NHS 'should offer free IVF'

79 posts / 0 new
Last post
NHS 'should offer free IVF'

Government watchdog recommends that ALL infertile couples should receive IVF treatment on the NHS?

I think it's a shit idea... what about you? Poll on the news came 59% in favour.

I think it's arse. Natural selection, if you can't have a kid then you can't have a kid. Making IVF more freely available is just making our gene pool weaker.Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? Now it's survival of the loudest shouting liberal.

Admin wrote

Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? Now it's survival of the loudest shouting liberal.

In that case, we shouldn't allow the NHS to treat anybody with an illness that could be terminal.Got to keep that gene pool strong.

i don't want a kid for myself, so why should i pay for somebody else to have a kid??

Adam K wrote

i don't want a kid for myself, so why should i pay for somebody else to have a kid??

That's such a poor point, I didn't even bother to read it.

Mr Soap wrote

In that case, we shouldn't allow the NHS to treat anybody with an illness that could be terminal.Got to keep that gene pool strong.

I think there's a bit of a difference between treating those currently alive and suffering due to inherited bad genes (for example) and offering to perpetuate bad genes.There was a woman on the news rebutting the arguments that life saving treatments are more important. She claimed that "some people who can't conceive get suicidal"... so fucking what? Let them die and take their defective genes with them I say.

dedpidgin wrote

I think there's a bit of a difference between treating those currently alive and suffering due to inherited bad genes (for example) and offering to perpetuate bad genes.

Good point. They should be cured, if possible, and sterilized.

Mr Soap wrote

Good point. They should be cured, if possible, and sterilized.

Why the " "? It's a good idea!

dedpidgin wrote

Why the " "? It's a good idea!

...and any children that they've had, be killed. Or sterilized.

Admin wrote

I think it's arse. Natural selection, if you can't have a kid then you can't have a kid. Making IVF more freely available is just making our gene pool weaker.Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? Now it's survival of the loudest shouting liberal.

Wasn't that mostly the edict of the 3rd reich?

Big Nige wrote

Wasn't that mostly the edict of the 3rd reich?

Not quite - that was "Aryans are the uber-race; bow down world." This is merely, if you're not healthy enough to have a child then should you receive help?Personally I think there's too many people on the planet anyway.

Mr Soap wrote

...and any children that they've had, be killed. Or sterilized.

or made to ride Hondas Crusty

HiNo they shouldn't. We are hardly on underpopulated country, and failing to conceive is hardly life threatening (probably more life threatening to conceive).If it comes to mental anguish then where is the Ferrari on the NHS that I need.All the bestKeith

Zaney (not verified)

Sorry, this is a bloody outrage! there are people suffering for months and years who are waiting for hip replacements and the like. this is most definitely not on. Not being able to conceive is sad if you really want children, but hardly life threatening. why not consider giving a loving home to a disabled child or even an able bodied one come to that.I'm sure there are thousands of abandoned children in homes all across the country who are crying out to be loved and cherished. What about all those women who are not entitled to receive that breast cancer drug? (can't remember the name of it, but they only get it if their postcode is in the system) We as a nation are hardly dying out, so it's not even a good idea on that basis! grrrrrrrrrrr, this is one subject that can make me rant and rant! Ah, deep breath!

Zaneygirl wrote

this is one subject that can make me rant and rant!

Oh I dunno...

Zaney (not verified)

Big Nige wrote

Oh I dunno...

oi, don't start!

What about all those women who are not entitled to receive that breast cancer drug? (can't remember the name of it, but they only get it if their postcode is in the system) Tamoxifen?malcolm

Zaney (not verified)

the grim emailer wrote

What about all those women who are not entitled to receive that breast cancer drug? (can't remember the name of it, but they only get it if their postcode is in the system) Tamoxifen?malcolm

yup, that's the one.

The Gov are struggling to keep the NHS money pot at sufficient levels at the moment, so whoever came up with this shitbrained scheme must be a total fuckwit.www.faxyourmp.com

personally i think it should

sheepy wrote

personally i think it should

Why's that Sheepy ?Do you have junk spunk ?

All the predictable responses I was expecting before clicking on the thread!Bet a lot of you might change your tune if it was u trying for kids.Try putting yourselves in their shoes and think about it.Just a thought

Slothbear wrote

All the predictable responses I was expecting before clicking on the thread!Bet a lot of you might change your tune if it was u trying for kids.Try putting yourselves in their shoes and think about it.Just a thought

Perhaps they should try putting themselves in the shoes of those waiting for life saving operations and those who are told they can't get the drugs they need to live a half decent life.Just a thought.

