We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

MoneySaving Poll: Should the NHS pay for IVF treatments?

Options
1235

Comments

  • Hoopie1
    Hoopie1 Posts: 1,254 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Alikay wrote: »
    I would expect "cost" to include staffing and provision of facilities rather than just drugs and lab equipment so theoretically the service could grow to accommodate patient numbers. It would be a kind of not-for-profit form of private treatment.

    I think it is likely that the NHS will face a massive legal case from private clinics arguing about undercutting. In an ideal world it sounds good though.
  • missbiggles1
    missbiggles1 Posts: 17,481 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    Hoopie1 wrote: »
    I think it is likely that the NHS will face a massive legal case from private clinics arguing about undercutting. In an ideal world it sounds good though.

    Many private clinics (in general, not specifically infertility related) are actually run by the NHS and frequently charge less than BUPA for the same procedures.

    Surely undercutting the opposition is supposed to be one of the benefits of a free market system?
  • Hoopie1
    Hoopie1 Posts: 1,254 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Many private clinics (in general, not specifically infertility related) are actually run by the NHS and frequently charge less than BUPA for the same procedures.

    Surely undercutting the opposition is supposed to be one of the benefits of a free market system?

    Because they're being undercut by an organisation that is state-funded. The interpretation of "at cost" is open to interpretation from accountants. The NHS will need to avoid any possibility of the way it being funded as being state aid (definition below).
    State aid is any advantage granted by public authorities through state resources on a selective basis to any organisations that could potentially distort competition and trade in the European Union (EU).
  • Duchess70
    Options
    The NHS is for people who are ill and suffering. While I feel for people who cannot have children they are not ill.
  • missbiggles1
    missbiggles1 Posts: 17,481 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    Hoopie1 wrote: »
    Because they're being undercut by an organisation that is state-funded. The interpretation of "at cost" is open to interpretation from accountants. The NHS will need to avoid any possibility of the way it being funded as being state aid (definition below).

    But the existing private clinic/hospital wings are already run by the NHS, staffed by NHS paid staff etc. and they do undercut the real private sector - I don't see how fertility clinics would be any different.
  • GwylimT
    GwylimT Posts: 6,530 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Options
    Adoption isn't for everyone, as someone with an adopted child and two biological children you simply cannot compare the experiences. A biological child isn't born after suffering beatings, broken ribs, burns, head injuries, malnourishment and emotional neglect. Not everyone can manage a child in that situation. The number of child volunteered into care is tiny, those still have life long issues due to being given away.

    My wife has a disability which makes pregnancy an issue, conceiving isn't our main issue, it is staying pregnant long enough. While infertility isn't a life threatening illness neither is pregnancy generally, so how come we don't limit maternity care to life threatening complications, after all pregnancy is not an illness, but a choice, like obesity, smoking or alcoholism.
  • BabyMaybe
    BabyMaybe Posts: 4 Newbie
    edited 14 November 2015 at 8:45PM
    Options
    Hoopie1 wrote: »
    The only issue with doing that is that you'll put the private clinics out of business.

    As now, private clinics would still get plenty of business for:
    • People that don't want to wait months/years on the NHS waiting list
    • People that don't meet the criteria to get it free on the NHS
    • People having their second+ child
  • Hoopie1
    Hoopie1 Posts: 1,254 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    BabyMaybe wrote: »
    As now, private clinics would still get plenty of business for:
    • People that don't want to wait months/years on the NHS waiting list
    • People that don't meet the criteria to get it free on the NHS
    • People having their second+ child

    The criteria being set for those getting it free on the NHS seems to be pretty much anyone. Their client base will be massively reduced.
  • BabyMaybe
    Options
    Hoopie1 wrote: »
    The criteria being set for those getting it free on the NHS seems to be pretty much anyone. Their client base will be massively reduced.

    That is simply not true. As a previous poster outlined:
    ctbfc wrote: »
    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.

    That is quite standard. So, to be crude, the NHS considers plenty of women too old or too fat to have free IVF. And as I said myself earlier, this is because it is less likely to work in these circumstances. These women could pay to go private though.

    I'll also throw in that the NHS will generally only replace one blastocyst - what this means is that if you generate the best quality embryos you can't put two or three back in because the NHS are looking to reduce the number of multiple births. Some people would prefer to put a few in to increase the likelihood of success and you can only do this if you go private.
  • Mrs_Fox
    Options
    The results of this poll and some of the comments on this thread prompted me to respond.

    I am someone who needed fertility treatment to conceive and unfortunately having already tried and been in the system for 5 years, was unable to then face the 18 month waiting list for IVF on the NHS. We were forced to go privately at a cost we wouldn't have been able to afford had it not been for family seeing how desperate we were.

    To say that we should make the adoption process easier is quite simply not the answer. People unable to conceive children of their own without help, may not be willing to or suitable for adoption. You need to recover from the heartbreak of being unable to conceive before you can even consider alternative options. Adoption simply wouldn't have been an option for us, it is not a consolation prize and those children deserve parents who are in the right place mentally to consider adoption.

    Infertility in the UK is not considered a treatable condition or illness. But what people fail to understand is the devastating affect infertility can have on the whole of someone's life. Conditions causing infertility can sometimes be debilitating, but also infertility can cause depression which can have far wider ramifications for someone's life and well being and the well being of those close to them.

    As someone who has been through this and thankfully come out of the other side with two beautiful children, I would encourage people to think carefully about the wider issue.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 344.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 450.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 236.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 610.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.8K Life & Family
  • 249.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards