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
IVF Paid for.....
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I read a Thread on IVF nt being paid for on the NHS anymore and some of the comments i read discussed me, I was an IVF baby so what your sayin because i was am nt ment to be here!! Its ok for people who can just pop kids out as they like but why shud people who cnt have to adopt, maybe they want something they made, just coz you was made differant you was still made of the mums egg and dads sperm!
0
Comments
its a privilege not a right to have treatments such as this.
i do understand that IVF is the only choice for some people out of no fault of their own, but they should have to pay for it.
its not like its a matter of life and death and require these treatments to live a healthy life.
if it means cutting back on these treatments to help people who really need the help, then fair enough.
Encouraging anything goes posters into P+D results in this.............
yes it is a new life, and im all for IVF treatment, but i just dont think its something that should be paid out of taxpayers money. its just the way i feel.
there are enough orphaned and unwanted children out there that would appriciate being loved by someone, theres always that option.
Are we not good enough for you?
Not if you can't write a proper sentence........
This is a debate forum. Debating requires at a minimum that the people involved can understand eachother.
As pointed out the person who started the thread cannot be understood.......
(It was a light-hearted comment anyway but there you go)
if i had to make a harsh choice, id protect and help the lives that were allready here, not the ones that are just thoughts in peoples minds
it sounds harsh, but unfortunately in these matters you have to remove yourself from a personal level
Toadborg, I'd apologise, but I'm not sorry.
If someone wants a child through IVF that desperatly. They'll pay for it.
I agree with you hollie.
And Fiend, picking people up on spelling is exactly one of the things that puts people off here. Surely the argument could be used "if someone wants cancer treatment that desperately (even thuogh they have little chance of survival), they'll pay for it". BTW, before anyone has a go at me, I'm not saying people wiht a good chance of cancer survival should be denied, not at all, just that a lot of people with mature cancer (later stage) - particularly those who are older - are going to die anyway because if it's not the cancer it will be the infections from the cancer treatment etc. Why throw money at them when other people will benefit so much more from it?
I personally believe that cancer treatment is worth more thatn IVF because there are ALREADY thousands of children without families, without homes that need adopting. When they're not there, maybe IVF should be paid for, but even then I'm not convinced.
"It's not a matter of life and death" - firstly, by it's very definition, it is just that. It's about creating life. But over and above that there is the mental health of those childless couples to consider, the depression they go through, the impact that has on them/the people around them/employers/employees etc.
If we are going to apply this rule specifically, then if someone was going to commit suicide because they are unable to conceive, would you reconsider funding their IVF treatment?
The other consideration is how do you apply this rule? How many other treatments offered on the NHS are a matter of life and death? Tonsils? Cataracts? Hip replacements? Should we fund them?
Cost vs. Cancer - firstly it is rarely, if ever, a choice between the two. The recent story was a cute piece of PR spin designed to justify a group of PCTs not living up to their duty.
Cancer funding is ringfenced - i.e. not to be spent on anything else - and I would like to think that before making a decision like this, even if it was a choice between the two, that the PCt had ensured that it wasn't going to waste this money on more short term fixes.
As we are talking about cost, perhasp we should look at the "hidden" costs attributable to this treatment. The impact I mentioned earlier on mental health services (plus lost employment etc) should also be considered. Often it would be cheaper to just offer IVF.
Adoption - why is this such a panacea? What makes you think that prospective IVF patient want to adopt? If we apply this rule to these people, why shouldn't we apply it to all potential parents or is discrimination against the childless acceptable? Why would we pay the ante-natal costs of people who find it "easy" to conceive, but won't help those who are unable?
Well, there a start...
It's still pedantic, IMHO.
As MoK just pointed out we're both wrong there - Cancer treatment has it's own funding that isn't sacrificed for anything else. On a purely medical point of view though, I do think IVF is important, regardless of adoption. More people should adopt that don't, but then again AFAIK there are lots of people willing to adopt but they have to wait for a suitable adoptee.
What kind of treatment would you compare IVF to? I think it's non-life threatening but important health care. What about people who have acne, for example. It's still a treatable medical condition. I wouldn't agree that it's an optional, non important treatment. I don't know how to categorise it, but I hope you'll understand what I mean.
It's in the good manners guide.
Yes, I hadn't realised that cancer care was ringfenced. I do think that IVF should be an extreme treatment, I would be hard pushed to be convinced it should be even remotely routine.
Although, if one wants their own child so much, I believe they will find the ways and means of doing it. Soo I think that perhaps it should be available on the NHS after a couple has already had a failed IVF cycle done privately, and perhaps there should be a set limit on the number of NHS cycles, maybe two or three.
*Shields herself against flames*
I see your point, but surely many, many of the things you go to the NHS for are not strictly necessary. I'm not talking about oeprations and stuff here, because they can be quite serious - and not infections either (because they can end up killing people) but things like... spots. Sure they're uncomfortable, but hardly life threatening. And eczema too actually. The body will heal most things itself anyway.
I agree there should be a set number, but I think people should (so long as other options discussed are not viable, including adoption) be given IVF on the NHS before trying it privately. Then, if it still doesn't work they can keep trying privately but with each failure the chance of successs goes down AFAIK, and it gets to the stage where it shouldn't be a priority for the NHS. It's like a risk assesment, except in reverse. You've got to analyse the severity, and the likelihood, and then weigh it up. This isn't very severe and doesn't have a great success rate - but I still think it just about fits in there at the bottom end of the NHS, along with plastic surgery for those who are depressed over their nose or some such.
We don't always flame you know
I disagree with you, but I'm not going to flame you.
Si much NHS treatment isn't "necessary" but we do it anyway, besides, how do you define necessary?
Apart from shagging, there is little else they can do to have a child of their own. Why should people who are childless be force to adopt, when those who can conceive aren't and will have the cost of their obstetric treatment paid for?
So exclude people who cannot afford a private cycle?
That exists. NICE guidelines say everyone is entitled to [up to] three cycles. Most areas have gone for one only.
Interesting that until this year the people who had a private cycle were excluded from having an NHS funded one.
Every single treatment is a gamble. All are a balance of probabilities and very few will work for every one. It's all a balance of probability thing.
Using your argument there, should we refuse any treatment where there is less than 50% chance of success?
I'm beginning to think adoption will be suggested as an alternative to almost everything...
He does what?
Anyway, how easy is it to get IVF anyway?
Here is the NICE guidlines I've been talking about. I'll warn you that it is detailed.
Now, if you can honestly tell me that we shouldn't pay for people willing to go through all of that, just to have a child of their own, then I'll start to wonder about your empathy chip...