Should Ivf Be On The Nhs?

[Jacobean]

It's hard to explain if you haven't been there how intense the feelings are. I've been through a roller coaster of emotions. I feel desperately sad for others that are going through the same. I really couldn't deny anyone that little chance of being able to conceive. It's over for me now and I will be looking into adoption hopefully. That's not easy either. It's not a case of I want a child and you have several. I could be turned down. That will be one of the fears of some that go through the IVF process. It is awful to want children and be childless.

[merledogs]

I am unable to conceive naturally but I don't want children so I am fine with it.

 

I can only imagine how bad it is not being able to have children but longing for them.

 

However, IMO you cannot compare it to having cancer and knowing you are going to die because there is not enough money to pay for potentially life saving treatment

[sproggie14]

I personally think the key is in the name. National Health Service. It's there to keep us healthy. Inability to have children is not a health issue, it's a lifestyle issue, IMHO. The only times I think IVF should be available on the NHS is as part of treatment for an illness which would leave you infertile eg cancer and then only if you do not already have children.

 

I accept that not having children might make someone depressed. But then this is another question. Should people receive counselling on the NHS for reactive depression? It's again not really a health issue. There is a difference between depression because of circumstances and actual clinical mental illness. I think that treatment for reactive depression should be limited on the NHS and means tested.

 

I do find it incredible that the NHS is paying for boob jobs, sex changes and IVF while people with cancer are dying through lack of funds.

 

I'd be very interested to know, whether those who feel free IVF should be abolished have children themselves or whether they are childless and to what degree they actually want children. Amongst my own friends I get such conflicting opinions depending on who I talk to. The ones with children often tell me that I am missing out on the best thing that could ever happen, the one's happily without children the reverse....

 

I don't have children and don't want them. If that ever changed then I would look to adopt. a) because, as with animals, I don't believe in creating more life when there are ones looking for homes, b) because the world is already overpopulated and c) because, also as with animals, I think consideration should be given to health and temperament before breeding and I don't think Dave and I pass as good specimens

[dirtychicken]

But the inability to conceive *can* be due to health issues and I would wager that any treatment needed to cure the underlying health issues causing the infertility would cost more than IVF as they can be so complex.

 

Depression because of circumstances can quite easily become an "actual clinical mental illness" if left untreated, surely. So what do you do - treat with counselling in the early stages (albeit paid by the NHS) or leave it until you're dealing with somebody who is suicidal (and will undoubtedly still require NHS support)??

[mooandboo]

Inability to have children is not a lifestyle issue - choosing not to have them is a lifestyle issue. .

[Kats inc]

There was a report in the Times this week about a lady who'd tried for [i think] 6 years to have children. She finally gave birth to twins [after IVF] but suffered from such severe PND she walked across a motorway and killed herself

 

I am pretty sure this lady actually had puerpural psychosis which is extremely rare thankfully.Tragic though

Edited January 15, 2008 by Kats inc

[Jemimap]

If there is not enough funds for cancer treatment for example surely the answer is more funds?

 

To simply take it from another 'less deserving' area masks the real problem i think.

 

It is highly unlikely i will be able to conceive even with help. I am not sure whether or not i want to have children but if i do and am not medically able to do so that is not a lifestyle choice.

 

How about obese people and related health problems?

How about cancer sufferers who smoke?

Deaf people and cochlear implants?

 

Yes it is the National Health Service, health not fatality being the operative word

[cycas]

But the inability to conceive *can* be due to health issues and I would wager that any treatment needed to cure the underlying health issues causing the infertility would cost more than IVF as they can be so complex.

 

Depression because of circumstances can quite easily become an "actual clinical mental illness" if left untreated, surely. So what do you do - treat with counselling in the early stages (albeit paid by the NHS) or leave it until you're dealing with somebody who is suicidal (and will undoubtedly still require NHS support)??

 

I was wondering about this, as I have friends and relatives who suffer from clinical depression. I am a bit conflicted about the idea of deliberately helping a depressed person have a baby in the hope of curing what can be an awfully complex condition. My grandmother had clinical depression most of her life, and it did not enhance her mothering skills.

