Help End Oxfordshire PCT's Discriminative Policies

MrsTinks

RichardM123 wrote: »

I am not saying treat no one. I simply think that EVERYONE should be treated equally.

Absolutely... but NEED first... WANT second. If we can afford ALL the treatment we NEED to give people then we can start looking at providing the "WANT" treatments...

I am dreadfully sorry you can't have children without IVF - honestly I am! But if I thought for one second that an often unsuccessful treatment to help someone try for a child was directly costing nurses on the wards their jobs, preventing medicines being available to sick people or taking funding from elsewhere then I'd be the one petitioning to get it stopped!

I have no doubt it must be very stressful for people who can't have children and I know it's something I will never understand fully because I am pregnant with my own - but over £5k per try for something that is not life saving? Say 20 couples in a county qualified etc in a year (and it would no doubt be more...) then you're looking at £100k there alone! That's 4 nurses that are desperately needed on every ward in the John Radcliffe for starters!

Glamazon

RichardM123 wrote: »

Remember that I said 'most' and not 'all'. And let me get it straight - I am not against treating cancer. Infact I will and have supported funding for cancer many times before.

What we are trying to get across is that IVF is not vital and is not a treatment which is treating an illness. It is helping a couple have a child - a child is not a necessity. It might be easy for me to say as I'm pregnant but I grew up with my Mum as a foster carer and she even adopted one of them. There are other options out there

Glamazon

MrsTine wrote: »

Absolutely... but NEED first... WANT second. If we can afford ALL the treatment we NEED to give people then we can start looking at providing the "WANT" treatments...

I've started something now haven't I?! with the NEED and WANT

I think it sums it up perfectly.

MrsTinks

Yeah you trendsetter Glam And you're right - you just articulated what I was trying to say better than I did

*Chattie*

and yet on the Pregnancy Club thread there are the same people posting about only getting £190 for being pregnant and bemoaning the fact that some people on benefits may get more than them, you people really should walk a mile in other people's shoes, not everyone's shoes are as well heeled as yours seem to be and through no fault of their own :rolleyes:

You don't NEED further more money yet you seem to WANT it or think you deserve it.

Errata

RichardM123 wrote: »

Remember that I said 'most' and not 'all'. And let me get it straight - I am not against treating cancer. Infact I will and have supported funding for cancer many times before.

So 'most' but not 'all' childhood and teenage cancers are due to their lifestyle choices ? I'd be interested to read the research on that - do you have the link ?

MrsTinks

Sorry chattie but what has the views of if the system is fair for benefits got to do with if IVF should be funded on the NHS whilst we can't afford drugs for lifethreatening illnesses? IF we could afford it all then I'd have no issue with it in the least.
As for benefits then I think the whole system should be scrapped and redesigned. Because it's unfair then no I CAN'T afford to stay home with my child as long as people who qualify for means tested benefits - why are my needs to be home with my child not as great as theirs? it annoys me because I pay a lot of taxes yes - but I don't bemoan anyone who NEED financial support the money. I think the system is floored, but the only people I despise getting it are those abusing the system.

As for how my shoes are heeled... my £8 shoes from the cheapie shop are doing ok thanks - and it's because I don't buy designer stuff like most of the HA people on our estate that I have managed to put money aside so I can spend SOME time at home with my child. That and the fact I'll have to do self employed work that means I still get my maternity pay from work is the only reason we can afford me to be at home at all!

feelinggood_2

*Chattie* wrote: »

and yet on the Pregnancy Club thread there are the same people posting about only getting £190 for being pregnant and bemoaning the fact that some people on benefits may get more than them, you people really should walk a mile in other people's shoes, not everyone's shoes are as well heeled as yours seem to be and through no fault of their own :rolleyes:

You don't NEED further more money yet you seem to WANT it or think you deserve it.

Yes, I'm sure lots of us want more money. What is wrong with that? I doubt many people want our desire put above others' needs, which I think is what the arguement with IVF is.

(And as you are bringing other threads into it, on the Pregnancy Grant thread, I said that I'd rather every pregnant woman could access the same adequate screening, rather than have the money. I'm sure most would)

Glamazon

*Chattie* wrote: »

and yet on the Pregnancy Club thread there are the same people posting about only getting £190 for being pregnant and bemoaning the fact that some people on benefits may get more than them, you people really should walk a mile in other people's shoes, not everyone's shoes are as well heeled as yours seem to be and through no fault of their own :rolleyes:

You don't NEED further more money yet you seem to WANT it or think you deserve it.

You're right -I don't NEED more money and if the HiPG asn't avilable I wouldn't come on here moaning about it but if it's available why should I not take it?! The OP is asking for equal rights for everyone in the case of IVF - and for once the HiPG does benefit everyone!

I think you'll find we were saying that it's sad that we pay our taxes but don't receive anything when we do have a decrease in wages. I have paid over £3k in tax this year alone yet when I go on mat leave I will just get SMP - if I didn't pay my taxes I'd be entitled to a lot more!
I'm not asking for more anyway it was my choice to have a baby because I WANTED to - I will save what I can to ensure I get longer off, I don't depend on anyone else.

skintchick

RichardM123 wrote: »

Remember that I said 'most' and not 'all'. And let me get it straight - I am not against treating cancer. Infact I will and have supported funding for cancer many times before.

And you're still wrong. I've just been to my Gp and a poster there says a third of cancers are preventable - that's not the majority, that is, in fact, a minority.