You've completely missed my point.I wan't asking you to suggest who's shoes they should stand in. I was suggesting you think about their (people wantng IVF) situation and how u might feel.

i think that providing IVF on the NHS is a good idea. I also think that everyone over the age of 80 should be shot. Old people pull more cash out of our pockets than IVF could ever do.

Slothbear wrote

You've completely missed my point.I wan't asking you to suggest who's shoes they should stand in. I was suggesting you think about their (people wantng IVF) situation and how u might feel.

I got your point. I think with the NHS it's a matter of priorities though. Caring for those who are currently alive and in need, whose mental anguish AND physical suffering cascades to those who know and love them should, I suggest, be more important than someone who's in good health hijacking valuable resources just to help procreate - hardly a necessary function.My point was simply to suggest how selfish these people must be to even consider using scarce resources for such personal gain. I've put myself in their shoes, as you suggested. I could not, in good conscience, waste NHS resources on my own needs like that.As suggested earlier in the thread there are alternatives which would give unwanted children a new chance in life. The fact that these IVF people don't go that route speaks volumes about how much they care about other people to me.

I personally don't believe it should be free. I do think reforms should be made in the adoption process in order to make it easier for the average person to adopt a child as at the moment the criteria is far too strict. There are too many unwanted/neglected children out there. If you a really deserate to love and raise a child, does it matter that it has come from someone else? Any adopted/fostered children on here?I think the NHS should concentrate more on those life saving operations.Oh, may be one of the women that does require fertility treatment as a few of the women in our family have had problems conceiving (not been tested or nowt as of yet as not quite feeling broody enough).

When it comes down to it, the job of the NHS is rationing. They have finite resources, dictated by what we are prepared to pay for through our taxes, and there is never going to be enough to go around so that everybody gets the best possible care.Now how that money gets prioritised ought to be the perogative of the electorate - it is, after all, our money. Personally, I don't think that IVF for all is a particularly good place to be spending it, but if (as the poll mentioned would suggest) I am in the minority, it doesn't seem all that unreasonable for the NHS to take the decision to fund it.In an ideal world I'd prefer the NHS to be more explicit and transparent about the way they ration care. Waiting lists are one consequence of the fact that there is not enough to go around - what they want to be doing is just cutting down on the amount of work they take on in the first place.

dedpidgin wrote

I think there's a bit of a difference between treating those currently alive and suffering due to inherited bad genes (for example) and offering to perpetuate bad genes.

So you think infertility is inherited?Come to think of it you might have a point: if your parents didn't have any children you're not likely to have any either.

saga_lout wrote

So you think infertility is inherited?

no, but sub fertility can be and often is.

moggy wrote

no, but sub fertility can be and often is.

It's probably all that sitting on the bench.

Slothbear wrote

All the predictable responses I was expecting before clicking on the thread!Bet a lot of you might change your tune if it was u trying for kids.Try putting yourselves in their shoes and think about it.Just a thought

If it comes to having kids, due to a medical condition I quite probably qill require IVF. Do I think this should be available on the NHS? Yes, at the expense of live saving treatment for others? no! most definitely no.If you can't afford to pay for IVF treatment, then how do you think that you are going to afford to pay for the thousands that it costs to bring up children?

attempt to gain some perspective here. If we were that bothered about squandering resources, we would seal up the ports of this country tighter than a nuns cunt and stop all the asylum madness. Have a good look at the immigration problem we have. Or how about the billions we piss up the wall fighting wars we don't need to be? As for survival of the fittest, well then let's stop training obstetricians. Suitable mothers should be able to have their own children unaided.I think parents should be vetted. If you are some single-mum slag from up the estate on her 3rd kid before you are 25, then yes you should be shot and your body sold for lamp oil. If you are in a steady, loving relationship and can not concieve in the 'normal' fashion- then IVF should be available, without cost.

IVF should definately be available on the NHS. The cost will is not so great that Cancer patients wont get treatment, or hospital wings will close. Stop reading the Mail and wake up, people are suffering here

Admin wrote

Now it's survival of the loudest shouting liberal.

Not if I have my way.....Jeeves, pass me the UZI!!

Admin wrote

I think it's arse. Natural selection, if you can't have a kid then you can't have a kid. Making IVF more freely available is just making our gene pool weaker.Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? Now it's survival of the loudest shouting liberal.

