Help End Oxfordshire PCT's Discriminative Policies

nottslass_2

Glamazon wrote: »

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.[/QUOTE]

I sincerly hope that the "credit Crunch" doesn't affect your job,but if it does I hope that you can swallow your pride and "depend" on someone else,even if its only for the sake of your child !!!!

Glamazon

The credit crunch won't affect my job thank god - but it amazes me how many people seem to wish these things on people just because they aren't affected.

Read my post - I said I DON'T depend on anyone else not I WON'T depend on anyone else. I have worked since I was 15 and would do any job (legally that is) if I was to lose my current job, I've done my fair share of cleaning jobs, supermarket jobs before starting my career and would easily go back to it if I needed the money.

I love the way I'm being penalised for wanting to earn my own money and not take anything off the state!

I thanked you by mistake BTW

Mrs_Ryan

I just have to add to this.

I actually work for the NHS, andI was diagnosed with PCOS when I was 22, after a battle for diagnosis that lasted 6 years. i have been trying to concieve since I was 21, but have only just been accepted for referral for treatment now, 7 years later. I have a myriad of health problems that have arisen from my condition (i have depression, joint pains so severe that some days I cant move, extreme tiredness and hypoglyceamia (sp) and the most recent problem is that my hair has started falling out in clumps and I have some nasty bald patches now)
I have seen various doctors, most of whom were dismissive of these problems because they were related to my PCOS. i have had 5 miscarriages since I was 19 and I am absolutely desperate for a child. It is absolutely heartbreaking for me and although yes, my condition isnt life-threatening, it never failed to amaze me that the doctors didnt want to know about my other problems just because they were related to my PCOS.
9 Times out of 10, IVF is the last resort. My partner and I work dam hard and pay a lot of taxes, and my partner is under the care of Leicestershire Partnership for mental health problems, so yes, some people might say we are a drain on the NHS, but the NHS is there for everyone isnt it?
While it may be the case that there are people dismissive of IVF because it isnt 'necessary' put yourself in the position of someone like me. I've done nothing wrong - my PCOS is not the result of my lifestyle. Ok, fair enough, maybe I shouldnt have kids, but I would dearly like some treatment to alleviate my symptoms! But wait - hang on - its just infertility and a few period problems isnt it... So should i just put up and shut up???

And if you think that the worst thing the NHS is throwing money away on is IVF - you are very,very wrong indeed - i know different!

nottslass_2

MrsTine wrote: »

Let's start with cancer... A friend of mine works for a cancer trust and another is a nurse working with children - there are plenty of drug therapies available for cancer that the NHS trust cannot afford - until they can then I think they are right to not fund IVF.
There are also drugs that the ambulance crews carry in other areas (this was 2 years ago mind - it might have changed) like Bucks and Northants, but Oxfordshire don't/didn't due to the high cost. From memory the cost to equip each manned vehicle with the drugs was £8... This was a life saving drug that does make a difference to someone suffering cardiac arrest WOULD make a huge difference - yet it was still not given to front line crews due to cost and instead an inferior and cheaper alternative was given... As I say - that one may have changed in the last 2 years...

Like wise is it OK for the NHS to spend over £6 Billion per year on obesity, which is entirely preventable ? Why should my taxes pay to treat somebody who has made the life style choice to be fat and lazy ?

In fact, one way to keep the waiting lists down would be for the NHS not to treat anybody who's condition was a) preventable b) not life threating or c)in some way self inflicted - mind you it would mean almost empty hospitals and lots of redundant Doctors !!!!

tiamai_d

*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.

Funny, I have been on the pregnancy club all day and haven't seen anyone wanting more money. Fairer benefit and grant schemes, yes, but not wanting more money.

feelinggood_2

nottslass wrote: »

Like wise is it OK for the NHS to spend over £6 Billion per year on obesity, which is entirely preventable ? Why should my taxes pay to treat somebody who has made the life style choice to be fat and lazy ?