 

Plus, I don't know if this is generally the case, but depression runs through several generations of my family. Quite a few have ended up in some sort of institution. If this is common, I'm not sure that people with that kind of depression should be encouraged to hand it on to their poor kids. My dad had an eternal fear that it might overwhelm him and he might have to be 'put away' like several of his uncles and aunts.

 

Is there a specific and identifiable form of depression that is associated with childlessness? If so, I think your argument stands up:otherwise I'm not so sure.

[cycas]

If there is not enough funds for cancer treatment for example surely the answer is more funds?

 

Hm. Who here would like to pay yet more tax so that people you've never met can have a chance of a baby, or (maybe) an improved chance of survival? Remember, you can already donate to charities supporting these issues if you feel strongly about them, so you're really saying that you feel so strongly about this, that you think everyone should be forced to pay for it, even people who would not otherwise wish to do so.

 

Who can afford to pay a lot more tax to pay for funding everything that could be funded? Poverty causes a lot of suffering too, and the more you tax, the more poverty you create, and thats not good for anyone either.

 

The word 'free' has been used in this thread, and the NHS is far from free. The question is, are you prepared to share the cost of paying for it with everyone else? And if you are, how much will you pay?

 

I don't know what the answer is, but there has to be a limit somewhere.

[Kats inc]

The trouble is people will always argue that whatever their particular health problem is should be the NHS's priority,we're generally a selfish bunch like that.

 

Where does it stop? The NHS is not a bottomless pit and some how,some way they have to set priorities.I agree that they should be national rather than local priorities as the current system is a shambles but how on earth do you decide whether someone's inability to have children is for example a priority over someone else's ill health.It is a huge ethical and moral debate and a battle that is fought on a daily basis by those of us working within the NHS.We for example are currently proving our worth to the commisioners so that our service is bought again for another year.Endless paperwork instead of being able to get on with our job.And all at the tax payers expense.

 

Big shake up for the whole NHS,big shake up for GP out of hours systems (huge money pit) big shake up for waiting list and stupid priority lists and we may just see some light at the end of the tunnel for arguments like better funding for IVF.

[sproggie14]

But the inability to conceive *can* be due to health issues and I would wager that any treatment needed to cure the underlying health issues causing the infertility would cost more than IVF as they can be so complex.

 

Maybe, and if there is a health issue there (eg endometriosis) then it should be treated. But my understanding, and I could very well be wrong, is that in the majority of cases it's just something that doesn't happen for one reason or another. Or, as in my father's case, he had a vasectomy, then a reversal, and then IVF when that didn't work. In my mind there is no way the NHS should be paying in that sort of circumstance.

 

Depression because of circumstances can quite easily become an "actual clinical mental illness" if left untreated, surely. So what do you do - treat with counselling in the early stages (albeit paid by the NHS) or leave it until you're dealing with somebody who is suicidal (and will undoubtedly still require NHS support)??

I'm not sure. I'm not a psychiatrist but I'm talking about a clinical mental illness as in an imbalance in the brain eg manic depression, schizophrenia etc. I don't believe reactive depression can become a clinical issue unless the clinical issue is there in the first place waiting to be triggered. But I could be wrong, that's just my understanding.

 

Inability to have children is not a lifestyle issue - choosing not to have them is a lifestyle issue. .

But surely no-one needs to have children? Certainly not as a health matter? If choosing not to have them is a lifestyle issue then surely choosing to have them is too?

 

If there is not enough funds for cancer treatment for example surely the answer is more funds?

 

To simply take it from another 'less deserving' area masks the real problem i think.

 

I would say that simply throwing more money at it masks the real problem. As I say it is the health service. I think we're too used to just getting everything paid for in this country and you end up with those who take take take everything they can get and a whole lot of mugs who just pay for it. I personally am a bit fed up with paying taxes so people can have boob jobs and get paid to have children or sit about doing nothing. I'd like a proper review of what we should and shouldn't be expected to pay for. Surely the point of the NHS (and, digressing a bit, the benefits system) is just to ensure that no-one misses out on things which are essential just because they don't have enough money? It seems it has grown far beyond us paying for what is essential to the point where we are paying out for people to not miss out on lifestyle choices.

