[CaKe]

Originally posted by Ramrod
People should try this 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.