Jump to content

IVF on the NHS: Yes or No?


Stu
 Share

[[Template core/global/global/poll is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Recommended Posts

 

NHS fertility clinics told to lift restrictions on IVF treatment

 

NHS fertility clinics will be ordered to meet their responsibilities and provide adequate levels of IVF treatment, amid growing concerns that a "postcode lottery" is stifling couples' chances of having a baby.

 

Ministers will contact every state-funded fertility centre in the country to remind them that guidelines recommend that the NHS offer eligible couples three cycles of IVF treatment. The intervention comes after an increasing number of NHS primary care trusts (PCTs) announced they were restricting IVF treatment or suspending it altogether citing budget constraints.

 

The Independent on Sunday revealed last month that Britain's fertility watchdog was to launch a crackdown on private IVF clinics, following claims they had been charging exorbitantly high fees and "misleading" patients about their chances of having a child. Lord Winston, one of the country's foremost fertility experts, complained about the "scandal" of clinics overcharging.

 

But restrictions on the availability of NHS fertility treatment has forced more couples to go private at an average cost of £3,500 an attempt.

 

Figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority show that almost 40,000 women had IVF treatment in 2008, an increase of 8.2 per cent on 2007. The majority of treatments were in private clinics.

 

David Flory, the NHS's deputy chief executive, has written to all PCTs asking them to respect the guidelines. "Many PCTs have made progress in implementing the existing recommendations. I hope they can inspire those who have not yet made the same progress to move more rapidly towards implementation."

 

Susan Seenan, of the National Infertility Awareness Campaign, said: "It is unacceptable that some PCTs are still failing to fund fertility treatment. The guidance was based on clinical, as well as cost, effectiveness."

 

Might be a daft question, but what are the reasons behind IVF being available on the NHS?

 

Is the ability to conceive a child a fundamental right of couples in the UK which should be provided by the taxpayers? What is the situation like in other Western countries?

 

Has anyone on here had any experience with IVF? (In a personal or professional capacity)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they already have a child then no, if they don't have then yes. If they will be mostly living on benefits then no, if they aren't then yes. If they are people who would be responsible parents then yes, if not then no. All in all it should be means tested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest neesy111

Every couple should be able to get the treatment if they are unable to conceive a kid provided they won't be wasters stuck on benefits and can bring up a child in the right environment.  Obviously some means testing needs to be done but those who would be good parents and are capable are looking after the child should have the chance, no doubt imo.  It's the aspiration of many couples to bring up kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every couple should be able to get the treatment if they are unable to conceive a kid provided they won't be wasters stuck on benefits and can bring up a child in the right environment.

 

Why the bit in bold?

 

If you believe that it's a fundemental right in our society to give all couples the chance to have their own children, then why do you differentiate between benefits/non-benefits?

 

 

It's the aspiration of many couples to bring up kids.

 

It's the aspiration of many young lads to be a professional footballer, but the NHS doesn't tend to foot the bill for thousands of kids to take growth hormones to improve their athletic ability. Should society really be bearing the burden of people's aspirations?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Heneage

Every couple should be able to get the treatment if they are unable to conceive a kid provided they won't be wasters stuck on benefits and can bring up a child in the right environment.

 

Why the bit in bold?

 

If you believe that it's a fundemental right in our society to give all couples the chance to have their own children, then why do you differentiate between benefits/non-benefits?

Because those who contribute to society should also be allowed to take back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really believe anyone should be having IVF to be honest.

 

I know it's easy for me to say having never been in that situation, but I genuinely believe that people who are unlucky enough to be infertile should try to suck it up and adopt/foster some of the many needy children out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really believe anyone should be having IVF to be honest.

 

I know it's easy for me to say having never been in that situation, but I genuinely believe that people who are unlucky enough to be infertile should try to suck it up and adopt/foster some of the many needy children out there.

 

I'd probably echo these statements.

 

Saying that though as an aging population we do/will need more kids so maybe it is the way forward.

 

Either way there should be a uniform rule as there should be for all healthcare provisions IMO across the country. This postcode lottery stuff is a joke, even more so when it comes to lifesaving drug provisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do get couples who are married for 10-15 years but decide to put back kids, the suddenly they are 38 and wanting IVF because they've got to the stage where they are earning £45,000 a year each.

