View Full Version : should IVF be available for free on the NHS ?
that is a question being answered by the national institute of clinical excellence who will recommend to the government that IVF should be available on the NHS but there are conditions to be levied upon people wishing to recieve the 'treatment' women over 40 are ineligable and women under 23 are likewise so what do you all think should the taxpayer pay for this ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3174753.stm
IMO they could spend it in a better manner instead the NHS continually wastes money on various 'treatments' which should be payed for by the public the people who want this 'treatment' in question as it is unnessecary its not a life threatning or harmful situation to anyone so why should the taxpayer foot the bill
IVF available on the NHS? I don't think so. It's called the National Health Service, not the National Fertility Clinic.
timewarrior2001
26-08-2003, 09:27
I think it should be offered but only at a subsidised rate. People wishing to receive treatment should have to foot a reduced bill.
I personally feel that IVF shouldn't be avaliable on the NHS, because the NHS should (imo) be about treating diseases ( I know that infertility can be due to disease but then treat the disease, not it's effect)
This is such a horrible topic to debate :( It's not as cut-and-dry as "people don't have a "right" to have children, it's their choice and not necessary"
Unless you've been there, you can't imagine the pain that infertility causes. Regardless of whether you've had no children, and can't conceive that first one, or whether you have 6, and can't conceive the 7th, it hurts.
IVF, for many couples, is their last hope. It can cost anywhere between £3000 and £15000 (on the NHS & privately) for just ONE attempt at IVF. This sum of money is not something we can all pay out at once - it's a huge chunk to pay out for something that doesn't guarantee a pregnancy, let alone a child at the end of it.
However - should the NHS pay it all? No, I don't think so. As Russ pointed out, it's the National Health Service, not a fertility clinic. But, people choose to smoke, drink, and have the right to free treatment for lung cancer, and liver transplants. Why should they be entitled to treatment for self-inflicted diseases, when a couple who've tried for 10 years can't get free treatment to help them conceive in the only way left?
It's not as easy as saying no, the NHS shouldn't pay for it. We need to know where the money is coming from - is it increased taxes? Is it being taken away from other areas of treatment, such as cancer care, SCBU, elderly care, respite care - or are we just re-organising the way things are funded? Who's to say that infertility isn't a fair enough thing to spend money on? Yes, there are other options - adoption, foster care - and yes, you get that much wanted child. But there are restrictions on that as well. Many people can't adopt, can't foster - or simply don't want to. Should adoption be offered before IVF treatment? Is that fair?
Maybe there should be very fine screening procedures to qualify, not just age limits. It's also being offered to infertile women only - what about those couples suffering from male factor infertility; they might benefit immensely from IVF with ICSI. Why should they be refused treatment, just cos the problem lies with the male? What if, as Ramrod says, the "disease" is cured, but the couple still can't conceive? Should they be given the option of free/reduced-rate IVF then? What if it's a disease that can't be cured for whatever reason, yet IVF still has a chance of working?
The other thing to realise is that many infertility treatments are available on the NHS already - IVF isn't the first option for many people, it's the last thing suggested to many people. What is also unfair is that, despite being a National Health Service, fertility treatments differ depending on the area you live in. Some people get 3 IUI attempts and 1 free IVF attempt before they have to start paying. Other people get nothing, after testing the only options they get is to try "naturally" or pay. Maybe before "taxpayers" start paying for IVF we should get rid of the regional boundaries of the NHS.
Before I get flamed, I'm not refusing treatment to anyone. I understand that smoking is an addiction, and it's not as easy as throwing the fags away. What people have to understand is that infertility is hard to deal with. You don't just try, then at the end of a set time say "no, that's it, no children..." - once that urge is there, it doesn't go away. Infertility is painful, maybe not in the same way as a broken leg, or cancer, but it still hurts.
It's a hard subject to debate - do we really have the right to refuse a couple the chance of having their own child? I'm backing out of this one for now - for me, it's not as black and white as others have seen it.
My Dad says that those couples wanting to have IVF, should be given a couple of teenagers for a month, then see if they still want to have children. :D
Originally posted by CaKe
This is such a horrible topic to debate Absolutely :( It's not as cut-and-dry as "people don't have a "right" to have children, it's their choice and not necessary" Finally, someone has come out and said it!
