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.

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

Absolutely Finally, someone has come out and said it!

People should try this before trying something as invasive and expensive as IVF.

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:

??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?

....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.)

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.........

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.

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)

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.