 

These people should not be getting free IVF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do get couples who are married for 10-15 years but decide to put back kids, the suddenly they are 38 and wanting IVF because they've got to the stage where they are earning £45,000 a year each.

 

These people should not be getting free IVF.

 

Don't see why not.  They have probably put more than enough into the country via taxes and NI contributions over the years and deserve to get something back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do get couples who are married for 10-15 years but decide to put back kids, the suddenly they are 38 and wanting IVF because they've got to the stage where they are earning £45,000 a year each.

 

These people should not be getting free IVF.

 

Eh? Are you saying they only want IVF because they've got the money to do so? ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed it was more in the sense that as they're older, with the reduced chance of conceiving, if they've got the money there, why not? Not siding with anyone here btw, as I don't know enough to be able to say whether having it on the NHS is right or wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guinness_fiend

No.  The public purse would be better spent elsewhere in the NHS, such as removing the postcode lottery system for prescriptions.  Having children is not a right that the state should have to pay for. 

 

It is unfortunate for those affected but as far as I'm concerned, if they want children that badly they can pay for the treatment themselves.  And if they cannot afford the treatment, chances are that they wouldn't be able to afford to look after a child in any case, so no big shakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted accidently "Under certain circumstances" I meant to vote "No" though.

NHS is, at the end of the day, a privilege we have that we should be very grateful for for people that can't afford private medical care and I think that all the NHS budget should go on really important things such as surgery and even NHS glasses and that kind of shit. Not to be spent on people that, unfortunately, can't conceive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can afford to deliver some peoples' third, fourth or fifth kid, it's a bit unfair to say to someone who's chipped in their fare share of tax that they can't have one.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted accidently "Under certain circumstances" I meant to vote "No" though.

NHS is, at the end of the day, a privilege we have that we should be very grateful for for people that can't afford private medical care and I think that all the NHS budget should go on really important things such as surgery and even NHS glasses and that kind of shit. Not to be spent on people that, unfortunately, can't conceive.

 

What about those who feel something like healthcare should be a blanket right wirth the same quality available to everyone? Though, maybe your right, those who earn more, have a greater right to be healthy.

 

Be thankful poor folk!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guinness_fiend

On what basis?  It's purely a vanity project.  It's not improving anyone's health and as such, is not in the public interest.  Investing any sum set aside for publicly funded IVT treatment back into the NHS would benefit more people.  

 

And for the record, I'm against IVF generally - whether through the NHS or otherwise.  If people want children that badly, they should adopt.  It's that simple.  There are thousands of children nationwide without parents or in need of relocation.  It's a solution that writes itself.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On what basis?  It's purely a vanity project.  It's not improving anyone's health and as such, is not in the public interest.  Investing any sum set aside for publicly funded IVT treatment back into the NHS would benefit more people. 

 

And for the record, I'm against IVF generally - whether through the NHS or otherwise.  If people want children that badly, they should adopt.  It's that simple.  There are thousands of children nationwide without parents or in need of relocation.  It's a solution that writes itself.

 

 

Agreed

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might wish to consider why so many kids are without parents. Bit unfair to fund losers to procreate then expect anyone unlucky enough to have fertility problems to take on the responsibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guinness_fiend

It was duly considered and I do not believe my view to be remotely unfair.  I will always prioritise the wellbeing of orphaned/in care children over couples who think that having a child will save their marriage.  

 

We'll agree to disagree, as I appreciate that people have differing views on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might wish to consider why so many kids are without parents. Bit unfair to fund losers to procreate then expect anyone unlucky enough to have fertility problems to take on the responsibility.

 

Bit harsh. So essentially if they are trouble then they don't deserve parents? Whoever brought those kids up has failed for whatever reason, it's not the kid's fault. They deserve parents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might wish to consider why so many kids are without parents. Bit unfair to fund losers to procreate then expect anyone unlucky enough to have fertility problems to take on the responsibility.

 

Bit harsh. So essentially if they are trouble then they don't deserve parents? Whoever brought those kids up has failed for whatever reason, it's not the kid's fault. They deserve parents.

 

Aye, I don't think he was saying that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...