IVF, for many couples, is their last hope. It can cost anywhere between £3000 and £15000 (on the NHS & privately) for just ONE attempt at IVF. This sum of money is not something we can all pay out at once - it's a huge chunk to pay out for something that doesn't guarantee a pregnancy, let alone a child at the end of it.People should try this (http://www.foresight-preconception.org.uk/home-page.html) before trying something as invasive and expensive as IVF.
[b]However - should the NHS pay it all? No, I don't think so. As Russ pointed out, it's the National Health Service, not a fertility clinic. But, people choose to smoke, drink, and have the right to free treatment for lung cancer, and liver transplants. Why should they be entitled to treatment for self-inflicted diseases, when a couple who've tried for 10 years can't get free treatment to help them conceive in the only way left?Possibly because it's impossible to say if the lung/liver damage was self inflicted. Plenty of non-smokers with lung cancer so who is to say that smoking is responsible for all incidences of lung cancer and how do you tell if the drinker has had liver damage from the booze or from prescription drugs that he's having to take? But broadly speaking, I agree with you on the issue of self inflicted disease.
my view if you smoke or drink you should pay for NHS treatment its a big burden on the NHS having to treat these people who have inflicted the diseases upon themselves
then go and whine and say they cant help it its an addiction well why did you start in the first place dont give me the peer pressure BS people have brains and can think for themselves :mad:
orangebird
26-08-2003, 15:07
Originally posted by kronas
my view if you smoke or drink you should pay for NHS treatment its a big burden on the NHS having to treat these people who have inflicted the diseases upon themselves
then go and whine and say they cant help it its an addiction well why did you start in the first place dont give me the peer pressure BS people have brains and can think for themselves :mad:
??I smoke and drink - I have also payed NI contribution every month of my life since I was 16 (nearly 13 years & I have been fortunate enough to have never been unemployed) - you still think I have have no right to treatment should I need it?? :rolleyes:
As for the IVF subject - why can't those who need children adopt instead?
Originally posted by orangebird
[BAs for the IVF subject - why can't those who need children adopt instead? [/B] ....and theres a whole new topic :D
orangebird
26-08-2003, 15:19
Originally posted by Ramrod
....and theres a whole new topic :D
Indeed..... :disturbd:
If we couldn't have had kids (and for a while it looked like that) we would have had IVF privately. If we had found that the NHS would pay we would have jumped at the chance (who wouldn't want to save a few grand) with the feeling that we were getting something to which we wern't really entitled.( A bit like the family allowance that we get at the moment.)
Originally posted by orangebird
??I smoke and drink - I have also payed NI contribution every month of my life since I was 16 (nearly 13 years & I have been fortunate enough to have never been unemployed) - you still think I have have no right to treatment should I need it?? :rolleyes:
As for the IVF subject - why can't those who need children adopt instead?
yes i understand that but your still using resources which should not be used in those 2 instances which is the individuals fault and should take responsibility for payment of any bills incurred for the treatment
and for your final question i would say people want there own children as in what they created if you understand what im trying to saying.........
Originally posted by Ramrod
People should try this (http://www.foresight-preconception.org.uk/home-page.html) before trying something as invasive and expensive as IVF.
Yes, I agree with you. IVF should not be the first option for fertility treatment. Other options should be explored first, and IVF should be one of the last things tried, as it is at the moment.
I'm on the waiting list in my area for treatment for infertility. I'm also an active member of an infertility message board/community. I'd like to think I've "spoken" to enough people in the UK to have a fairly good understanding of how the treatment works - I've also spoken to my own GP about what my course of action is, and what I can expect.
I've had blood tests. They've shown possible reasons as to why we haven't conceived in over 3 years of trying - so I've been referred as an infertility case to a specialist. I don't intend to walk into my appointment and demanding IVF - I wouldn't do this if it was free either. I've had health checks at my GP, I fully expect more tests at the hospital. I personally would like the consultant to "fix" my existing problems so, if I am lucky enough to have fixable problems and conceive my first child, I can conceive a second child later on - jumping straight into IVF would not necessarily enable me to do this.
If (I believe it's still an if, correct me if I'm wrong) this proposal is accepted, and free IVF treatment is offered to couples, I think couples will still have to go through the other options first (scans, treatment, fertility drugs, IUI cycles etc) I don't think it would ever be as easy as "ordering" an IVF cycle.