Whats natural selection about someone losing their fertility in a car accident?Being infertile is an illness and that should be treatable on the NHS. Of course, having cancer is also natural selection, should they not treat that as well? How about broken legs? Flu? Gall Stones?Fuck the NHS, lets all go the natural selection route!Foo'! :P

Zaneygirl wrote

We as a nation are hardly dying out, so it's not even a good idea on that basis! grrrrrrrrrrr, this is one subject that can make me rant and rant!

Well actually, British nationals have a stagnant to negative birthrate whereas upto 3rd generation immigrants and above have hugely positive birthrates. By 2050 this country will be predominantly African/Asian and Muslim. So yes, this nation IS dying out. Not that has any relevance to this question :P

dedpidgin wrote

I got your point. I think with the NHS it's a matter of priorities though. Caring for those who are currently alive and in need, whose mental anguish AND physical suffering cascades to those who know and love them should, I suggest, be more important than someone who's in good health hijacking valuable resources just to help procreate - hardly a necessary function.

Ergo we should only treat potentially fatal cases on the NHS? So no contagious diseases (rarely fatal), no damaged limbs unless arteries are severed? No stroke rehabilitation, heart attack care, car crash victims left to fend for themselves at home?Narrow minds create narrow views

Quote

My point was simply to suggest how selfish these people must be to even consider using scarce resources for such personal gain. I've put myself in their shoes, as you suggested. I could not, in good conscience, waste NHS resources on my own needs like that.

Given that in essense, our entire existence is directed towards producing offspring, shouldnt the facilitation of this be above even our own health? I am not quite sure you understand the level of insult you direct at a couple who are incapable of having children naturally by calling them "selfish".

Quote

As suggested earlier in the thread there are alternatives which would give unwanted children a new chance in life. The fact that these IVF people don't go that route speaks volumes about how much they care about other people to me.

I suggest then that YOU adopt all the disabled and orphaned children, deal with their HUGE mental or physical needs and allow the selfish people to have their normal children. ALternatively, you could try thinking before posting your misinformed Daily Mail style rants. Where is that strupid looking smiley I need to add...Ahhh...

moggy wrote

If you can't afford to pay for IVF treatment, then how do you think that you are going to afford to pay for the thousands that it costs to bring up children?

Because if you dont have to spend thousands on IVF then you have thousands to spend on kids.Perhaps

Docca wrote

I think parents should be vetted. If you are some single-mum slag from up the estate on her 3rd kid before you are 25, then yes you should be shot and your body sold for lamp oil. If you are in a steady, loving relationship and can not concieve in the 'normal' fashion- then IVF should be available, without cost.

Docca, as sensible as ever

grr nys :Pthing is, for all the people banging on about operations and cancer treatment funding being absorbed by IVF ...yadda yadda...consider that a major sponge of NHS cash gets wasted every year looking after old fuckers who's families cannot be arsed to take them back.They have no home, and have to wait for a nursing/residential home. Bed Blockers.OR the even older who are too fossil-like to even exist in a nursing home, and have to come back to hospital to wheeze out the rest of their days.They cunts can take YEARS to croak. How many operations could you fund if we just did away with the lot? MILLIONS.and don't get me started on the amount of cash we spunk up the wall treating people with 'mental illness'

Dedpidgin - The gene fascist!How about this one then. A recent study carried out here in Germany showed that a large percentage of men born in the seventies have a low sperm count.They found out that it was caused by disposable nappies.The first ones caused the gonads to heat up to normal body temperature, instead of a degree or so cooler, which is how they should be. Which causes permanent damage.Not really relevant here but shows that all infertility is not caused by them evil bad genes.

AFAIR - the proposal is to provide 3 IVF treatments at a cost of approximately £2500 for each series ... so a total of £7500 per couple. Thats £3750 per person or the cost of a secondhand bike. Ok its not cheap but it isn't exactly expensive either and if you really wanted kids I am sure that it could be paid for.Unfortunately too many people see having a kids as a right not a privilege and too much moeny is spent by the NHS on treatments that strictly speaking aren't mainstream clinical treatments. IMO the NHS should be providing treatment for accident, illness and the like and not be dealing with more esoteric issues like IVF - which should only be available to those willing to contribute financially. BTW I wonder how many kids lives could be saved if the money was spent on AIDS programmes in the third world.

