a newborn when you adopt.
Adoption is not a solution to the pain childless couples face. Not being able to have children is a lot more damaging to mental health that most people seem to credit.
I'd suggest people read Inconceivable by Ben Elton.
Oh, how I love the irony that you think the NHS shouldn't help people to get pregnant, but should help once they are
However on the actual point you raised, mental health patients get treatment. It reactive. Wouldn't it be better to prevent the need for that treatment if we can? Especially if it is cheaper to do that?