Originally posted by kronas
my view if you smoke or drink you should pay for NHS treatment its a big burden on the NHS having to treat these people who have inflicted the diseases upon themselves
then go and whine and say they cant help it its an addiction well why did you start in the first place dont give me the peer pressure BS people have brains and can think for themselves
I disagree with this. I used smoking and drinking in my post as an example. As Ramrod said, it's impossible to prove if the damage is self inflicted. We can't deny people the right to treatment, it's fundamentally wrong...what if a smoker who died of lung cancer died after being refused treatment, but then it was proven that they didn't get the lung cancer through smoking? It's a minefield - no one that is fully entitled to free NHS care should be refused it. (there are probably exceptions to this, but broadly speaking, this is how I feel)
Originally posted by orangebird
As for the IVF subject - why can't those who need children adopt instead?
Like you've already said, there's another topic. Adoption is a wonderful thing to do, but not everybody can adopt, for various reasons. Some people (including myself at this precise moment) would rather have a child "of their own" - something they'd created - with their parents genes. It sounds selfish, and I'm aware of that - I'm looking to widen my views, and I think adoption is wonderful - it's just not an option for me at this time.
I do agree with Ramrod though - if I go through the relevant testing and I'm offered free IVF treatment - I'd take it! I would feel guilty though, and would wonder how the money could be otherwise spent but for me, having children is important to me, and I'd do anything I could to have a child with my husband.
I've said this before.
Having children is a privilege.Having children is not a right.
I'm getting very worried by this idea that because couples have the sorrow of being unable to conceive that we should spare no expense to ensure that they can conceive.
What if IVF had not been 'discovered/researched? What would such couples do?
Would they just have to accept that to be a parent they may have to go in a different direction?Adoption,fostering,AID?Or just accept that they will not be parents?
This is what many had to face in the past.
These days I think that many just won't consider any other alternative to IVF.IVF is their first and only choice.Unfortunately for a percentage it doesn't work straight away.How many goes will each couple be allowed?For some it never works.What then?
Perhaps we should spend more of the allocated money on helping such couples to accept that maybe having a child is not the only reason for our existance on this earth.Being unable to conceive is not life threatening and there are other ways to take care of children.We so often see the results on our screens across the world of children needing help and compassion.Why not direct efforts into helping them.
I'm sorry if this seems harsh but this is what I believe.
Incog.
I have read all views on this subject, and speaking as a person who is unable to concieve naturally and behalf of all the other heartbroken couples who are in the same boat, I dissagree that IVF shouldnt be availible on NHS.
Maybe if they were in the same situation as the rest of us they would change their opinion.
I live in Buckinghashire, and at present we do not have goverment funding for IVF. Where as if i moved half hour away to Oxford this would be considered.
Why shouldnt IVF be availible on NHS??? Since i learned I could not have children naturally I have been heart broken. It seems allot of people who can have their own children can easily say "what about adoption, or fostering" I can understand what they are saying but as it stands it isnt as easy as all that to adopt or foster. Also why shouldnt we have the same chance as everyone else who are able to have thir own children ?? Isnt that the whole point of why we are on this palnet??
I dont think fertile couples have any idea what heart break infertility causes. it makes you feel useless, sad, worthless, and a whole lot more - not being able to do naturally what we should be able to do without problem like in allot of cases.
We live in hope and pray to god that things will happen naturally, but in the meantime for couples who do not have thousands of ponds to pay for treatment I think should be helped wherever possible.
Aww Plums I am so sorry to hear of your heartache, welcome to the forum and I hope one day you will be blessed with a child by what ever means
Thank you, I wish all other people in my situation all the very best of luck too ;)
I don't think it should be available freely on the NHS at all, there are drugs that are crucial to people's health that are still not available for free so I believe the money out of our pockets should be prioritised towards them first.
well thats your opinion isnt it.. i suppose you have a very large family odf your own ??
well thats your opinion isnt it.. i suppose you have a very large family odf your own ??
No I don't but I do have an ill grandmother who can't get the specific drugs she needs on the NHS, tell me what physical symptoms you're putting up with on a daily basis through not being able to conceive?
Fair point, no physical symptoms no, but other problems yes.
We all know people who are ill and im not saying these people shouldnt be treated.
Untill Infertility effects you, you will never understand.
__________________
??I smoke and drink - I have also payed NI contribution every month of my life since I was 16 (nearly 13 years & I have been fortunate enough to have never been unemployed) - you still think I have have no right to treatment should I need it?? :rolleyes:
As for the IVF subject - why can't those who need children adopt instead?
I agree with you regarding the smoking & drinking, also do you know how much money the comes out of the NHS for drug users. I actually work for the NHS.. it is shocking, they evenpay for taxi's to & from the rehab centre...self inflicted. Its discusting that we help these people, and for people who are ill through no fault of their own (some) have to pay for treatment..