NyseriA wrote

Ergo we should only treat potentially fatal cases on the NHS? So no contagious diseases (rarely fatal), no damaged limbs unless arteries are severed? No stroke rehabilitation, heart attack care, car crash victims left to fend for themselves at home?Narrow minds create narrow views

Can we stick to the argument in hand or do we really have to stoop to personal one-liners to score points? No? Oh, ok then! If you got that message from what I wrote you deserve a degree in "misreading between the lines". Why "Ergo we should only treat potentially fatal cases"? They already do this and, quite rightly, deal with the others you mention... I'm simply suggesting that IVF is off the bottom of the list of treatments which should be free.

NyseriA wrote

Given that in essense, our entire existence is directed towards producing offspring, shouldnt the facilitation of this be above even our own health? I am not quite sure you understand the level of insult you direct at a couple who are incapable of having children naturally by calling them "selfish".

Are you serious? Believe it or not but we've (most of us anyway) evolved beyond simply living to breed. Or do you subscribe to that primordial imperative by spending all your available cash on producing and raising offspring?As for the level of insult I offer the childless couple demanding IVF; it's inversely proportional to the level of respect I give the childless couple choosing to adopt.

NyseriA wrote

I suggest then that YOU adopt all the disabled and orphaned children, deal with their HUGE mental or physical needs and allow the selfish people to have their normal children. ALternatively, you could try thinking before posting your misinformed Daily Mail style rants. Where is that strupid looking smiley I need to add...Ahhh...

I don't want kids. If I did, I would adopt.Daily Mail? I don't read newspapers as I prefer to develop my own opinions rather than having them fed to me. Sorry my view differs from yours... I guess that's what makes it "misinformed" eh?

Slothbear wrote

All the predictable responses I was expecting before clicking on the thread!Bet a lot of you might change your tune if it was u trying for kids.Try putting yourselves in their shoes and think about it.Just a thought

I am the sum of my experiences + the status of me at the moment. You're right, I'm not in their position, but that is what makes mine and anyones opinion a valid one. I don't consider free IVF treatment a priority for an overstretched NHS (I've got kids and they're not all they're cracked up to be).So there we have it, thats my opinion because of who and what I am, and I think you'll find, that as most people don't have reproduction problems, the big swing in opinion will be away from free IVF.

Zaneygirl wrote

What about all those women who are not entitled to receive that breast cancer drug? (can't remember the name of it, but they only get it if their postcode is in the system)

Another triumph of media-led misinformation I noteTamoxifen is sold in the press as some sort of wonder drug which will sort your cancer out, but there is a "postcode lottery" which determines whether or not you'll get itThis is bollocks, on both counts. Treatments offered for all cancers do differ slightly between health authorities, hospitals and of course oncologists, but there's no clear-cut postcode decision which determines or even significantly affects your survival rateTamoxifen also only helps with breast cancers which are oestrogen-linked. Which is not that many of them, I think about 35-40%.

If I may add my tuppeneth...I was just wondering if any of you lot have actually had any experience of this first hand.I have, although not IVF as it would not have worked in our case.I am undecided about free IVF - it is expensive for an average household to afford if they have a tight budget, although, IIRC the first treatment is on NHS. Also, IIRC, first time failure rate is quite high.If you don't want kids, that's fine, but please, don't tell me it's tough sh!t because we can't. I'll be honest and tell you that some of the earlier comments upset me as this is a subject close to my heart.My wife and I tried for kids for 5 years, including infertility treatment. We decided not to go for IVF, because the probability of failure would be high due to our condition.To find out that you can't have kids when you want them is emotionally devastating. It makes you feel incomplete and you end up trying to blame each other for something you have no control over. To say, "You can't have kids, so there, ner!" is childish, insensitive, heartless and cruel. We decided to adopt as there is partically no chance whatsoever of us conceiving and now we have two lovely and lively boys.I am an advocate for adoption, although I don't feel the adoption process should be made easier. The police check, for one takes three months. Prospective adopters need counselling and training in the buildup to being approved. Counselling is needed to help Social Services match up adopters to the children they have in care. They are trying to find a near perfect match of prospective parents and children. The training is needed in order that adopters can deal with "inappropriate behaviour", resulting from physial, emotional or sexual abuse they may have suffered when living with their parents.There is now no upper age limit to adoption (it used to be 35). Anyone can apply for adoption and although the process is lengthy (it took us 18 months to be approved and a further 6 months before we got our first) it is fairly straight forward if you are willing to participate in it.