In fact, one way to keep the waiting lists down would be for the NHS not to treat anybody who's condition was a) preventable b) not life threating or c)in some way self inflicted - mind you it would mean almost empty hospitals and lots of redundant Doctors !!!!

I wonder what would be best, a system based on need, fault or a combination of both.

Personally, I think a system based on clinical need, with some restrictions based on 'fault' is best. I agree we shouldn't throw money at preventable things, but peoples ideas on fault and preventable are very different.

Take obesity for example. I'll use this, because its something I have experience of. If I develop complications further down the line, should I get treatment? Clinically, I'd have a need, but perhaps it could be argued that it is my 'fault' for being obese. I'd argue that it isn't (entirely) my fault.

Nicki

Oh crikey! I've been posting on the pregnancy thread and on the ttc thread, so I'm sure if I contribute here, I'm bound to offend someone whose opinion I otherwise respect.

Anyway, for what its worth, my view is that if its a straight choice between cancer treatment and IVF, then cancer treatment wins outright, no question. However, I don't think the argument is that simple. The NHS funds lots of treatments, not all of which are lifesaving, but some of which simply enhance quality of life - eg (of similar cost) hip replacements, skin grafts following moderately severe burns - and some of which are imho luxuries rather than necessities (eg stop smoking clinics, fitness clinics which are of benefit to patients but really should be self-funded I feel).

Having needed fertility treatment in the past (which I chose to self-fund because I didn't want to wait for several years to reach the top of the waiting lists), I can understand the strong need on the part of infertile couples for this sort of help. I do not however think it should be offered unless all other avenues have been explored first and have failed. Having read a large number of infertility forums in my time (so I am not talking about the ttc threads on here necessarily) there are for example always a large number of women who are pushing hard for IVF treatment despite the fact that they are grossly overweight and they are not prepared to try to lose the weight to help them conceive. There are often threads along the lines of: "My doctor won't let me do IVF until I can get my BMI under 35 but he doesn't understand this is impossible", from posters who a few days earlier have posted that they have eaten a whole box of choc ices/doughnuts/take your pick as comfort eating. My personal view is that IVF should not be offered on the NHS for women in this situation, but they should be offered help and advice on how to lose the weight, and IVF should then be an option after a further 6 months of being at a healthy BMI (which is well below 35!). The research is unequivocal that conception is significantly more likely to occur naturally at optimum BMIs, so it makes no sense to offer costly NHS treatment to women who are not prepared to first try a lower cost and more effective solution.

For women who have diagnosed and untreatable fertility issues, such as early menopause, infertility caused by cancer treatment, etc then IVF should be readily available, with no postcode lottery.

The hard fact is though that IVF is expensive and that there will always have to be a degree of rationing. If it were reserved though only for those with a real clinical need (not caused by lifestyle choices which if changed would negate the need for it), there would be more funding available for the couples for whom there is no real alternative. Even in these circumstances though, PCTs will always have to limit the number of attempts which they are prepared to finance from public funds, and so inevitably some couples will have to stop before they are successful unless they can self-fund further treatment.

feelinggood_2

Nicki wrote: »

Oh crikey! I've been posting on the pregnancy thread and on the ttc thread, so I'm sure if I contribute here, I'm bound to offend someone whose opinion I otherwise respect.

No chance of offending anyone when you write clear and well thought out posts like that Nicki! We all have different opinions, and it is interesting to hear other sides to arguements.

About the BMI thing - do you think that should apply to those who are underweight? What about those with diagnosed eating disorders?

Nicki

feelinggood wrote: »

About the BMI thing - do you think that should apply to those who are underweight? What about those with diagnosed eating disorders?

Yes - both under and overweight. And those with diagnosed eating disorders should get help to deal with those before/instead of being offered IVF, both because dealing with the disorder successfully may well mean that conception occurs naturally, and because an uncontrolled eating disorder in pregnancy puts mum and baby at potential risk, so it is bonkers to offer help to conceive if it isn't under control.

I am aware btw that many people (unnamed ) have eating disorders but work hard at controlling these when pregnant for the good of their baby. :T

money_maker_3

Very well put Nicki !!!!