__________________
....and theres a whole new topic :D
Do you actually know how long and hard the process is for adoption, thats is you are even considered.
Fair point, no physical symptoms no, but other problems yes.
We all know people who are ill and im not saying these people shouldnt be treated.
Untill Infertility effects you, you will never understand.
Firstly don't make presumptions about people, you have absolutely no idea whether my partner is infertile or not, secondly, are you trying to infer that your need for a child is greater than the need for something like (for example) Herceptin to help treat women with breast cancer?
No I don't but I do have an ill grandmother who can't get the specific drugs she needs on the NHS, tell me what physical symptoms you're putting up with on a daily basis through not being able to conceive?
I am sorry to hear about yr grandmother - what illness has she got ?
Fair point, no physical symptoms no, but other problems yes.
We all know people who are ill and im not saying these people shouldnt be treated.
Untill Infertility effects you, you will never understand.
Firstly don't make presumptions about people, you have absolutely no idea whether my partner is infertile or not, secondly, are you trying to infer that your need for a child is greater than the need for something like (for example) Herceptin to help treat women with breast cancer?
Sadly, choices like that take place in the NHS everyday. :(
Sorry to hear about you grandmother BTW.
Firstly don't make presumptions about people, you have absolutely no idea whether my partner is infertile or not, secondly, are you trying to infer that your need for a child is greater than the need for something like (for example) Herceptin to help treat women with breast cancer?
well it is obviously not affecting you is it ?? if it was then maybe you would be a wee bit more sympathetic to people in my situation.
I am not refering to anything of the sort, i am simply saying that I think infertile couples should have the same chance as every other infertile couples throughout -
You are the one that brought up illness.
It is such a difficult question to answer. The mental strain childless couples go through can be so great that ladies have breakdowns and sadly have even been known to kill them selves due to the depression they suffer through this.
Maybe some sort of payment plan could be set up to take the strain off the NHS were by you can get IVF but have to pay the money back that it costs? I don't know if this is the answer or not it is just a suggestion
One other thing I would like to say is that people that get treatment for an illness caused by them smoking have more than paid for it by all the tax they pay on evey packet of cigs that they buy
well it is obviously not affecting you is it ?? if it was then maybe you would be a wee bit more sympathetic to people in my situation.
I am not refering to anything of the sort, i am simply saying that I think infertile couples should have the same chance as every other infertile couples throughout -
You are the one that brought up illness.
You're completely missing the point, if the NHS pipes money into IVF then it has to cut corners elsewhere, where do you think they should cut back?
probably on drug users.. theres a massive expense on helping these people who have chosen to live their life the way they have
__________________
It is such a difficult question to answer. The mental strain childless couples go through can be so great that ladies have breakdowns and sadly have even been known to kill them selves due to the depression they suffer through this.
Maybe some sort of payment plan could be set up to take the strain off the NHS were by you can get IVF but have to pay the money back that it costs? I don't know if this is the answer or not it is just a suggestion
One other thing I would like to say is that people that get treatment for an illness caused by them smoking have more than paid for it by all the tax they pay on evey packet of cigs that they buy
I would be more than happy to pay in installments if it meant that i would have a chance of affording IVF. its a great idea. I will never be in the position to be able to pay thousands of pounds at 1 time.
probably on drug users.. theres a massive expense on helping these people who have chosen to live their life the way they have
__________________
You seem to be more in the know that I am, how much does it cost to treat a single drug user and how much does it cost for your average job lot of IVF?
I would be more than happy to pay in installments if it meant that i would have a chance of affording IVF. its a great idea. I will never be in the position to be able to pay thousands of pounds at 1 time.
Credit card? (a lot of 9 month interest free ones about, that's just over £110 a month) or even a bank loan?
there is no way of knowing how much it will cost in total - there are allot of additional costs involved depending on how your body responds to fertility drugs etc. I couldnt afford an additional £110 a month anyway.
there is no way of knowing how much it will cost in total - there are allot of additional costs involved depending on how your body responds to fertility drugs etc. I couldnt afford an additional £110 a month anyway.
