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.