MoneySaving Poll: Should the NHS pay for IVF treatments?

Torry_Quine

I voted for only in extreme cases. I have no children but not through choice.

ctbfc

Really interesting poll this from a professional point of view as I deal with NHS Individual Funding Requests for a range of things including IVF. The eligibility criteria and how many cycles you are offered varies from CCG to CCG. Currently where I work couples are offered 1 cycle provided they live together, are non smoking, childless, female BMI between 19 and 30, female aged under 40 and neither partner has a child from a previous relationship. It would only be funded outside these criteria in exceptional circumstances.


As a male in a relationship with a girlfriend who has a son from a previous relationship I think the criteria are fair. NHS costs are £3-4,000 per cycle depending on the provider - if funding privately you can probably double it at least

troubleonline

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

I voted yes but for national financial reasons.

I think it probably makes better financial sense to pay for it.

If we don't pay for it, overall, these women are going to cost us the same, if not more, in drugs, therapy and all the health problems that follow depression.

We treat depression anyway so we might as well try to nip it in the bud with a cure.

And please remember that it is not only the woman who may suffer depression particularly, but not only, if the cause of infertility is male related.

I tried not to wade in on this debate as it gets very emotive and everybody has different views on what is necessary treatment but in my role as an HR manager I have seen people become severely depressed and debilitated due to infertility - one to the point of being suicidal so to suggest IVF is a luxury is, to me, very offensive. People don't choose to be infertile anymore than they chose to develop other medical conditions.

We had three unsuccessful cycles of IVF (1 self funded, 2 NHS) and unless you are in that boat you have no idea how painful infertility is. You are constantly reminded everyday because life goes on for everyone else and therefore there are pregnant people and babies everywhere.

It also irritates me that people band about adoption as the alternative (particularly when it is inferred or even said outright that infertile people are selfish not to adopt instead of having IVF). As so eloquently put by BabyMaybe it is not the solution and not an easy or even always available choice either. Without previous parenting experience (or indeed any nieces or nephews) we didn't feel we had the capacity to successfully adopt a child who through their earlier life experiences before adoption can have quite complex support needs. Perhaps if we had been successful conceiving via IVF we might have felt able to consider adoption but we will never know.

BCK

I sit here with bruises on my stomach from yet more injections after years of trying to have a child through IVF, and I have had to stop reading some of your posts because they are offending me so much. I would like to correct some of the misunderstandings I have read so far.
IVF is only provided after every other option has been tried and after years of trying to conceive.
In most cases it is not 3 cycles it is 2 fresh and 2 frozen, this is significantly cheaper and significantly less likely to work.
Someone has suggested if you can't afford IVF you can't afford a child, people can't 'afford' children all the time, have them and are supported by the state. I saved before I tried to have a child, now those savings go on multiple cycles and tests.
I am a high rate tax payer who makes no other demands on the state, why should I not be entitled to support when I need it, just as others in this country receive help everyday (Something I fully support).
It has been suggested that adoption should just be easier, like it is an act of great selfishness for me to try to have my own biological child. Ignoring the fact this is a basic human drive and clearly they have never lived unable to fulfill it.
I hope those of you with such a lack of understanding never experience the mental and physical pain that allows you to think this is about money.

PasturesNew

I think it should be offered, but "at cost" with the costs being recouped by something similar to student loans, say. But without the bit where you pay it back once you earn "more than X", it'd be paid back on all income. And there'd be a minimum income threshold to be reached too, say a household income equal to the average household income gets you access to the loan.

Why the taxpayer is paying to overpopulate the world and cause future problems with food running out and a shortage of housing, is anybody's guess! Seems madness.

Maybe the NHS can fund me a gigolo as it's my RIGHT to be in a couple!?

Torry_Quine

BCK wrote: »

I sit here with bruises on my stomach from yet more injections after years of trying to have a child through IVF, and I have had to stop reading some of your posts because they are offending me so much. I would like to correct some of the misunderstandings I have read so far.
IVF is only provided after every other option has been tried and after years of trying to conceive.
In most cases it is not 3 cycles it is 2 fresh and 2 frozen, this is significantly cheaper and significantly less likely to work.
Someone has suggested if you can't afford IVF you can't afford a child, people can't 'afford' children all the time, have them and are supported by the state. I saved before I tried to have a child, now those savings go on multiple cycles and tests.
I am a high rate tax payer who makes no other demands on the state, why should I not be entitled to support when I need it, just as others in this country receive help everyday (Something I fully support).
It has been suggested that adoption should just be easier, like it is an act of great selfishness for me to try to have my own biological child. Ignoring the fact this is a basic human drive and clearly they have never lived unable to fulfill it.
I hope those of you with such a lack of understanding never experience the mental and physical pain that allows you to think this is about money.

Like you I have never been able to have children so know the pain both physical and mental that it causes. However the NHS is not a bottomless pit and I don't think IVF shoul be funded other than in exceptional cases.

pollypenny

The NHS is spending so much money providing wider, stronger beds, chairs and even ambulances for the obese, most of whom are like that because of their own indulgences.

Surely IVF, fairly short-term could be offered. At least one cycle, although I like the suggestion of half price.

Hoopie1

I voted no. I have one child through IVF, and my wife is pregnant with another. This was done privately.

I have every sympathy with those that have fertility issues - when we found out about it all, it was the lowest point in my life, worse even than when my father died. However, because the NHS is free at the point of use, it creates infinite demands. IVF is expensive and I consider it to be non-essential and peripheral. I think that the NHS needs to start trimming peripheral services, and I would consider this one.

geoffhead

What on earth happened to adopting??

heartbreak_star

marleyboy wrote: »

I would say the fact they dont carry your biology make them anything BUT your child, by all means it makes you an adoptive parent, but nowhere near being THE parent.

Adoption, to me - and the people I know who have done it - means you choose your child rather than producing them from your own body. So it IS your child.

marleyboy wrote: »

Which probably explains why I would choose NOT to adopt. To be MY child, a child would have to have been produced by both of us, else its not our true child.

You can see there are far too many ifs and buts to make it remotely tempting for me to be an adoptive parent.

I thanked this because you are as honest in how you see things as I am, and I can understand why you would not want to adopt with this view

Quite frankly, I wish more people would look at the ifs and buts of parenthood before deciding to raise a child, be it biological or adopted.

BCK wrote: »

it is an act of great selfishness for me to try to have my own biological child.

It is the ultimate selfish act, looked at purely objectively. Nobody has a child for the child's gratification - they have them for their own reasons, whatever they may be - it to pass on genetic material or have something to love and look after or whatever.

The biological clock and its associated hormones are designed to make us selfish. Thankfully I managed to ignore mine until it stopped ticking.

(Disclaimer - these are, of course all simply the way I see things and I do NOT wish to hurt anyone or be offensive. I tend to be purely objective naturally, and a career in biological and diagnostic science has simply reinforced that!)

HBS x