Would you not be spending more than that on a baby?
of course but if i if IVF was availible through NHS People like me could put the thousands of pounds towards bringing thire children up
I thought you could have it on the nhs but it was resticted to one or two trys? Maybe it is only in certain parts of the country or maybe it has been stopped now
Sorry, but I still (and always will) think it's a completely unneccesary expense to expect the tax payer/NHS to fork out for, bring back the chiropody and podiatry for OAP's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2549395.stm) instead of handing out funds to add to an already overpopulated society.
I thought you could have it on the nhs but it was resticted to one or two trys? Maybe it is only in certain parts of the country or maybe it has been stopped now
Or maybe the situation has changed. Kronas started this thread nearly two years ago.
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2005/07/10.gif I never noticed
http://bestsmileys.com/blushing/5.gif I never noticed
whyme my reaction was also the same.... i thought that you got at least one attempt.... and i thought you could appeal through your local MP as well.
plums as has been said :welcome: to the forum. I wouldn't say that I understand your feelings, because i've not been there, but i could empathise with you. If it was me, and i couldn't get IVF on the NHS and was, as desprate as you obviously are to have a child, I would try everything in my power to get the money together. I think i would probably do as bifta has suggested and take out bank loans etc to have the opportunity. I'd work heaps of overtime and save up for it as well. In short, i would do anything i possible could to get the money together.
However, I can also see Bifta's point of view. I think that a lot of areas of the NHS need better funding, in fact i was watching a programme the other day that was discussing the lack of funding in maternity wards, which has meant that some hospitals have had to turn people away, and turn babies away, who are ill. In my opinion, treating sick children is more important than funding for people to bring more children into the world, who won't necessarily have places that they could be treated, if they happened to get ill.
If all my attempts to have a child of my own did fail, then i would probably turn down the route of adoption. Yes, you may feel you lose out because you don't get the experience of pregnancy and birth, but i think that you can love a child no matter where they have come from.
something, which one might also consider, is that we are darn lucky to even have an NHS service. If we were somewhere like the states, we would have to pay for ALL treatment that we had.
plums as i've said i am not trying to demean what you feel, or undermine it in anyway but the above is how i feel about the issue.
The problem has more to do with inequality of access to IVF as the lady from Buckinghamshire pointed out. Unfortunately this applies to most areas of the NHS which with the best will in the world can never be funded properly. Everything depends on where you live as to what treatment you get and how fast.
Perhaps a limited number of attempts at IVF could be offered at a subsidised rate throughout the country but only after all other methods have been exhausted. As for those who say we have enough children, unfortunately the opposite is true. There will be more over 60's than under 20's in a short space of time (probably why they are trying to increase the working age to 70).
BTW I smoked for 30 years and I am sure in that time I have paid enough duty to pay for any illness I may cause myself as a result, and certainly less than any sport related injury would cost.
I thought you could have it on the nhs but it was resticted to one or two trys? Maybe it is only in certain parts of the country or maybe it has been stopped now
They announced that in Feb 2005 that 1-2 cycles of IVF would be availible through the NHS to infertile couples throughout the country. I have visited the Doctors regurly for updates and it is still not in place. I think in other counties eg Oxfordshire & Hertfordshire this has now been put in place, but as it stands this does not apply in Buckinghamshire.
__________________
whyme my reaction was also the same.... i thought that you got at least one attempt.... and i thought you could appeal through your local MP as well.
plums as has been said :welcome: to the forum. I wouldn't say that I understand your feelings, because i've not been there, but i could empathise with you. If it was me, and i couldn't get IVF on the NHS and was, as desprate as you obviously are to have a child, I would try everything in my power to get the money together. I think i would probably do as bifta has suggested and take out bank loans etc to have the opportunity. I'd work heaps of overtime and save up for it as well. In short, i would do anything i possible could to get the money together.
However, I can also see Bifta's point of view. I think that a lot of areas of the NHS need better funding, in fact i was watching a programme the other day that was discussing the lack of funding in maternity wards, which has meant that some hospitals have had to turn people away, and turn babies away, who are ill. In my opinion, treating sick children is more important than funding for people to bring more children into the world, who won't necessarily have places that they could be treated, if they happened to get ill.
If all my attempts to have a child of my own did fail, then i would probably turn down the route of adoption. Yes, you may feel you lose out because you don't get the experience of pregnancy and birth, but i think that you can love a child no matter where they have come from.
something, which one might also consider, is that we are darn lucky to even have an NHS service. If we were somewhere like the states, we would have to pay for ALL treatment that we had.
plums as i've said i am not trying to demean what you feel, or undermine it in anyway but the above is how i feel about the issue.
Thank you for your welcome
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.