 

I was wondering about this, as I have friends and relatives who suffer from clinical depression. I am a bit conflicted about the idea of deliberately helping a depressed person have a baby in the hope of curing what can be an awfully complex condition. My grandmother had clinical depression most of her life, and it did not enhance her mothering skills.

 

Plus, I don't know if this is generally the case, but depression runs through several generations of my family. Quite a few have ended up in some sort of institution. If this is common, I'm not sure that people with that kind of depression should be encouraged to hand it on to their poor kids. My dad had an eternal fear that it might overwhelm him and he might have to be 'put away' like several of his uncles and aunts.

 

Is there a specific and identifiable form of depression that is associated with childlessness? If so, I think your argument stands up:otherwise I'm not so sure.

Clinical mental illness runs in my Dad's side of the family which is one of the reasons I have chosen not to have children. On the one hand I agree and I think people should think about the genes they are passing on but on the other hand if you discourage people with some form of mental or physical imperfection from breeding do you start heading towards a hitlerish ideal of a perfect race?

[elricc]

But surely no-one needs to have children? Certainly not as a health matter? If choosing not to have them is a lifestyle issue then surely choosing to have them is too?

 

 

 

I would say that simply throwing more money at it masks the real problem. As I say it is the health service. I think we're too used to just getting everything paid for in this country and you end up with those who take take take everything they can get and a whole lot of mugs who just pay for it. I personally am a bit fed up with paying taxes so people can have boob jobs and get paid to have children or sit about doing nothing. I'd like a proper review of what we should and shouldn't be expected to pay for. Surely the point of the NHS (and, digressing a bit, the benefits system) is just to ensure that no-one misses out on things which are essential just because they don't have enough money? It seems it has grown far beyond us paying for what is essential to the point where we are paying out for people to not miss out on lifestyle choices.

 

 

I totally agree with the above statement, I have in the past been asked to fill in numerous Disability living allowance forms for young people, the reasons are incredibly wide ranging. I always fill them in and always put the truth. I really don't feel that people need extra money due to their child's colour blindness or mild dyslexia.

 

I think its a choice, I have one child and decided no more. If I had wanted more I would have fostered or adopted, there are huge numbers of children left to languish without love and attention through no fault of their own (sound familiar).

[cycas]

Clinical mental illness runs in my Dad's side of the family which is one of the reasons I have chosen not to have children. On the one hand I agree and I think people should think about the genes they are passing on but on the other hand if you discourage people with some form of mental or physical imperfection from breeding do you start heading towards a hitlerish ideal of a perfect race?

 

I take the point. The argument I was addressing was (if I have it straight) that IVF should be funded because without it some people might develop serious mental problems.

 

I wouldn't want to see people being banned from reproducing as some sort of masterplan to improve the species. I was just kind of uncomfortable with the idea of making a state-funded baby as a solution to depression.

[sproggie14]

I take the point. The argument I was addressing was (if I have it straight) that IVF should be funded because without it some people might develop serious mental problems.

 

I wouldn't want to see people being banned from reproducing as some sort of masterplan to improve the species. I was just kind of uncomfortable with the idea of making a state-funded baby as a solution to depression.

 

Totally agree If someone is clinically depressed a baby isn't going to solve that.

[mooandboo]

Or, as in my father's case, he had a vasectomy, then a reversal, and then IVF when that didn't work. In my mind there is no way the NHS should be paying in that sort of circumstance.

 

In that sort of circumstance I agree entirely.

 

 

But surely no-one needs to have children? Certainly not as a health matter? If choosing not to have them is a lifestyle issue then surely choosing to have them is too?

If you are able to choose yes but if IVF is being used because a person's reproductive system (male or female) doesn't work properly then surely it's a medical matter - not life threatening but then many non-life threatening conditions are treated on the NHS on a daily basis.