Good post SMI would also like to echo earlier posts which mentioned the fact that an inability to have children may have been caused by many factors other than "bad genes", although I'm not sure whether I support IVF availability on the NHS or not - part of me wouldn't want this restricted to those with plenty of cash, part of me feels this kind of treatment ought not to be another burden on the taxpayer. So I'll stay firmly on the fenceInteresting to find out that there is no upper limit to age for adoption these days either - is this definite? Might be a great comfort to us if so, we haven't found out yet wther or not we will have to but there's a fair possibility of it

Dodgy Geezer wrote

Good post SMI would also like to echo earlier posts which mentioned the fact that an inability to have children may have been caused by many factors other than "bad genes", although I'm not sure whether I support IVF availability on the NHS or not - part of me wouldn't want this restricted to those with plenty of cash, part of me feels this kind of treatment ought not to be another burden on the taxpayer. So I'll stay firmly on the fenceInteresting to find out that there is no upper limit to age for adoption these days either - is this definite? Might be a great comfort to us if so, we haven't found out yet wther or not we will have to but there's a fair possibility of it

My feelings exactly regarding the cost.Regarding age limits, yes. This was one of our concerns, as my wife is older than me and she was approaching 35. Our social worker herself told us there was no upper limit as more and more people were starting families later in life due to career commitments.There's nothing to stop anyone ringing up the family placement division of your local council and enquiring about it.Whats more, if you do decide to adopt, you'll be giving a child a chance of a better life.

Mr Soap wrote

In that case, we shouldn't allow the NHS to treat anybody with an illness that could be terminal.Got to keep that gene pool strong.

In some areas they don't!:burp: It's just another vote winning exersise,& prolly to take attention away from the f**k up that they have made in Iraq.

I don't think it should be allowed. The NHS are always screaming about not having enough money and (if the News was correct last night) providing free IVF treatment could between 100-400million a year.I can't agree with that. I'm sure it's heartbreaking for some people not being able to have children but where is this money going to come from?Where are cutbacks going to be made in the NHS so they can give this treatment free? I would rather that 400million a year was spent on upping Nurses wages and training Doctors for more specialised fields.When i was ill a couple of years ago i needed a Colonoscopy, i had lost 3 stone in 3 weeks and was extremely ill. The hospital told me they couldn't fit me in for 6 weeks if i had waited that long i'd have probably died of septesemia(sp)so i had to get it done privately which cost me £1500 (which i had to somehow find) but i got it done within 3 days.You want kids that badly, pay for it, it should be a privelidge not a right, serious treatment for illness should be a right not a prevelidge if you can't afford IVF well then you probably can't afford to have kids and in that case one less needless burden on the state gets my thumbs up.

SKID Mark wrote

If you don't want kids, that's fine, but please, don't tell me it's tough sh!t because we can't. I'll be honest and tell you that some of the earlier comments upset me as this is a subject close to my heart.

My feelings go out to you SM. Although there are some heartless comments on this post, I think that most of them, although not all show total understanding of your position, are reasonable.I for one am not saying "If you can't have kids tough s**t". I am saying that the NHS can't afford, and so shouldn't pay for IVF treatment.It is, after all a National Health Service and not a National Lifestyle Service.My earlier comment on kids not being what they're cracked up to be, was, in view of your comments, an ill thought and crass thing to joke about, and for that I deeply appologise.

I'd just like to echo Rincewind there SkidMark... some of the early comments were just designed to kickstart the discussion, nothing personal intended.I stand by my opinion that infertile people demanding IVF are utterly selfish considering situations like those suffered by Yummaha though.But, as mentioned, great respect to those who adopt, especially those that eschew the IVF route.

I am stunned by the argument that resources are limited and therefore IVF should be restricted, and all the bollocks about selfishness of would-be parents that results from it.How much money do you think the NHS is really going to spend by making IVF free?It seems a shadow of a droplet compared to what could be saved if the NHS started:- reforming itself in order to provide cheaper and more appropriate care- changing its "I know what's good for you" attitude (most of the time they don't and make costly mistakes as a result)- ignoring irrelevant targets whose mindless pursuit waste resources- thinking in terms of preventive care (usually cheap), rather than letting issues develop into costly crisesBut, oh, you need imagination and most of all balls for that, and governments have lost theirs, haven't they (and a few VDers it seems)? So we need IVF if only for or leaders to reproduce themselves That said the current system, which allows for one or two free attempts is a good compromise.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments